Notices
Results 1 to 51 of 51

Thread: Earth temperature getting warmer

  1. #1 Earth temperature getting warmer 
    Forum Freshman deep'n'dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    54
    Hi!

    I saw a documentary film today where they told that temperature of earth is getting warmer and then i wondered that is there any possibility to create some kind of system using satellites to cover areas where's lot of ice. It would be kind of shield created with satellites using infra-technology or something. That's serious becouse if we're no going to do anything to stop earth temperature getting warmer - sea levels will rise 7 - 8 meters. :?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Deep n dark, the average temperature of the Earth is increasing. A few scientists believe this is a natural occurence. (The Earth's temperature has often been warmer, and colder, in the past.) Most scientists, however, think it is the result of a century and a half of burning fossil fuels which have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (The carbon dioxide helps to trap heat.)
    If all the ice melts - at both poles - the increase in sea level would be a lot more than a few metres: closer to 100mtr.
    I don't believe your suggestion would work. The ice itself is one of the most effective ways of keeping the poles cool: it reflects much of the incoming radiation back into space. What we need to do is reduce the amount of CO2 in the air - that can be done by reducing the amount we pump into the air and by removing it from the air.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman deep'n'dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    54
    Yes, but scientists did discover lately (it was in that documentary film) that if we stop air pollution it will speed up global temperature - it would raise + 10 degrees. But at the same time there's another problem which is our globe gets less light then it used to (earth is darker as it use to be). That's effecting to monsoon rain on the northern hemisphere. This means that there's competition between of earth getting warmer and earth getting darker. Pollution in the air is actually stopping sun to warm this planet so much. Same time it will mess up monsoon system and in Africa there is already problem that monsoon is gone and no water rains there. If we stop polluting air - monsoon will recover, but then we have new problem --> temperature will raise and Greenland's ice will be history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Pollution, I take to refer to aerosols, that are reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth. This is not the same as gaseous carbon dioxide. We can reduce the CO2 content without markedly effecting the other pollutants.
    Rmember that documentaries are essentially a form of entertainment: as such they are oversimplified and overly dramatic. They tend not to give a balanced view, but focus on the more spectacular and specualtive aspects of theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman kestasjk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    A few scientists believe this is a natural occurence. (The Earth's temperature has often been warmer, and colder, in the past.) Most scientists, however, think it is the result of a century and a half of burning fossil fuels which have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (The carbon dioxide helps to trap heat.)
    I'm not sure about this, I think there's real uncertainty as to whether we're to blame. Let's not forget about how the rest of the solar system is heating up too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kestasjk
    I'm not sure about this, I think there's real uncertainty as to whether we're to blame.
    The very broad consensus is that the release of green house gases is responsible. There are only a small number of scientists, mainly in the US, who dispute this and there appears to be a strong political content to that view.
    Quote Originally Posted by kestasjk
    Let's not forget about how the rest of the solar system is heating up too.
    Huh? Are you talking about the very gradual increase in solar output? This is irrelevant over the timescales we are talking about here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman kestasjk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    74
    I'm talking about Pluto, Triton and Mars, which all show signs of global warming. (eg the southern ice cap of Mars melting.) I have yet to see any convincing document for or against artificial global warming, could you please point one out?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kestasjk
    I'm talking about Pluto, Triton and Mars, which all show signs of global warming. (eg the southern ice cap of Mars melting.)
    Pluto: on the contrary, it is cooling down. Pluto has a highly eccentric orbit - the most eccentric of the established nine planets - coming inside the orbit of Neptune when it is at perihelion. As it nears the sun its 'atmosphere' sublimes from the surface, where it has remained frozen out during the bulk of the planet's orbit. The atmosphere will shortly begin a repetition of this freezing as Pluto draws away from the sun. The freezing has been delayed considered against the original simplistic model for the process: perhaps this is what you were thinking of.
    MarsThe southern ice cap melts somewhat every year (Martian). What's new? The data from the Global Surveyor some five years ago that possibly (based on a single years data) the ice cap was retreating at around 3 m/year? If that is your source I am amazed that you doubt the anthropocentric global warming on Earth, which is based on more data by three or four orders of magnitude.
    TritonAgreed. Thank you for pointing that out. I had missed that one.
    So, one definite, one improbable, and one no. No recent global warming on Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Venus, etc.

    On the matter of global climate change you could try "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis" prepared by 123 lead authors and 516 contributing authors over a period of three years. and released by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) after being unanimously accepted by delegates from 100 governments.
    For the effects of these changes read "Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability," from the same source. There are summaries of these two reports on http://www.ipcc.ch/ and
    http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/ respectively.

