I want you to answer this question about Global Warming IN YOUR OWN WORDS! Not just say "here's a link, I don't understand what's in the link, but that link means I'm right!"

This is what I understand about global warming, so please point out where this logic is wrong.

Warming of the earth is caused by a rise in Greenhouse Gasses.

What are Greenhouse gasses?

Co2, Methane, and Water Vapor are the main greenhouse gasses.

What is the percentage of warming   caused by each?

Water Vapor, including clouds, makes up about 85% of Greenhouse gasses. MEthane, Co2, and some other neglible gasses make up the rest.

Who much Water Vapor does Man put into the atmosphere? A negligible amount, over 99% is natural causes.

Ok, so MOST of the Greenhouse gas is from natural causes. HOw do we get from there, to Man is the main cause of Global Warming?

But wait there's more.

Does Man cause 100% of the Co2 that is a greenhouse gas? No, Man causes about 5% of Co2, the rest is natural causes.

So please explain to me, in your how words, how producing 5% of a gas (Co2) that makes up less than 10% of greenhouse gasses total, = Man causes all or most of  Global Warming?

Please explain as best you can in your own words, not just posting links.

The theroy is that the natural occuring greenhouse gasses are in check and without the tiny amount added by humans the earth would be in perfect harmony and the ice caps would be in perfect harmony neigther expanding nor retracting

The reason I believe in global warming and don't believe in evolution.

Originally posted by decoy26517

The reason I believe in global warming and don't believe in evolution.

Ok, great rick roll. I know it's a normal tendency to do something when someone asks you not to.

The "no links" thing is a request.

Certainly you can post links to back up your claims.

Like you want to say, Co2 is 90% of greenhouse gasses, and here's a link that proves that:

link

But not, I disagree, watch this 30 minute youtube video:

link

Or, No, this means you are wrong:

link

That's just copy pasta, and doesn't show you understand the issue, and doesn't give anyone a reason to even look at the link.

Originally posted by Pyrich

The theroy is that the natural occuring greenhouse gasses are in check and without the tiny amount added by humans the earth would be in perfect harmony and the ice caps would be in perfect harmony neigther expanding nor retracting

here's the problem with that.

You cannot predict natural Co2 levels.

A volcano can spew more Co2 in a day than Man can release in a decade.

What if a volcano doesn't spew that co2?

What if it does?

We dont' know when or if volcanoes are going to erupt and how much co2 they can spew.

That being the case, how can you claim that your tiny 5% of Co2 made by man, which is a tiny percentage of total Greenhouse gasses, tips anything or not?

What if we cut this co2 nad we DON'T get a volcanic eruption? Does that mean we "tip" the warming into planetary cooling?

Or these climate change supporters have no idea?

I think they have no idea.

HOW MUCH are we "tipping" the scale? If you have no idea, how can you adjust it?

The other thing is, for Man to "tip" the scale, you have to show there would be NO warming without the extra Co2 from Man.

have they shown that? No, they have not.

It doesn't matter what humans do we're going to change the climate on micro and macro scales.   Something we have been doing since we learned how to farm and raise cattle.

Global warming is a really really really lame name because that isn't what will happen everywhere, or even what the end effect could be.   Climate change research and policy is a much more appropiate name.  

_______

As for CO2.   It doesn't matter what the exact effects are.    The earth is a functioning system where everything affects everything else.    You don't just say "I'm going to put a little salt and water in my car's gas tank,  after all it's winter so it's going to happen anyways".  

Going green isn't just about "global warming!1!!!1111",  it's also about investing in alternate energy choices reducing the need for foreign oil, and putting our countries energy economy in a viable + maintainable state far into the future.   Going green has also done a lot for developing technologies that would have otherwise not have found investment without that bandwagon.

_______

PS:  any CO2 solution will totally just make you feel warm and fuzzy inside because it doesn't get rid of the CO2 just puts it somewhere else in the cycle(cycle's go round and round).   Though I do totally support removal of CO2 from the air for use in making fuels.

Here's the simplest way of explaining man's part in global warming. Call it: "Streea's guide to explaining global warming to people who don't understand that having one extremely cold winter does not mean there's no such thing as global warming."

Our system is extremely complex and delicate, including how greenhouse gases affect things like heat/cold and weather.

Contrary to what humans believe, who think that the world somehow revolves around their limited understanding of percentages and scope of time, even something like a 1% change over the past 150 years IS A BIG FREAKING DEAL for something that's been around for several billion years (aka the earth). If the earth were a human, and that human were 200 pounds, it'd be like someone gaining 2 lbs in less than a second.

