Global Warming Debunked!!! - Finally!

[westhillsat]

Glacier National Park might soon need a new name.

The Montana park has 26 named glaciers today, down from 150 in 1850. Those that remain are typically mere remnants of their former frozen selves, a new gallery of before and after images reveals.

All arguments about global warming aside, now is a time of clear retreat by age-old ice packs in many locations around the world. Some retreat just a few inches or feet per year, but others are melting faster than a snow cone in Texas.


http://www.livescience.com/environme...cier_melt.html

[HummBebe]

It's important that we make sure the scientific "evidence" we are provided is good science.

Simple things I have found, pictures of Glaciers melting from one year to the next is not really evidence, being that the Earth fluctuates in temperature on cycles that span more than a single human lifetime.

Sometimes they will throw in a summer photo and compare it to a winter photo from years past. Not good as scientific evidence, but good for dramatic effect.

Photography has not been around long enough to prove anything.

Wasn't the Sahara Desert an Ocean at one time? They have found whole whale carcasses in the desert.

Smog has been around before autos. Forest and grass fires pollute too.

We truly have no idea what Mother Earth has in store for us. To blame humanity and industrialism as the cause is just plain crazy.

Maybe even arrogant.

[BlueHUMMERH2]

This is like an extention of my hurried previous comment:

The planet changes, plain and simple. It's a dynamic system. Humans have trouble seeing that. We're ego-centric for one, and our lifespans are too short to really comprehend the magnitude of things.

I think what is hardest to get around is that we are releasing CO2 that has been pent up for millions of years, stored out of the system. Now it's back in the system. The question is: does that mean anything? I'm not saying that we should assume that means we're affecting the climate. But that's the question that needs to (and hasn't been in my mind) definatively answered. I think the general opinion is, "It certainly seems like it would have some effect." But no one knows. This whole issue is being discussed A LOT in academia, but it's already been decided in the media.

Gaia is always a very interesting theory about the planet, and I've met some professors who actually believe this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_%28science%29

[KenP]

Originally Posted by westhillsat

Glacier National Park might soon need a new name.

The Montana park has 26 named glaciers today, down from 150 in 1850. Those that remain are typically mere remnants of their former frozen selves, a new gallery of before and after images reveals.

The global climate has it's highs and lows. We're about to peak on the high side, if we haven't already.

[h2co-pilot]

It could probably get a lot hotter.

The hype caused by some on our effect of global warming is extreme. But there is no denying that all of our C02 emmissions must do something.

Climate CO2 is natural, but not to the extent that we have been emitting it. If the world cycles (which would only make logical sense), a glacier being one extreme and a volcano being the other. Volcanic activity produces mass amounts of CO2 by outgassing and the combustion of organic matter. I would think that volcanic activity would be the natural accelerant for a "global warming". So it could only be fair to say that we are contributing unnaturally to greenhouse gases and there effects by emmiting more carbon and the destruction of oxygen emmiting organisms.

But then the question arises, at least in my mind "Is it unnatural?" or "Are our emmisions already in the natural plan?" or "Mobile organisms produce CO2 by respiration. Is the world conditioned to make adjustments in temperature, via the carbon emmisions (Carbon being the sixth most abundant element in the known universe) as an instincual self preservation?


buckminsterfullerenes..........

[Mrs.ssippi]

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

It could probably get a lot hotter.

The hype caused by some on our effect of global warming is extreme. But there is no denying that all of our C02 emmissions must do something.

Climate CO2 is natural, but not to the extent that we have been emitting it. If the world cycles (which would only make logical sense), a glacier being one extreme and a volcano being the other. Volcanic activity produces mass amounts of CO2 by outgassing and the combustion of organic matter. I would think that volcanic activity would be the natural accelerant for a "global warming". So it could only be fair to say that we are contributing unnaturally to greenhouse gases and there effects by emmiting more carbon and the destruction of oxygen emmiting organisms.

But then the question arises, at least in my mind "Is it unnatural?" or "was our emmisions already in the natural plan?" or "All organisms produce CO2 by respiration. Is the world conditioned to make adjustments in temperature, via the carbon emmisions (Carbon being the sixth most abundant element in the known universe) as an instincual self preservation?


buckminsterfullerenes..........

After visiting your house I know the reason for Global Warming.............Ken. Man, his emmisions are a bad deal!

[KenP]

Originally Posted by Mrs.ssippi

After visiting your house I know the reason for Global Warming.............Ken. Man, his emmisions are a bad deal!

HEY!!!! I told you not to follow me!!!!

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

It could probably get a lot hotter.

The hype caused by some on our effect of global warming is extreme. But there is no denying that all of our C02 emmissions must do something.

Climate CO2 is natural, but not to the extent that we have been emitting it. If the world cycles (which would only make logical sense), a glacier being one extreme and a volcano being the other. Volcanic activity produces mass amounts of CO2 by outgassing and the combustion of organic matter. I would think that volcanic activity would be the natural accelerant for a "global warming". So it could only be fair to say that we are contributing unnaturally to greenhouse gases and there effects by emmiting more carbon and the destruction of oxygen emmiting organisms.

But then the question arises, at least in my mind "Is it unnatural?" or "Are our emmisions already in the natural plan?" or "Mobile organisms produce CO2 by respiration. Is the world conditioned to make adjustments in temperature, via the carbon emmisions (Carbon being the sixth most abundant element in the known universe) as an instincual self preservation?


buckminsterfullerenes..........

As in life, Moderation is the Key.

The earth is always seeking balance. Whether 20 Volcanos go up or 1, there is a tipping point at which the Earth begins to "clean" itself.

Obviously, becoming warmer as a whole, produces more surface area for plants to grow which are the natural scrubbers.

Arguments could be made that we, as humans, have slowed this recent warming trend, rather than contributed to it, because we have continually disrupted the natural removal of plant life through large uncontained wildfires.

[SnakeH2]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

Arguments could be made that we, as humans, have slowed this recent warming trend, rather than contributed to it, because we have continually disrupted the natural removal of plant life through large uncontained wildfires.

True...But humans have also been known to start some of these fires.

[h2co-pilot]

What would start a natural fire other than magma and occasional lightning?

[SnakeH2]

Fire is hot...don't all these fire make the earth warmer?

[BlingBlingWJBoy]

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

What would start a natural fire other than magma and occasional lightning?

a racoon rubbing 2 sticks together

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by SnakeH2

True...But humans have also been known to start some of these fires.

so has Godzilla