Global warming...man-made or not?

[EcsTasY]

Don't know if it's been posted before...but yeah, it's self-explanatory.

I've been looking into a lot of stuff for it, and a lot against it. As of right now, I've been leaning towards it's a natural occurrence and has more to do with the sun than with man-made co2 emissions.

[CrimsonNuker]

Its a natural thing, but is probably sped up from all our shit

[Nantosh]

What?
No, it's man made.
We've accelerated this 'natural' process to such a ridiculous pace that it's hard to imagine reversal w/out revolution and/or leveling 'war' results in USA and China.

EDIT - AKA, yes the process itself would theoretically occur, but not at the pace it is now.

[DragOon]

yeah its been worse in other times, its not man made, and the earth will definitely survive it, if men or a lot of animals and plants dont, well bad luck lol, imo would be better if we didnt survive it but whatever if a bunch of good men do, that would rock

[.Banshee]

I hate how people are like "no Global Warming is not man's fault" when in fact it is. We were fine before the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century, if you say it's natural then tell me why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up 35% more that it was before the Industrial Revolution? The plethora of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is eating up our Ozone and letting in more UV rays thus increasing the temperatures worldwide, melting the polar caps(leading the polar bears to extinction and if it continues many other species, possibly undiscovered will be lead to extinction), making cancer rates skyrocket worldwide, and throwing a huge wrench in the delicate weather system of the earth. even if we do find a solution, cleaner jobs, more earth friendly chemicals and machinery, Global warming will still be happening for possibly another 100-200 years(carbon has a lifespan of 75-100 years and we are not even close to finding a solution). Step up and take your responsibility.

[dom]

I used to be ardent on my position that it is natural, but then I decided to get educated.

This question is about as trivial as "evolution or creation"? But I guess in some parts of the United States, that question can be a hard one as well.

What people don't realize is that global warming isn't the issue, it's an indicator. We affect our World in ways that are definitely traced back to us, and that have a greater impact than the warming of our planet.

[CrimsonNuker]

I hate how people are like "no Global Warming is not man's fault" when in fact it is. We were fine before the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century, if you say it's natural then tell me why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up 35% more that it was before the Industrial Revolution? The plethora of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is eating up our Ozone and letting in more UV rays thus increasing the temperatures worldwide, melting the polar caps(leading the polar bears to extinction and if it continues many other species, possibly undiscovered will be lead to extinction), making cancer rates skyrocket worldwide, and throwing a huge wrench in the delicate weather system of the earth. even if we do find a solution, cleaner jobs, more earth friendly chemicals and machinery, Global warming will still be happening for possibly another 100-200 years(carbon has a lifespan of 75-100 years and we are not even close to finding a solution). Step up and take your responsibility.

*uninformed.

How did the ice age end? Natural global warming? Yes?

[.Banshee]

I hate how people are like "no Global Warming is not man's fault" when in fact it is. We were fine before the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century, if you say it's natural then tell me why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up 35% more that it was before the Industrial Revolution? The plethora of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is eating up our Ozone and letting in more UV rays thus increasing the temperatures worldwide, melting the polar caps(leading the polar bears to extinction and if it continues many other species, possibly undiscovered will be lead to extinction), making cancer rates skyrocket worldwide, and throwing a huge wrench in the delicate weather system of the earth. even if we do find a solution, cleaner jobs, more earth friendly chemicals and machinery, Global warming will still be happening for possibly another 100-200 years(carbon has a lifespan of 75-100 years and we are not even close to finding a solution). Step up and take your responsibility.

*uninformed.

How did the ice age end? Natural global warming? Yes?

Uninformed? Please
Are you ignoring the 35% percent rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution? Are you ignoring the scientist that are 10x smarter than you and are screaming in your face and mine that CO2 is eating up our Ozone layer therefore letting in much more UV rays?

I give you props fro trying that Ice Age trick with but you are forgetting some key information here: the Ice Age took thousands of years to end. This is happening over 300 years. It shouldn't be happening over this rapid pace.

[Nantosh]

Hey, I have a question.
This was on a test back in school, and I don't actually know if I got it right...

# Depletion of the Ozone Layer will result in...
a)Increase in Skin Cancer cases
b)Increase in average temperatures

I chose b)...

[SM-Count]

CO2 eats O3?

[BlackFox898]

wait... if you believe it's "man-made" then why would we make it up?

[DragOon]

Hey, I have a question.
This was on a test back in school, and I don't actually know if I got it right...

