Global warming is real. Current global warming is caused by humans.
How do I know?
For the millionth ****ing time:
How anthropogenic global warming works
The earth's temperature is regulated by a process known as the greenhouse effect:
When solar radiation reaches Earth from the sun, some of it is absorbed by the Earth, and some of it is reflected back in the form of infra-red radiation (heat). However, on its way back through the atmosphere, it reaches a layer of gases known as the greenhouse gases. Earth's primary greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. These gases absorb radiation within the thermal infra-red range, and then emit some of it back towards earth. This means that instead of sunlight reaching the earth and reflecting straight back off again, some of the heat is contained within the atmosphere, which keeps the Earth's temperature warm. This is a well-known process, and life as we know it on Earth would not exist without it, as it would be far too cold otherwise.
However, as I mentioned before, the greenhouse effect is controlled by a layer of gases in the atmosphere, and if the proportions of these gases change, obviously the greenhouse effect is altered. This brings us to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Here is a diagram of the carbon cycle:
I won't talk in-depth about the natural elements of the carbon cycle, but the one important thing to know is that like all biogeochemical cycles (and all natural systems in general), the carbon cycle maintains an equilibrium, so that there is generally a stable amount of carbon in any part of the system. However, since the industrial revolution, humans have greatly influenced this cycle. Fossil fuels such as oil and coal take millions of years to form under the earth's surface, but humans are burning them at a much faster rate. These fossil fuels generally contain an assortment of organic compounds, which exothermically combust in oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water vapour. (That's complete combustion, in reality you also get some C(s) and carbon monoxide but they aren't important). In effect we're putting a lot more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than can be cycled at a natural rate, the result of which is we're adding to the greenhouse gases, meaning there is more capacity for absorbing and emitting heat. Therefore the Earth gets warmer.
I've just done carbon dioxide as an example. Methane is the other greenhouse gas of concern. I believe that's mainly as a result of agriculture, but I haven't done research for that, so someone else can check that.
Now usually when I post an explanation like this, people who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change just ignore it, because they can't come up with any arguments, because they're wrong. The only response I've ever gotten was "Yeah I understand all the science behind if but I just don't believe there's enough evidence". Which aside from being wrong:
Is the equivalent of saying "Oh yeah, it all makes total sense, I just don't believe in it."
TL;DR: If you can't be bothered reading this then you shouldn't be posting in this thread, because if you don't know anything about the topic then your opinion is invalid. I've even included pictures to make it easier.
The only people who still don't believe in global warming are those who don't understand it.
It is not a matter of opinions: It is common knowledge, backed up by indisputable evidence and common sense.
Gravity is more debatable than global warming.
If you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, read my explanation and fault it. You can't. Because you are wrong.
But seriously, why don't we debate about what 1+1 equals? Because that is more arguable than global warming.
I'm sure it started off as a genuine thing, but then it attracted attention from a whole heap of people who don't seem to know what it is they're protesting about.
Sweet Jesus, you people are way over-examining this.
What happened was that the local town government decided that it was not safe for children to go trick-or-treating. This means that neighbors would not have to give out candy, police would not be as lenient, and normal curfew laws would be in effect.
Is this that hard to understand? It's not like the Federal Government brought in the army and blockaded everyone's front door with a tank.
Sorry if I'm still over-examining it and bumping this thread, but..
People "wouldn't have to" give out candy, and police won't be as lenient? What so normally you're required by law to give out candy and the police are somehow involved?
And curfew laws? What kind of a town is this where you aren't allowed out at night?
I posted a great big post about population dynamics in a thread about this a while ago; but as far as the population is concerned, it's a bit late to control it. The population will rise exponentially as it is now, and then reach a point where it cannot be supported by its habitat, or it runs out of resources, and it will fall dramatically. Most of the deaths will probably be as a result of starvation, and will probably occur mostly in third-world countries, and especially among the lower class overpopulated places like India and China. You'll just see the current food crisis get worse until the global death rate overtakes the birth rate. Then it will continue to fall until a sustainable carrying capacity is reached.
This is basically what happens to a population of any species when its limiting factors/carrying capacities are removed. Look it up if you don't believe me. It should be common sense that the Earth's population will eventually drop, by the way. We don't have unlimited resources.
The reason we have a population this big at the moment can mainly be attributed to the invention of agriculture. Other things like technology and medicine then removed more limiting factors which sort of pushed the population along.
