Quote from Glenn67 :

Successful business enterprises find something they can produce lots of and then go about convincing the public at large that they "need" the said product. The long term sucessful companies actually take the original product and vary it multiple times selling it at higher value each time.

Yes, that is the principle, produce tons cheap as possible.

Going large scale on solar panel, electric car business or similar needs plenty of investments. The technology is basically there, but it's very expensive and costs go down only with mass production. Not to mention development can be very expensive. I'd say risks have been too large in the past, now (or soon) there definitely is a good window for alternative run cars or solar panels. Would make sense to make green with green.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I'm going to stick my neck out here and have a punt: Zero degrees celcius?

Well below zero probably lol, but they can be exact about it. It could be minus 32 or something.

I think that most people that saysthe global warming isn`t caused by humans have lack of information and knowlege about the subject, or they are all naive people that belives we can do whatever we want with this globe without facing consequenses.
And sadly this forum is a good example of people with little knowlege but a huge greedness over the nature.
I mean, it`s not a question ,if or maybe, it IS that human causing global warming, due to the extreme amounts of Co2 and other gasses in the atmosphere.

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

Well below zero probably lol, but they can be exact about it. It could be minus 32 or something.

My mum always said it can be too cold for snow. I think -32 is too cold for snow based on mum evidence, and ice is made out of snow after cars have driven on it, so I'm sticking with 0°C.

That explains why the sea freezes then, all those snow storms and Clarkson driving through it!

Quote from Blackout :

Yes, that is the principle, produce tons cheap as possible.

Going large scale on solar panel, electric car business or similar needs plenty of investments. The technology is basically there, but it's very expensive and costs go down only with mass production. Not to mention development can be very expensive. I'd say risks have been too large in the past, now (or soon) there definitely is a good window for alternative run cars or solar panels. Would make sense to make green with green.

Well I surely hope so but I fear it is not likely to happen too soon, as I believe it needs Government help to get it kick started.

Up till now they have been notouriously slow in acting. The Australian Government for example has implemented a rebate of 50% of the purchase and instillation of solar panels recently. But when you look into it, that rebate is only available under strict conditions which at the end of the day tally to the same cost or more costly than if you did it yourself. It's bureaucracy gone mad imo and really want do much to speed the process of people converting to clean power. I know this well as I've spent quite a sum of money on solar panels, batteries and inverters to generate power from the sun instead of a desiel genset.

The only real way to introduce solar technology or any other green technology is to introduce it at a price level comparable to its alternatives. And to do that with existing power sources would take a huge step of faith, the only way I see it happening is if they introduced it like a mobile phone plane were you pay zero upfront but then recieve a monthly charge for its use .

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I'm going to stick my neck out here and have a punt: Zero degrees celcius?

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99/apr/learn.html (I already posted this link near the top of this thread).

But that was a funny answer.

Hydrogen cars would be a really poor idea, since there is on average around 55x as much water in the atmosphere than there is CO2, even these days...

Noone's mentioned the fact that it's not just production of CO2, but also the destruction of great CO2 eating beasts - trees - that would cause the increase. So, no more breathing, fossil fuels, or wood.

[conspiracy theory]The powers that be know that we're running out of oil (www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net) and want to make it fashionable, and filling everyone's head with doom & gloom now would make it much easier to transition to other technologies. Besides that, with a oil crisis looming why would we (developed nations) want to allow nondeveloped nations to industrialize and use up our technological lifeblood?.[/conspiracy theory]

To whoever said something about "the experts"... It's awfully ironic to call someone else naive when you think that "the experts" are giving you an unbiased (read: unpaid) opinion. There are plenty of "experts" who disagree with the theory as well, but they're not paid serious $$$ to have their expert opinion plastered on every dirt rag in sight.

Again, I have no problem with cleaning up. And certainly since we do generate SOME CO2, it must therefore have SOME effect. Numbers wise, it seems dreadfully insignificant - 3 to 4 hundredths of a % of C02 in the atmosphere, compared to up to 4% water which is more effective, the whole volcano thing again, solar activity, blah blah blah. As far as "knowing the facts", you only "know" what you're told, and that by the "experts". I'm sure you think the news is 100% undiluted unaltered fact too right?

Quote :

The long term sucessful companies actually take the original product and vary it multiple times selling it at higher value each time.

Quote :

Yes, that is the principle, produce tons cheap as possible.

