Public Voice Network
- google themes 1010
- 10 Days 11
- Media Storage 33
- Gmail Themes 22
- guitar hero+bike riding 66
- Trigger Sue 11
- Album of the Year 6060
- Logo Contest! 4444
- New XBox Live 4242
- blog 3007830078
- diego maradona 2828
- Politics 48224822
- opinion question 44
- ffffound invite swapshop 474474
- Hedge for Christmas
- SSD - Solid State Drives 1010
- www.itsinthemaking.com 22
- Chick of the Day 15871587
- so... i made a short film 6767
- New species 88
- drugs r awesome 7272
- Steampunk 2828
- skulls 4242
- Seeking botbot re: ffffou… 1616
Earth Hour 2008 1414 Responses
Last post: 10 months ago | Thread started: Jan 24, 08, 7 p.m.
- urban10
the suggestion that global warming is largely human-induced is most likely one of the biggest shams of our lifetime. there has been constant climate change every since the beginning of earth's existence, and if you actually understand earth's processes and science behind weather and climate balance rather than believing everything people tell you (i.e. we are causing global warming) then you too will realize we are being fed lies. anyone can throw up a chart showing exponentially increasing global temperatures in response to increasing CO2 levels, but does that make it true? hell, recent studies have argued that CO2 levels increase in response to temperature increases rather than vice versa which is a starting point for debunking the human-induced global warming idea altogether if true!
don't get me wrong, i'm all for energy and environmental conservation. but climate change is inevitable. we understand "normal" weather and temperatures relative to our short time and to what we can measure in fossil records/ice cores etc. so how do you explain the record-setting strong la nina (cooling of the pacific ocean waters off the western south american coast) that we are currently seeing? turning the pacific waters cooler than normal removes a primary heat source for much of the globe as the pacific ocean plays a major role in global climate and weather due to its size.
and temperatures cannot continually get warmer and warmer. there's a limit. basically, the warmer it gets globally the more difficult it is to get any warmer as there is limited amount of heat energy available (recall that temperature is a measure of heat energy), unless somehow the total available heat energy increases somehow (changes in solar energy discharge from the sun directly or shifts in earth's position). we won’t continually get warmer and warmer…. that’s not logically possible (limited energy) and the earth will snap back to fight it off. also, there is only so much water vapor the atmosphere can possibly hold before you get condensation (warmer temps cause more evaporation which causes increases in atmospheric moisture), which means that as the arctic regions warm… there will be much more precipitation in those areas. arctic regions will remain below freezing causing all the precipitation to fall as snow. more snow falling over and over thus leads to the rebuilding of the snow pack and glacial formation back in those regions who have seen a reduction over the last decade.
- Dog-earJan 24, 08, 7:59 p.m. – Permalink
- Corvo
if you're saying that against most of the evidence put forward by the scientific community then you might as well doubt any valuable evidence coming any community at all, including the design community. In that aspect, we are very similar and I sincerely hope you're right: I hope the earth will snap back to fight it off. yay.
- Dog-earJan 24, 08, 8:08 p.m. – Permalink
- urban10
if you look back to the 1930s-40s there was a similar period in which global temperatures suddenly warmed dramatically. then we underwent a strong la nina for several years (not as strong as our current one) which turned much of the US colder than normal for much of the late 1940s and 1950s. i do a lot of weather-related work on the side and so have been looking more into the truth behind what is really happening.
plus, you probably have as many scientists out there that disagree with the idea of human-induced global warming as there are for those who preach it. but look who gets all the hype and attention because of what they want you to believe...
- Dog-earJan 24, 08, 8:12 p.m. – Permalink
- Corvo
urban10, I have no agenda - but the fact is we are experiencing higher temperatures in a year, and whether human-induced or not, the question about earth self-sustainability and equilibrium is up to discussion. So far (cf. Nasa, Nooa, IPCC, etc), the oceans have been able to absorb medium temperature rise and maintain the equilibrium, but it is clear that there's a limit for that capability. The ability of the earth to snap back and fight it off is a creed - as good listening to Pan flutes - and is not a scientific fact. If we can come up with solutions to lessen our impact on the atmosphere what wrong can possibly come from it? Even if it's irrelevant why not try to reduce it to a minimum? I think it doesn't hurt anyone if every country is trying to be more self-sustained. Also, it would probably mean much less war and conflict - although that is also probably a part of natural equilibrium go figure...
- Dog-earJan 24, 08, 8:44 p.m. – Permalink
- mikotondria2
- Dog-earJan 24, 08, 9:40 p.m. – Permalink
- urban10
i think people are misled by the reason for my original post. i am NOT arguing against conservation or everyone doing their part to help protect our natural resources. trust me... i am one of the biggest advocates of everyone taking action and protecting our environment. however, i am sick of the hype surrounding global warming and the whole "green building" craze.
for example, i went to college for architecture and everything began shifting towards "green" and "sustainable architecture". yeah i believe a shift towards sustainable and energy efficient architecture is crucial. however, people see sustainability as only dealing with the environment and turn their backs on social and economic sustainability. so... can you really have sustainable architecture if it only pertains to "green" building while ignoring its economic and social responsibilities (i.e. buildings that are temporary with short life-spans)?
i am just wanting people to think for themselves on the issue rather than believing the mainstream (dig deep into the NASA and NOAA sites for the science behind it... the EPA has its own agenda for their "facts").
- Dog-earJan 24, 08, 10:05 p.m. – Permalink