    Kestasjk, I am not prepared to debate the global warming issue any further than having stated that it is happening and providing the references above. Individuals who come onto the forum and argue for creationism over evolution I will argue with till the cows come home: I may disssaude them from their faulty thinking, and at worst I may learn some new facts relating to evolution. Their thinking is of minimal danger.
    Those who deny global warming, or its potential impact on the biosphere in general and humanity in particular are endagering my grandchildren and the entire human race. This angers me to the point where I would not be able to engage with you in a reasoned manner, so I decline to even try. Please accept my apologies for that.
    I shall, however, be glad to continue discussing your dumb ass idea that the solar system is warming up. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Double post deleted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Actually, the MAx Planck Inst. in Darmstadt last year published a study which showed that solar activity was at its maximum for the last 8000 years, esp. increasing in the last 70-80 years.

    Further this increase in sunspot activity, associated with an increase in C-14 measured by the MPI, also correllated with the end of the Maunder Sunspot minimum, which correllated VERY well with the Little Ice Age of the 1350-1700 epoch. This was clearly over by about 1850, since the earth has warmed about 0.5 C since about 1850.

    Galileo reported very few sunspots and at the time, there was a general global cooling associated with glacier advances.

    Previous to that in the 9th C. CE up until about 1350, there was a period of warming, which allowed N. Euro farming in Southern Greenland, when the viking colonies were settled. These died out by the 1400's due to massive cooling.

    Also, during the time of warming, when Greenland actually was green in the south, the classical Mayan civilization came to an end. Associated with a drought, corresponding to warming at the time. Recall that Euro history began to come alive about that time, as well, with an increased warming period ending the Dark Ages.

    So there are apparently 1 full cycle and a half, of a few centuries of warming, ending about 1350, and then warming beginning about 1700 or so, well correllated with solar sunspot activity and earth warming/cooling.

    The facts are the earth is in a 2-3 M years long Ice Age. The current interglacial began about 13K years ago and this one is rather getting prolonged, suggesting the earth will descned once again into a full Ice Age over the next few centuries, if the usual length of interglacials, about 8K-12K years is any indication.

    I find it hard to believe in long term global warming, when the earth has been in an Ice Age for millions of years, and the current interglacial would seem to be a temporary pause, until the glaciers once again, sometime in the next centuries roll down over NorthAm to heights of 1-2 miles.

    Nor can anyone explain why the sun spot cycles correllate reasonably well with earth warming and cooling. Nor why the sun has such a long term cycle. Nor why we are currently in an Ice Age interglacial, in the midst of an Ice Age. These questions are rather puzzling. And they are not answered by any global warming models I've seen, either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Should also point out that the great plagues, the Black Death also began about 1340's in Europe during this cooling. By the 1700's tho, with warming, the black rat, which supported the Plague was replaced by the brown norwegian roof rat, which does NOT support fleas and the endemic Plagues came to a general end. This is a climatic association with yet again, the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Sunspot Minimum. It's very interesting, too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    ... Most scientists, however, think it is the result of a century and a half of burning fossil fuels which have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (The carbon dioxide helps to trap heat.) ...
    I think this needs to be correlated to human land management practices, especially deforrestation, doesn't it?

    I am interested in how the oceans' role in the carbon dioxide cycle may have been changed by human activity, as well.

    There are only a small number of scientists, mainly in the US, who dispute this and there appears to be a strong political content to that view.
    Economic, actually; the U.S., and not just the current administration, just will not admit that fossil fuel based economies are coming to an end. Or it could just be professional arrogance.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    By putting up a "sun shade" between the Sun and Earth we could regulate the amount of sunlight hitting us. This shade would be powered by the Sun so that it would never lose power. It would open and close like the iris of your eye or we could develop other ways to filter the sunlight as sunglasses would do. Since the farther out you go from Earth the smaller the sun shade would have to be made so it could be done with todays technology and for very cheap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    Nor can anyone explain why ......we are currently in an Ice Age interglacial, in the midst of an Ice Age. These questions are rather puzzling. ..)
    Do you have a problem with the validity of Milankovich cycles?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
    By putting up a "sun shade" between the Sun and Earth we could regulate the amount of sunlight hitting us. This shade would be powered by the Sun so that it would never lose power. It would open and close like the iris of your eye or we could develop other ways to filter the sunlight as sunglasses would do. Since the farther out you go from Earth the smaller the sun shade would have to be made so it could be done with todays technology and for very cheap.
    Or we could stop chopping down trees and burning fossil fuels.
    Paving less of the planet's surface might help.
    Re-learning to live within a wider range of temperatures, say 65 to 80 F, rather than 69 to 72 F, would be a good idea.