# Depletion of the Ozone Layer will result in...
a)Increase in Skin Cancer cases
b)Increase in average temperatures

I chose b)...

u had to write none of the above and write TERRIBLE DEATH FOR MANKIND, END OF SOCIETY, and HUGE SOLAR FLARES OWNING THE AFTERNOONS

[.Banshee]

@Nantosh Wtf is wrong with your teacher? It's both. UV rays are intensified harming the skin resulting in increased rates for SKIN cancer. Obviously average temperatures will increase which can be proven in the increase of freak storms and unpredictable weather patterns(freaky shit. It was once 30 degrees here then the next day it was 75)

@Everyone saying it's natural. Prove it with SCIENTIFIC info and not what you think. I have proven my knowledge and you have not.

[SM-Count]

@Nantosh Wtf is wrong with your teacher? It's both. UV rays are intensified harming the skin resulting in increased rates for SKIN cancer. Obviously average temperatures will increase which can be proven in the increase of freak storms and unpredictable weather patterns(freaky shit. It was once 30 degrees here then the next day it was 75)

Before you go insulting teachers, please give us the formula your teacher gave you that goes something like

Code: Select all

CO2 + O3 => X + O2

and occurs spontaneously, I think we'd all like to know how CO2 eats Ozone.

[.Banshee]

@Nantosh Wtf is wrong with your teacher? It's both. UV rays are intensified harming the skin resulting in increased rates for SKIN cancer. Obviously average temperatures will increase which can be proven in the increase of freak storms and unpredictable weather patterns(freaky shit. It was once 30 degrees here then the next day it was 75)

Before you go insulting teachers, please give us the formula your teacher gave you that goes something like

Code: Select all

CO2 + O3 => X + O2

and occurs spontaneously, I think we'd all like to know how CO2 eats Ozone.

Some teachers are idiots and are not qualified to teach you can't deny that.

[EvGa]

What about the Maunder Minimum? Reduced sun spots and their gradual increase in frequency up until now?

What about Milankovitch cycles? The tilt of the earth towards the sun. It changes and so do the temperatures.

Do we have much of an impact? Not in my opinion. Just a bunch of over the top theories and ideas in order to produce excessive funds, to find more ways to make money in conning gullible people into believing exaggerated ideas.. It's political trash NOT backed up by science.

Have a watch: http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topi ... the-cause/

Human produced CO2 the cause of our tiny climate change? Nope.

[XemnasXD]

my friend is trying to be one of those professional tree huggers like dom...anyway she said that the climate change was natural but because of all the pollution we're pumping into the air its actually slowing it down a bit...so we would be making an artificial ice age if the earth weren't get warmer, instead we're just semi canceling out the warming effect but the temp is still rising...of course some of our pollution contributes to that too...i think thats what she was getting at, i don't really listen to women when they talk...

[Blindfire]

Some teachers are idiots and are not qualified to teach you can't deny that.

If they aren't qualified to teach how did they get their degrees?

[SM-Count]

@Nantosh Wtf is wrong with your teacher? It's both. UV rays are intensified harming the skin resulting in increased rates for SKIN cancer. Obviously average temperatures will increase which can be proven in the increase of freak storms and unpredictable weather patterns(freaky shit. It was once 30 degrees here then the next day it was 75)

Before you go insulting teachers, please give us the formula your teacher gave you that goes something like

Code: Select all

CO2 + O3 => X + O2

and occurs spontaneously, I think we'd all like to know how CO2 eats Ozone.

Some teachers are idiots and are not qualified to teach you can't deny that.

I have not, and still do not, deny some teachers should not be within 1000 yds of a position that educates others. However, you say you proved your point when the point is almost completely based on the sharp rise in CO2 which then eats ozone--ozone dies from chlorine free radicals and naturally from high energy light, which invalidates your current point.

[.Banshee]

Oh sorry my mistake. CO2 traps heat in the earth, still contributes to Global Warming and we did increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Here ya go:


The chemistry of the ozone layer

The amount of ozone (O3) in the stratosphere is the net result of production and loss processes. Ozone is produced by photolysis (breaking apart of molecules by light) of oxygen high in the stratosphere where ultraviolet light is most intense:

O2 + UV radiation -> O + O
O2 + O + M -> O3 + M*

net: O2 + O2 -> O3 + O

Ozone is lost by conversion back to molecular oxygen (O) through two reactions:
O3 + UV -> O2 + O
O3 + O -> O2 + O2

The net effect of these reactions is O3 + O3 -> 3 O2
These last two processes only account for 20% of natural ozone destruction. The rest comes from catalytic ozone destruction.

Catalytic ozone destruction
A catalyst is a participant in a chemical reaction that emerges unchanged from the reaction.

A catalyst X destroys ozone as follows:

O3 + X -> XO + O2
XO + O -> X + O2
net: O3 + O -> O2 + O2
and X is free to do it again!

The most common catalyst is NO, nitric oxide, which accounts for 70% of ozone destruction. Others are OH (coming from water vapor), bromine (Br) and chlorine radicals (Cl). Chlorine radicals are pretty rare in nature, the only natural sources come from the oceans and volcanoes. However, humans have altered the quantity of chlorine in the atmosphere dramatically by producing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which contain Cl, F, and C atoms. Still man made from in my point of view.