Going large scale on solar panel, electric car business or similar needs plenty of investments. The technology is basically there, but it's very expensive and costs go down only with mass production. Not to mention development can be very expensive. I'd say risks have been too large in the past, now (or soon) there definitely is a good window for alternative run cars or solar panels.

This is more the kind of thinking I was trying to get to with my other post, about conspiring to hold back innovation. I'm sure there are many big hurdles to jump when transitioning out of an entrenched industrial method, or established product design philosophy... and big risks too. But also big rewards if you're the one with the finger on the pulse. It does seem like the time of the 'green' product is apon us. Funny fact- the average modern refrigerator you buy today is around about 100 times more efficient than the average fridge of the 1970's. The cost of computing has also come way down over the years, kick started on its way (if i remember correctly) by huge subsidies. Where innovation is really slow though is in transport. There's a quote somewhere that if innovation in transport had kept pace with the innovation in computing, then we could all go to the moon and back for $1! Cars just basically haven't changed in any meaningful way since they were first invented- the industry really needs a big kick up the bum imo.

Quote from The Very End :

I think that most people that saysthe global warming isn`t caused by humans have lack of information and knowlege about the subject, or they are all naive people that belives we can do whatever we want with this globe without facing consequenses.
And sadly this forum is a good example of people with little knowlege but a huge greedness over the nature.
I mean, it`s not a question ,if or maybe, it IS that human causing global warming, due to the extreme amounts of Co2 and other gasses in the atmosphere.

Mate, how old are you again? - Just out of curiosity. Because I recall something about you being ~15 last year. I'm fairly sure most grade 9 students know the "facts" that you recited in your first post. Saying them as something new is a bit annoying. Also, not long ago, they told you there were only positive numbers, negative numbers don't have roots and that Newton's laws are infallible. The point I'm trying to make is: research stuff properly before just reciting what someone told you.

I'm not denying that global warming is in fact happening, whether only as a local fluctuation or in general, nor that it is to some extent caused by humans. Nor that it's probably a bad thing. The extent of human influence is uncertain, so is how bad it actually is, and whether it is normal.

In today's world, a lot of people will have you believe something false for their own benefits, don't be gullible.

I believe actions of humans can caused acceleration of global warming or result of it being more severe, but I don't believe it is caused by humans.

One document claimed that El Nino is strong because magnetic north is in transition and that happens between some time and always makes changes in temp etc. But it really does not touch me, even all finns would stop driving their cars and such that would not even been seen on world wide graphs, even whole population of world would stop exists, it would take something like 60 years to recovering to start (if we believe some scientist's estimates of how much green house gases are up there because of human activity) so that either does not affect to me anyway, I'm probably quite dead in 60 years, or at least half dead, so I'm not interested really what happens after that.

Now some green people call me selfish, well if those get babies, then they are more selfish than I, do you have any idea how much one human pollutes during his lifetime? Certainly I can't reduce pollution I cause so much that one other human could live in that saved part, it is not possible to cut my pollutions so much. All green people with babies are faking, imo

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

To whoever said something about "the experts"... It's awfully ironic to call someone else naive when you think that "the experts" are giving you an unbiased (read: unpaid) opinion. There are plenty of "experts" who disagree with the theory as well, but they're not paid serious $$$ to have their expert opinion plastered on every dirt rag in sight.

that trail of thought is just so incredibly misinformed
publicly funded research is a NON profit deal and whichever field you work in (including climate) you will make a whole lot LESS than you ever could working in the industry

Quote from tristancliffe :

But there is surprisingly little evidence that human beings have had much to do with it.

...and that's where guessing numbers and speculation begins. Sure we know that we pollute in order for industrailised capitals to keep us alive, we need to polute in order to survive.
So personally I take to look at it in the bigger picture, the simplist energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only be passed on from one form to another....guessing and speculating is a waste of time because the constant cycle of energy allways leads to unhabitable places(constant shifting in the poles and temperatures)(mini ice-ages\Cookie/).

popper infrastructure is what ya need..ike some of these http://dsc.discovery.com/conve ... ng/archives/archives.html

Quote from Shotglass :

that trail of thought is just so incredibly misinformed
publicly funded research is a NON profit deal and whichever field you work in (including climate) you will make a whole lot LESS than you ever could working in the industry

That's silly. "Publically funded research" is a misnomer!