    The solution to problems caused by our technology need not be more technology.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore NimaRahnemoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    156
    "The solution to problems caused by our technology need not be more technology."

    True, but often technology improves or fixes previous technolog.

    Then again it may help to consider the following, within 30 years or so we won't have any fossil fuels, if we can last these 30 years. The rest is easy, unless the technology after fossil fuel contributes to pollution. In which case we are all screwed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    Because climate is more than just milankovitch cycles. Were it only milankovitch cycles then the earth would be in a permanent, cycling Ice Age. Before the current Ice Age, about 3 M years ago, there was no Ice Age for several millions of years. However, the orbital cycles were still ongoing. This strongly imnplies that the Milankovitch cycles may be necessary but not sufficient for an Ice Age. Further, about 10 M years ago, palms grew in Barrow, Alaska & beech forests grew in Antarctica. Those sites are at present latitudes. Clearly, the earth was very warm, and there were no Ice Ages at that time.

    There are more factors operating to create global climate than milankovitch, solar heating, CO2 and the many other influences on climate. Being a multifactorial system, it's therefore chaotic, where N=>3. And innately complex and difficult to predict. The interglacials do seem to appear at not regular intervals, altho there is some, but not perfect correllation between the orbital cycles and the Ice Age depths and interglacials.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I am not aware of anyone, certainly not myself, who views the Milankovich cycles as doing anything other than imposing a structured variation in the amount and distribution of solar radiation impinging on the Earth. Such a variation will, as we currently experience, occasionally thrust the world into a suite of ice ages. The trigger for the current set is generally thought to be related to the distribution of continents and to the effect this has on ocean currents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by Nima Rahnemoon
    "The solution to problems caused by our technology need not be more technology."

    True, but often technology improves or fixes previous technolog.
    True, but that position does not need to be argued; that is the current paradigm.

    You are not going to convince me that we should but a giant umbrella between the earth and the sun.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    There are more factors operating to create global climate than milankovitch, solar heating, CO2 and the many other influences on climate. Being a multifactorial system, it's therefore chaotic, ...
    And that is the reason for the increase in concern; change in multifactorial system is not typically linear, right? Any one factor exceeding the limits that can be 'controlled' by the other factors can cause sudden and drastic change in the system, like pH in a buffered solution.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman deep'n'dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    54
    giant umberella? no, but some kind of signal based shield maybe - it should be possible to create some kind of satelite to satelite system what can take off some lightness - not so much needed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    What are you planning to 'transmit' between satellites to create this shield? I mean you do realise your suggestion is top level nonsense? At least CT's suggestion is based soundly in technology, even if it is technology that would have to be developed and would be costly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    j
    j is offline
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    431
    Can we work on solar-power for use on the earth! first? Maybe more productive wind-turbines? More efficient and cheaper uses of geo-thermal energy? Even start replacing the damned trees?

    Here's a really radical idea; maybe we could just consume less energy. And less animal material. Even less plant material.
    Why do they want us to believe Conspiracy Theories?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman deep'n'dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    What are you planning to 'transmit' between satellites to create this shield? I mean you do realise your suggestion is top level nonsense? At least CT's suggestion is based soundly in technology, even if it is technology that would have to be developed and would be costly.
    light lasers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Since you perfectly well know that light can pass unhindered through light - even coherent light - that is a non-starter. I take that as an admission that not only were you talking nonsense, but you know you were talking nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman deep'n'dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Since you perfectly well know that light can pass unhindered through light - even coherent light - that is a non-starter. I take that as an admission that not only were you talking nonsense, but you know you were talking nonsense.
    it's dark light
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Are you here to post nonsense or to engage in a serious discussion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman deep'n'dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Are you here to post nonsense or to engage in a serious discussion?
    things what don't exist doesn't mean that they never will - you might feel stupid yourself some day. i like to have visiond also outside of rules and that's only way to have new ideas.