TL;DR: The Earth's population is rising exponentially. Eventually it will reach a point where it will crash. I don't know how far or when, but there's not really anything we can do about it now.
What? I don't understand America. How can you cancel Halloween? Is there some agency in charge of whether or not it is halloween, and they decided it isn't? What would happen if people did celebrate halloween? Is there a halloween police?
How can you remember anything that far back? I only have vague memories of what I think was my 3rd birthday. Then I can't remember the orders of any memories after that, but I don't have full continuous memories for any part of my life. Just individual events.
I don't know if they have this in any other countries, but in Australia at the moment Coke have this thing where they have "Share a coke with <Name>" on the bottle, and the name is one of a huge list of common names they have, so coke sales have increased heaps because people just go into shops and spend ages going through all the coke bottles to find one with their or their friends' name on it. I don't know if they think it makes it taste better or what, but the coke fridges in shops are always a mess now.
Oh and on topic: Ethics and advertising are not two things that really mix. Yes this is wrong, but so are most of the ideas behind advertising and marketing to begin with. The purpose of that whole industry is to take advantage of people to make them part with their money.
I say 'vit-a-min' as opposed to 'vite-a-min' as the Australian's do, as I'm English. There's also this issue with yoghurt and some other words that escape me at the moment. It's a good topic of conversation sometimes.
It's funny you say that. My family's English, and I never got used to my grandparents saying "Yog-hurt" instead of "Yo-ghurt".
Sometimes I forget to pronounce my vowels and I sound like I'm from New Zealand.
This is not a stoner's plea for the legalization of marijuana. This is a basic question of human rights and liberties. I believe that all drugs should be legalized, or at least, decriminalized. I am not a drug addict. I've been sober for seven, almost eight months now. I'm a supporter of the legalization of drugs for one reason. The government, or anyone else, should NOT have the right to tell people what they can or cannot put into their body. I am not denying the fact that some drugs DO have terrible side affects. I know that some drugs CAN cause death. But the person who decides to take those drugs, is sober. They are clearly thinking through their actions before taking the drugs, and they know the possible outcomes. They are making a CHOICE to harm their body, and it is THEIR body.
Yes, yes, yes.
People, when hearing this argument, will say that sometimes people harm OTHER people when under the influence. This is true. People are killed by other people who are inebriated. When this happens, I believe the person at fault, should be in trouble for what they did while under the influence. Not FOR being under the influence. Again, they make the conscience choice to do drugs. They should take responsibility for their actions while on the drugs. If someone cannot handle the drugs, they shouldn't do them. If they do, they will take responsibility. It's that simple.
Yes
tl;dr - Drugs should be legal, because it's their body, not the government's.
And yes.
To elaborate on the second paragraph: Its not hard to avoid things like drink driving, by planning ahead and taking a taxi or having a designated driver. If you know you're liable to do stupid things while drunk or under the influence of drugs, and you don't take precautions, then it's a stupid decision while sober and just the same as someone being a reckless driver while not under the influence; you're fully responsible.
Banning drugs to stop these kinds of things is like banning ski masks to stop robberies.
I had 4 tests last week, then 3 this week. All 3 are for the same class. Then I have a week of revision, then 5 exams. They start with a 3 hour exam at 9am on my birthday.
For people who were talking about the Labor party in Australia, it's spelled without a u. Don't ask me why, it just is.
People are calling Julia Gillard a "ranga *****" now, but in 3 years time, everyone will be hating on Tony Abbott for what will be pretty much the same reasons. People expect the government to cater for all their individual needs, but it doesn't work like that. There is no political party that will please everyone. It makes no difference.
2
THIS THREAD AGAIN..
PLEASE use search.
Global warming is real. Current global warming is caused by humans.
How do I know?
For the millionth ****ing time:
The earth's temperature is regulated by a process known as the greenhouse effect:
When solar radiation reaches Earth from the sun, some of it is absorbed by the Earth, and some of it is reflected back in the form of infra-red radiation (heat). However, on its way back through the atmosphere, it reaches a layer of gases known as the greenhouse gases. Earth's primary greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. These gases absorb radiation within the thermal infra-red range, and then emit some of it back towards earth. This means that instead of sunlight reaching the earth and reflecting straight back off again, some of the heat is contained within the atmosphere, which keeps the Earth's temperature warm. This is a well-known process, and life as we know it on Earth would not exist without it, as it would be far too cold otherwise.