Now when, in that very brief second, you think to yourself, "hey, 2 lbs isn't that big of a deal," you're somewhat right. Most humans gain and lose about 5 lbs over the course of a day. However, consider that another second passes... oops 2 more pounds... and another... oops 2 more pounds... in other words, to the earth, this isn't a small change. This is like going from 200 lbs to 400 lbs in a little over a minute. Now consider your options... how are you supposed to stop that weight gain? By the time that minute has passed, it's too late... the fat has probably crushed all of your internal organs and turned you into a gooey mess.

Humans affect on global warming is exactly like that. If we don't start limiting how much extra fat we're dumping on the earth, it won't be able to do anything to stop it... we'll just crush it under the weight of our own pollution and kill ourselves off in the process. While we can't exactly go back and help earth lose all of the extra weight it's put on in the past 150 years, we can cut back and at least try to lessen our affect on the earth... in essence, changing things so that in that next second, the earth only puts on .25 lbs.

Originally posted by streea

Here's the simplest way of explaining man's part in global warming. Call it: "Streea's guide to explaining global warming to people who don't understand that having one extremely cold winter does not mean there's no such thing as global warming."

Our system is extremely complex and delicate, including how greenhouse gases affect things like heat/cold and weather.

Contrary to what humans believe, who think that the world somehow revolves around their limited understanding of percentages and scope of time, even something like a 1% change over the past 150 years IS A BIG FREAKING DEAL for something that's been around for several billion years (aka the earth). If the earth were a human, and that human were 200 pounds, it'd be like someone gaining 2 lbs in less than a second.

Now when, in that very brief second, you think to yourself, "hey, 2 lbs isn't that big of a deal," you're somewhat right. Most humans gain and lose about 5 lbs over the course of a day. However, consider that another second passes... oops 2 more pounds... and another... oops 2 more pounds... in other words, to the earth, this isn't a small change. This is like going from 200 lbs to 400 lbs in a little over a minute. Now consider your options... how are you supposed to stop that weight gain? By the time that minute has passed, it's too late... the fat has probably crushed all of your internal organs and turned you into a gooey mess.

Humans affect on global warming is exactly like that. If we don't start limiting how much extra fat we're dumping on the earth, it won't be able to do anything to stop it... we'll just crush it under the weight of our own pollution and kill ourselves off in the process. While we can't exactly go back and help earth lose all of the extra weight it's put on in the past 150 years, we can cut back and at least try to lessen our affect on the earth... in essence, changing things so that in that next second, the earth only puts on .25 lbs.

 Translation: Nature is causing 99% of Global Warming. Right?

The Earth's climate has ALWAYS changed. What you have to show is that THIS time, it's changing because of MAN, and nothing else. you have not shown that.

Here's what makes your story completely flawed.

How much Co2 will volcanoes spew in the next 100 years?

If you don't know that, then how do you know what the 1% Co2 added by Man will do?

How do you know there won't be a cooling period ahead, and we'll WISH for global warming?

How do you know what the set Earth atmosphere should BE?

In other words, you are claiming there is a set balance of Co2 in the atmosphere and Man is disrupting this balance.

Ok, then WHAT is that balance? you don't know.

Why don't you know? Because the Co2 levels on the Earth have been much higher before, and lower.

So what's "natural"?

Whatever you make up to get cap and trade passed for wealth redistribution?

It's like you're saying, well if you put just a little bit of salt water in gasoline, it will mess up your car engine.

Which is true.

But co2 already exists in teh atmosphere, salt water doesn't naturally exist in the gas we use in cars.

HOW MUCH CO2 SHOULD be in the atmosphere?

The truth is you cannot know, because there has never been a stable level of Co2, it always changes.

How do you know this change actually causes the "climate change" and not natural causes like the Sun, el nino cycles, fresh water cycles in the ocean, natural emissions of Co2, and so on?

If you don't understand those, then how do you expect me to believe you are right that man's tiny 1% upsets this "balance" when you haven't shown any balance to begin with?

IMO, so far no one has answered this simple question.

No links?  So you want to have an intelligent discussion about something without using facts and arguments from people who are actually qualified to study the subject matter?  Do you think people write masters papers without citing anyone and just rambling on about what they think?

I view this as just another skeptics attempt to ignore science.

Basically, prove your point with no proof and I will rebut it with blanket statements.

Sounds productive to me.

