It makes me a bit sad how people really think this thing is bullshit. Hence a longer post.
Madness wrote:Have you read about variations in solar activity, global climate cycles, warming and cooling periods, natural phenomenons... ?
Those things are real but you must be able to set things to correct scales and have some sense of proportion. That kind of natural things have caused much bigger changes than we are experiencing now but the timescales have been hugely larger than some 100 years. Lifting Earth's middle temperature with let's say 1 degree requires absorbing huge amounts of sun's thermal energy. (There has been big changes in a small time in the history too but they have been due to some big volcano activity etc. And you can't btw blame volcanos on a long term since the same CO2 they emit eventually accummulates to the bottom of the sea as some carbonates etc and then evetually after some hundreds of million years will be erupted from a volcano again.)
Madness wrote:The worlds climate is nothing like a greenhouse !
Sorry but this makes you look like you don't know anything about this subject. xd Earth indeed can be linked to a greenhouse - without greenhouse gases Earth's temperature would be something like 30 degrees lower and that is simply a fact. It doesn't have anything to say against. I wrote a more detailed post about this long time ago in the beginning of this topic, go to see =)
Madness wrote:There's 0,038 % of CO2 in atmosphere from which 99.7 % is due to natural causes. Eliminating human activity wouldn't have any major impact on climate change. It's all about money.
Let's start thinking this from that fact that without any interruptions CO2 amounts are constant during a small time sequence. CO2 is being produced all the time (organs decompose, animals exhale, forests burn etc) but all the time as big amount is also absorbed (plants photosynthesize, CO2 is absorbed to the seas etc). Stuff is in balance. But let's imagine that CO2 is increased with 1% (very possible, your numbers seem small). Now still 99% of all CO2 is by nature but still there can be a detectable change. Let's calculate it roughly: we can estimate the relation between CO2 amounts and global temperature to be linear, we can roughly calculate that the global temperature's raise because we know that without CO2 temperatures would be 30 degrees less. Therefore the raise would be 0,01 x 30 degrees = 0,3 degrees. But the relation doybtly is linear. Actually in many things small change can cause big effects. Also in this CO2 case a small change easily strentghens itself. Reasons for this are plenty. A small change in CO2 amounts raise the temperature a bit which causes:
-amounts of ice in the Earth's poles will decrease and less sunlight will be reflected
-sea temperatures will raise and make seawater's CO2 solubility worse (a simple fact) and CO2 will be emitted from the seas
-big permafrost areas in Siberia will melt and start decomposing
-deserts will expand
So a 1% change easily strentghtens itself and doublty is left to be 0,3 degrees. And actually the time required to the change is hugely more than 100 years, especially the warmage of the seas takes it's time. But basically on a long term the 1% could lead to a chain reaction (small change of CO2 causes more change in CO2 which causes more change...) until 100% of the atmosphere is CO2 (this is a case in Venus which is hundreds of degrees hotter than what it would be without CO2). Luckily this won't happen easily here because there are also many things that compensates these changes. Increased photosynthesis is one (which we btw interrupt with deforestration).
This can happen to the other direction also: a decrease in CO2 can lead a chain reaction that annihilates all CO2. Actually there have been periods where the whole Earth has been covered with ice - much more serious case than the small ice age 10000 years ago. Only some really huge volcanic eruptions saved Earth then.
Anyway I'm not that those really extreme examples are likely to happen - I think humankind has now enough power to stop the changes if things really start going serious. But we should start stopping already these relatively small changes. I think the main problem is overpopulation. Big population with poorness easily causes deforestration, which I think to be the biggest reason for the climate change (you can think forests to be huge CO2-demolishermachines). Already dozens of percentages of forests have been extinguished. China's one child / family -system might be questionable in human rights way but otherwise it's very effective and exemplary - the same system should go for most 3rd world countries. Some 2 billion persons would be nice amount to inhabitant the Earth. I think that Finland is pretty good example - we have so little people in our area that most of our land is forests but then again we have enough people and technology to take care from all our forest which makes them healthy and excellent sink for CO2. Even though we produce hugely paper and wood for other world too our forest's mass increases every year. Our forests are in so healthy condition that you can see the difference to Russia's forests from satellite photos - our side seems much greener.
Also, of course, getting energy more from solar energy and nuclear energy etc instead of fossil fuels would be better (fossil fuels suck anyway, they produce much more schaisse than only CO2 too). And also eating less meat etc would be better but once again breeding less would be much more effective.
Madness wrote:Get some sensual reading instead of Al Gore brainwasher.
I've actually never read anything by Al Gore and actually I don't really trust most climate change professionals. Especially if there's some news about some computer model that indicates something. There's big money in the global warming research and it attracs also many noob researchers that make shit results. This thing is too complicated. Especially politicians are always really stupid in this kind of things.
But I believe things you can clearly see yourself and think yourself. For some reasons the warming seems to touch most easily the poles of the Earth. And there does exist some pictures from 100 years ago where there are a lot of ice and snow in the mountains etc. But nowdays the same places are completely iceless even at winter. It's detectable in Finland too.
Also 100 years is way too short time for natural climate changes. Also undoublty human actions have increased the CO2 amounts (no matter if they are small comparing to nature's ones) and there haven't been extraordinary volcaninc activity lately. I would count 1+1 to be 2 here no matter what any scientist says.
).
[/url]