The bottom line is that if it was as black & white of an issue as the militants want it to be, and portray it as, then all the "experts" would agree - but they don't! There are plenty of well learned individuals with degrees in climatology and geography and geophysics and blah blah blah who vehemently disagree with the theory, as I'm sure you're aware.

youre mistaken again
to my knowledge at least there is no scientific debate about the theory of global warming for the simple reason that the science behind it is simple enough for a 10 year old to understand (as is most good science)

there is however lots of debate when it comes to quantifying the effect in general and the effect humans have on it in particular

but the greenhouse physics as is are simple to a degree that makes them both nondebateable and aesthetically pleasing

It's just come to my mind that CO2 is a heavy gas thus drops but don't they say that it creates a layer around the earth which traps the sunlight?

Edit: Not only CO2 but methane also which if i'm not mistaken rises however.

Quote from Shotglass :

youre mistaken again
to my knowledge at least there is no scientific debate about the theory of global warming for the simple reason that the science behind it is simple enough for a 10 year old to understand (as is most good science)

there is however lots of debate when it comes to quantifying the effect in general and the effect humans have on it in particular

but the greenhouse physics as is are simple to a degree that makes them both nondebateable and aesthetically pleasing

Sorry about being unspecific; I was then and previously referring to the "theory of humans causing global warming to accelerate significantly". I thought the context was clear but on re-reading I could see why you would jump to the conclusion. Again, I didn't say global warming isn't happening, and that there is debate about the theory in general - do you really think I'm quite that stupid? Actually... don't answer that

edit: after all, the thread title is in fact "Global Warming: Human's Fault?"

not read the whole post so dont know if anyones mentioned this yet but has anyone heard of the idea of global dimming,

basically its that the gases in the atmosphere now are reflecting away alot of the suns energy aswell as trapping heat, hence why global warming is not as bad atm as predicted,
this was first noticed during the 9/11 attacks when all fights were grouned after the attacks on the wtc, and due to the lack off air traffic/pollution they recorded some very hot days due to the sunlight being unhindered.
its thought that the suns light is upto 20% dimmer now. so were in a catch 22 situation, if the pollution stops we have no protection from the suns heat, lol irony anyone?

Quote from BenjiMC :

It's just come to my mind that CO2 is a heavy gas thus drops but don't they say that it creates a layer around the earth which traps the sunlight?

Edit: Not only CO2 but methane also which if i'm not mistaken rises however.

cfc's are a bigger problem because the radiation from the sun cause's them to breakdown and react with the ozone layer and thus removing it

Wasn't there a huge campaign to cut down on CFC's?

Yes; when I was a kid it was a big deal and everything had a beautiful "CFC Free" label on it.

Quote from andybarsblade :

cfc's are a bigger problem because the radiation from the sun cause's them to breakdown and react with the ozone layer and thus removing it

I learnt in University (Chemistry & Physics) that the ozone layer was actually self-regulating; that letting more UV through would convert more oxygen to the triatomic ozone state and it thus holds itself in a sort of equilibrium. CO2 has little to do with this. They told me that too so for lack of any better or convincing knowledge, that's what i still believe.

This thread is lacking crap metaphors. Imagine you're at a friend's house and you take a shit in the corner of the living room. Would you justify it by saying he has a large living room and on balance your contribution isn't really that great?

/end ridiculous metaphor.

Its like pissing in a public swimming pool, is it ok just because everyone else does it?!!!

Quote from thisnameistaken :

This thread is lacking crap metaphors. Imagine you're at a friend's house and you take a shit in the corner of the living room. Would you justify it by saying he has a large living room and on balance your contribution isn't really that great?

/end ridiculous metaphor.

LOL Now that you put it THAT way..............

@Shotglass:
Yeah, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that humanity is contributing to the Global warming effect. But please... NON profit scientists? Dude they get appropriated $$$ either each physcal year or quarterly or something. And repeating what I posted earlier, if they don't produce the results that are desired, they don't get paid. They get fired. Then someone else is hired to work on the "non-profit" research. Sure, there might be a foundation or University or two somewhere that has money to burn and could honestly maintain a research project with out any interference. But in these politically motivated and profit motivated times, I doubt it.
I mean think about it. You got all kinds of research going on, one way or the other as to how much or exactly what humans are doing to the planet, yet what about research that involves how to get the planet to stabilize
and to get IT to quit screwing up? You're not going to see much about that because there's nothing to be gained from it. Even if you could figure that out, try finding any sort of anything that would be willing to operate at a massive loss.

And besides, have you ever thought that the scientists that work in those "non-profit" areas do so because they were just too damn incompetent to get a good money gig? Like the "sell-outs" in the private sector?