To my thinking it is a trick question, tho I know your serious. So I will answere your question, please dont take my  answere too seriously.

The manner in which man can cause global warming, is by digesting the bullshit being shovelled about Global Warming, and emitting the flatulents, created.

Weve, had more volcanic activity in the last century, than in all of recorded history, and more activity just since 1970, than the previous 70 years.

Thats a high amount of emissions, and has effected the planet, tho at a time when a little offset against the next upcomming Ice Age, may be welcomed. Yet it is having an effect and will continue to do so.

We will adapt, and we cannot stop it from happening.

Yet by the same token, Global Bullshit, may kill us all. Or atleast alter life as we know it, to the point that freedom, becomes a fairytale, told to children, as they are shuffled off to state controlled Global Bullshit Indoctrination Centers.

OP,

While I agree with you on your conclusion I thought I'd perhaps help you shed some light on the CO2 question.  I will simplify the math for demonstration purposes :)

If nature produces 95 units of CO2 and man produces 5 units then we contribute 5% of the total 100 units per year.

If nature consumes 94 units of CO2 then there is a net increase of 6 units of CO2 per year.

Therefore assuming humans could produce less than 1 unit of CO2 a year without industrialization we would be responseible for 5/6ths of the increase in CO2 for that year.

If nature consumes 80 units of CO2 then there is a net increase of 20 units of CO2 per year.

We can measure the increase in CO2, but it is incredibly difficult to estimate man's contribution, the total amount of co2 created, and the total amount of co2 consumed.  I am highly skeptic of anyone who claims they can accurately predict this.

This is how the logic of someone who believes in AGW's mind works.  The question then is how much warming affect did the 6 extra units of CO2 in the air produce?  This is the topic of most debate I think.  A main theory is that if CO2 is the main cause then we should see massive upper atmosphere, we have not witnessed this.  Also that satellite that went boom this year was meant to measure that so who knows if the warming is there or not.

The reason why AGW people say CO2 is different and that increases in it are bad is because they claim that CO2 is more potent of a greenhouse gas because of where it congregates in the atmosphere.  If you're interested just wiki it, it explains that theory pretty well.

I don't believe in AGW, I believe we can pollute and cause signifigant damage but CO2 is the least of our problems right now :)

Originally posted by Munki

Basically, prove your point with no proof and I will rebut it with blanket statements.

Sounds productive to me.

 I think you're telling me you made up your mind Global Warming is caused by man, but you dont' really understand much about it, and if you can't post links you are unable to discuss the issue.

You can use all the proof you want.

This is a fact, blah, blah.

This is a fact, blah, blah.

You can even say WHERE you got your facts. NASA says this, etc.

Then, your conclusion. If those are facts, then IMO, this must be true....

You use your brain, not copy pasta.

That is opposed to, you are wrong, link.

That means you find a link, but you don't necessarily have any idea what it means. So it's a discussion of ideas, not a battle of links.

You guys and all your gas release is causing the caps to melt and you know it.  The Martian caps also,  just wait till those pissed off martians get home to see what you've done to their lovely planet.

Jest aside,  i was wondering,  if the martians are pissed off about us melting their ice caps also are we going to have to pay them a penance fee also?

Originally posted by Pyrich

You guys and all your gas release is causing the caps to melt and you know it.  The Martian caps also,  just wait till those pissed off martians get home to see what you've done to their lovely planet.

 

Jest aside,  i was wondering,  if the martians are pissed off about us melting their ice caps also are we going to have to pay them a penance fee also?

The Martians are underveloped. That is because for years developed planets have been raping Mars.

So, to pay for your evil Martian raping, we will have a Cap and Tax, I mean Cap and Trade.

You will have to live like a stone age cave man, and send all your money to the Martians, so they can develop their world.

Of course, once they are developed, then they will be evil too, and then they will have to live like Cave Men also.

that's progress.

The issue with clouds as being a "green house" gas is that nature has multi tasked them - so while they are a greenhouse gas they also help the planet by reflecting harmful suns rays back into space that are trapped by other green house gases.  CO2 and other greenhouse gases serve no benefit in the upper atmosphere - its like ozone(O3), really good in the upper atmosphere - bad close to ground terra.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

How do you know this change actually causes the "climate change" and not natural causes like the Sun, el nino cycles, fresh water cycles in the ocean, natural emissions of Co2, and so on?

If you don't understand those, then how do you expect me to believe you are right that man's tiny 1% upsets this "balance" when you haven't shown any balance to begin with?