However, as I mentioned before, the greenhouse effect is controlled by a layer of gases in the atmosphere, and if the proportions of these gases change, obviously the greenhouse effect is altered. This brings us to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Here is a diagram of the carbon cycle:
I won't talk in-depth about the natural elements of the carbon cycle, but the one important thing to know is that like all biogeochemical cycles (and all natural systems in general), the carbon cycle maintains an equilibrium, so that there is generally a stable amount of carbon in any part of the system. However, since the industrial revolution, humans have greatly influenced this cycle. Fossil fuels such as oil and coal take millions of years to form under the earth's surface, but humans are burning them at a much faster rate. These fossil fuels generally contain an assortment of organic compounds, which exothermically combust in oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water vapour. (That's complete combustion, in reality you also get some C(s) and carbon monoxide but they aren't important). In effect we're putting a lot more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than can be cycled at a natural rate, the result of which is we're adding to the greenhouse gases, meaning there is more capacity for absorbing and emitting heat. Therefore the Earth gets warmer.
I've just done carbon dioxide as an example. Methane is the other greenhouse gas of concern. I believe that's mainly as a result of agriculture, but I haven't done research for that, so someone else can check that.
Now usually when I post an explanation like this, people who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change just ignore it, because they can't come up with any arguments, because they're wrong. The only response I've ever gotten was "Yeah I understand all the science behind if but I just don't believe there's enough evidence". Which aside from being wrong:
Is the equivalent of saying "Oh yeah, it all makes total sense, I just don't believe in it."
TL;DR: If you can't be bothered reading this then you shouldn't be posting in this thread, because if you don't know anything about the topic then your opinion is invalid. I've even included pictures to make it easier.
The only people who still don't believe in global warming are those who don't understand it.
It is not a matter of opinions: It is common knowledge, backed up by indisputable evidence and common sense.
Gravity is more debatable than global warming.
If you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, read my explanation and fault it. You can't. Because you are wrong.
But seriously, why don't we debate about what 1+1 equals? Because that is more arguable than global warming.
0
(Not for the faint-hearted)
That's a bird-eating spider.
I like my arachnids BELOW vertebrates in the food chain, thanks.
0
If you have Asperger's then that would be why you can't tell.
0
0
Sorry if I'm still over-examining it and bumping this thread, but..
People "wouldn't have to" give out candy, and police won't be as lenient? What so normally you're required by law to give out candy and the police are somehow involved?
And curfew laws? What kind of a town is this where you aren't allowed out at night?
I just don't understand halloween.
2
Yeah. That's my whole story.
0
This is basically what happens to a population of any species when its limiting factors/carrying capacities are removed. Look it up if you don't believe me. It should be common sense that the Earth's population will eventually drop, by the way. We don't have unlimited resources.
The reason we have a population this big at the moment can mainly be attributed to the invention of agriculture. Other things like technology and medicine then removed more limiting factors which sort of pushed the population along.
TL;DR: The Earth's population is rising exponentially. Eventually it will reach a point where it will crash. I don't know how far or when, but there's not really anything we can do about it now.
0
0
0
Oh and on topic: Ethics and advertising are not two things that really mix. Yes this is wrong, but so are most of the ideas behind advertising and marketing to begin with. The purpose of that whole industry is to take advantage of people to make them part with their money.
0
0
It's funny you say that. My family's English, and I never got used to my grandparents saying "Yog-hurt" instead of "Yo-ghurt".
Sometimes I forget to pronounce my vowels and I sound like I'm from New Zealand.
1
Yes, yes, yes.
Yes
And yes.
To elaborate on the second paragraph: Its not hard to avoid things like drink driving, by planning ahead and taking a taxi or having a designated driver. If you know you're liable to do stupid things while drunk or under the influence of drugs, and you don't take precautions, then it's a stupid decision while sober and just the same as someone being a reckless driver while not under the influence; you're fully responsible.
Banning drugs to stop these kinds of things is like banning ski masks to stop robberies.
0
0
People are calling Julia Gillard a "ranga *****" now, but in 3 years time, everyone will be hating on Tony Abbott for what will be pretty much the same reasons. People expect the government to cater for all their individual needs, but it doesn't work like that. There is no political party that will please everyone. It makes no difference.