[CrimsonNuker]

Oh sorry my mistake. CO2 traps heat in the earth, still contributes to Global Warming and we did increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Here ya go:


The chemistry of the ozone layer

The amount of ozone (O3) in the stratosphere is the net result of production and loss processes. Ozone is produced by photolysis (breaking apart of molecules by light) of oxygen high in the stratosphere where ultraviolet light is most intense:

O2 + UV radiation -> O + O
O2 + O + M -> O3 + M*

net: O2 + O2 -> O3 + O

Ozone is lost by conversion back to molecular oxygen (O) through two reactions:
O3 + UV -> O2 + O
O3 + O -> O2 + O2

The net effect of these reactions is O3 + O3 -> 3 O2
These last two processes only account for 20% of natural ozone destruction. The rest comes from catalytic ozone destruction.

Catalytic ozone destruction
A catalyst is a participant in a chemical reaction that emerges unchanged from the reaction.

A catalyst X destroys ozone as follows:

O3 + X -> XO + O2
XO + O -> X + O2
net: O3 + O -> O2 + O2
and X is free to do it again!

The most common catalyst is NO, nitric oxide, which accounts for 70% of ozone destruction. Others are OH (coming from water vapor), bromine (Br) and chlorine radicals (Cl). Chlorine radicals are pretty rare in nature, the only natural sources come from the oceans and volcanoes. However, humans have altered the quantity of chlorine in the atmosphere dramatically by producing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which contain Cl, F, and C atoms. Still man made from in my point of view.

WAH.png (144.46 KiB) Viewed 1825 times

[/Pi]

You're all misinformed. It's not chemicals produced by humans or some natural phenomenon that the Earth undergoes on some X amount of years. One word: Pirates.

[CrimsonNuker]

You're all misinformed. It's not chemicals produced by humans or some natural phenomenon that the Earth undergoes on some X amount of years. One word: Pirates.

First i was like:



Then I was like:

[C1ockwork]

You're all misinformed. It's not chemicals produced by humans or some natural phenomenon that the Earth undergoes on some X amount of years. One word: Pirates.

hahahah my science teacher pulled out that same picture when we were having a random discussion!! thats weird.

[blackfalcon]

i agree with crimsonnuker, it would happen naturaly but were speeding it up and not letting the earth recover from it

[LaloHao]

CO2 eats O3?

pacman

[CrimsonNuker]

This thread is the reason why I love OTL

[EvGa]

Code: Select all
Code: Select all
Code: Select all
Code: Select all

There's my argument against the CO2 people.

[inky]

The world will "survive" without us; the whole "save the planet" campaign is nothing more than a shitload of euphemisms and sugarcoating propaganda to basically tell people "do this or we'll end up getting fucked a lot faster than we're supposed to." Not saying it's bad to throw your garbage in the right place, just saying that by doing so, you're not saving the planet - you're saving yourself and the government the inconvenience of street flooding and traffic.

Something interesting and funny:
Code: Select all

[EcsTasY]

Here's my position. co2 makes up about 0.045% of the atmosphere, and of that 0.045%, the ocean gives off the majority of that, then volcanoes, then animals+plants, then man. So how can man, that actually only makes about 2-3% of that 0.045% be accelerating global warming? Not only that, when you look at the charts, co2 levels really do not effect climate, they are actually a "product" of climate. If temperatures go up, in a hundred years or so, co2 levels will go up also. The real correlation, if you look at the charts is sun spots. When the amount of sun spots go up, temperature goes up also, when the amount goes down, temperatures go down.

The problem with the charts from reading co2 levels in ice is that they can't get too specific on dates. Those charts cannot say that a rise in co2 led to a rise in temperatures or a rise in temperatures led to a rise in co2, they just cannot narrow down dates enough.

Then people will say what do scientists earn by saying that it is real if it really isn't? Well, the answer is funding. Money going into climate research has multiplied by well over 40 times in the past 30 years or so. Not only that, there are scientists who say it isn't true, but how would the media benefit by saying it isn't true? Can you honestly say that the whole global warming scare hasn't led you to pay more attention to the news? I have been paying more attention to the news because of it, they generate money when people have something to worry about. Then all sorts of political groups can take something this "epic" and generate followers that way, saying they are the leaders in the "green" world.

I've looked at both sides, I was pretty convinced about it being true, I was convinced that anybody who said anything against it was being paid off by the oil and coal companies. Then I decided to look at the other side of the issue, and I gotta say, it makes more sense from a different perspective. Maybe that's just me though.

Now that I think about it, I don't know why I started this. Once people have made up their minds on an issue, they tend to never change their minds...