IMO, so far no one has answered this simple question.

That's because you're too stupid to realize that people have answered your question, in many different ways, but you're not interested in listening or discussion... you're only interested in trying to pretend that everyone else is wrong.

The FACT is that there have been a lot of studies into this, and a lot of estimates already made. Scientists look at the big picture through core/soil/earth samples, and at trends over the past 100-150 years. They KNOW that we are leaving a small ice age. They KNOW that we are accelerating the process. Any moron who passed elementary school science knows this. But you claim you don't want links, even when you scream about proving things that, as another poster mentioned, require you to be a scientist in that field.

People like you just get your panties into a bunch at the thought of having to think about something other than your own greed and excess. That's why you ignore the studies and put your fingers in your ears going "I DON'T HEAR YOU!!" It won't kill you to use less energy, drive more fuel-efficient cars, toss a bottle into the right container or go outside and make a little garden or plant a tree. There are so many things you can do to try and make a difference for the environment, but all you care about is questioning people far smarter than you about things you don't, and aren't interested in, understanding.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Munki

Basically, prove your point with no proof and I will rebut it with blanket statements.

Sounds productive to me.

 I think you're telling me you made up your mind Global Warming is caused by man, but you dont' really understand much about it, and if you can't post links you are unable to discuss the issue.

You can use all the proof you want.

This is a fact, blah, blah.

This is a fact, blah, blah.

You can even say WHERE you got your facts. NASA says this, etc.

Then, your conclusion. If those are facts, then IMO, this must be true....

You use your brain, not copy pasta.

That is opposed to, you are wrong, link.

That means you find a link, but you don't necessarily have any idea what it means. So it's a discussion of ideas, not a battle of links.

This is where you're terribly arrogant and confused.
You seem to think that you could be presented with all the information in the world, and with no education to speak of, come to a correct conclution.

I will not pretend to understand global warming to the level that the people who devote their lives to it. I know they've spent anywhere from 10 to 60 years of their lives working with it... They work 8+ hours a day thinking about it, working with it and dealing with it.

For me to sit here and ask them to provide me with ALL their data, and explain all their reasoning is rediculous. They've got years of information that contributes to their conclusion. They understand things I don't. Science isn't easy. There are many things in computer science (my degree of study) that I could kinda explain to you with metaphores, but in reality I don't think you could understand at a meaningful level.

I will give people the respect they deserve. I know that I am not a PHD in a relevant field and thus I look to respected members of the academic community. They explain what they can, but for the most part I accept their opinion based on the fact that I trust their opinion and their knowledge.

You're arguments are likely trivial and not even worth consideration to anybody in the field. To assume they should try to catch you up to their life works so you can form your own opinion independent of any professional is just disgustingly arrogant on your part.

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Munki

Basically, prove your point with no proof and I will rebut it with blanket statements.

Sounds productive to me.

 I think you're telling me you made up your mind Global Warming is caused by man, but you dont' really understand much about it, and if you can't post links you are unable to discuss the issue.

You can use all the proof you want.

This is a fact, blah, blah.

This is a fact, blah, blah.

You can even say WHERE you got your facts. NASA says this, etc.

Then, your conclusion. If those are facts, then IMO, this must be true....

You use your brain, not copy pasta.

That is opposed to, you are wrong, link.

That means you find a link, but you don't necessarily have any idea what it means. So it's a discussion of ideas, not a battle of links.

This is where you're terribly arrogant and confused.
You seem to think that you could be presented with all the information in the world, and with no education to speak of, come to a correct conclution.

I will not pretend to understand global warming to the level that the people who devote their lives to it. I know they've spent anywhere from 10 to 60 years of their lives working with it... They work 8+ hours a day thinking about it, working with it and dealing with it.

For me to sit here and ask them to provide me with ALL their data, and explain all their reasoning is rediculous. They've got years of information that contributes to their conclusion. They understand things I don't. Science isn't easy. There are many things in computer science (my degree of study) that I could kinda explain to you with metaphores, but in reality I don't think you could understand at a meaningful level.

I will give people the respect they deserve. I know that I am not a PHD in a relevant field and thus I look to respected members of the academic community. They explain what they can, but for the most part I accept their opinion based on the fact that I trust their opinion and their knowledge.

You're arguments are likely trivial and not even worth consideration to anybody in the field. To assume they should try to catch you up to their life works so you can form your own opinion independent of any professional is just disgustingly arrogant on your part.

 

Bravo Munki and Streea! you nailed it