    Einstein was thinking there's black holes but he couln't be sure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by deep'n'dark
    things what don't exist doesn't mean that they never will - you might feel stupid yourself some day. i like to have visiond also outside of rules and that's only way to have new ideas.
    Einstein was thinking there's black holes but he couln't be sure.
    1. There is a difference between thinking outside the box and constructing a concatenation of disconnected jargon, then calling it an idea.
    2. You don't want to be so open minded your brains fall out.
    3. Strictly speaking Einstein could not have thought of black holes. The term was not introduced till 1968 by John Wheeler.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    It's all nonsense. Frankly, there should be some sort of warning against Deep's kind of inconsistent posting which takes up space and does not intelligently or factually discuss the topic. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman deep'n'dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    54
    Ophiolite - yes indeed Einstein was wondering about black holes - i've readed a book about black holes and there's about Einstein's thoughts about black holes.
    Now - you think you're so fucking smart that you know all possibilities of those things and i use humor too sometimes and don't mean it seriously - you propablly don't know what's humor - you lame minded assholes. :x

    Now what would you do to stop Global warming - don't say that we need to stop polluting ear - that's not your own idea and anyway it takes too long to stop hat - btw: USA is doing nothing to stop that - they actually do upndown. Have you tested any way to create shield - i didn't think so - so shutta fuck up then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Deep 'n' Dark: I repeat - Einstein could not have speculated on black holes since the term was only introduced a decade and a half after he died. I am not disputing that he considered the possibility of objects which we have since come to know as black holes. That, however, is not the same thing, and is exactly why I said 'strictly Einstein could not have thought of black holes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deep'n'Dark
    you propablly don't know what's humor - you lame minded assholes.
    Your humour is probably not translating very well from your native Estonian. On the plus side your vulgar insults are coming over perfectly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deep'n'nDark
    Now what would you do to stop Global warming - don't say that we need to stop polluting ear - that's not your own idea and anyway it takes too long to stop hat - btw: USA is doing nothing to stop that - they actually do upndown. Have you tested any way to create shield - i didn't think so - so shutta fuck up then.
    We need to stop polluting. This isn't my idea. I'm not smart enough to think up a good idea. I am smart enough to recognise a good idea when I see one. I am also smart enough to recognise a bad idea when I see one.
    guess what?
    I do not require to test any way to create a shield 'with light'. The idea flies in the face of logic. Would you like to demonstrate I am wrong. Original thinking is your great strength, right? (That and being humorous.) I am waiting. I suspect I may wait a very long time.

    Steve, I think this is Deep'n'Dark's thread, so if he wants to fill it with nonsense I suppose he is partly entitled. I would like to see it moved to the Cesspit, or whatever the discard forum is called here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman deep'n'dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    54
    Actually that book said that Einstein said: "if there only would be black holes somewhere"
    That part when i said light shield was just that called humour. You know you said you're smart - why can't you understand then when someone uses little joke or maybe your sense of humour is science-based. You might be right about that i don't speak perfect language, but i'm doing fine - try you to speak Estonian or Finnish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by deep'n'dark
    Actually that book said that Einstein said: "if there only would be black holes somewhere"
    Then you have been misled by poor editing in that part of your book.
    Quote Originally Posted by deep'n'dark
    That part when i said light shield was just that called humour. You know you said you're smart - why can't you understand then when someone uses little joke or maybe your sense of humour is science-based.
    You may call it humour, but I didn't think it was amusing - on any level. Perhaps you could put a small Emoticon in place in future to let us know when it is time for us to laugh.
    Quote Originally Posted by deep'n'dark
    You might be right about that i don't speak perfect language, but i'm doing fine - try you to speak Estonian or Finnish.
    I was being sympathetic towards the fact that you are writing in a foreign language. I have already been run off another forum for suggesting posters should be tolerant of those whose native language is not English. I have tried Finnish. I certainly learnt enough to order olut, but that was decades ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman deep'n'dark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    54
    ok - fine. enough of this disagreement anyway. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Agreed. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    74
    I don't think it will increase much more.. the new iceage will put the brakes on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman kestasjk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Those who deny global warming, or its potential impact on the biosphere in general and humanity in particular are endagering my grandchildren and the entire human race. This angers me to the point where I would not be able to engage with you in a reasoned manner, so I decline to even try. Please accept my apologies for that.
    I shall, however, be glad to continue discussing your dumb ass idea that the solar system is warming up. :wink:
    Quote Originally Posted by steve
    Actually, the MAx Planck Inst. in Darmstadt last year published a study which showed that solar activity was at its maximum for the last 8000 years, esp. increasing in the last 70-80 years.

    Further this increase in sunspot activity, associated with an increase in C-14 measured by the MPI, also correllated with the end of the Maunder Sunspot minimum, which correllated VERY well with the Little Ice Age of the 1350-1700 epoch. This was clearly over by about 1850, since the earth has warmed about 0.5 C since about 1850.

    [...]

    Nor can anyone explain why the sun spot cycles correllate reasonably well with earth warming and cooling. Nor why the sun has such a long term cycle. Nor why we are currently in an Ice Age interglacial, in the midst of an Ice Age. These questions are rather puzzling. And they are not answered by any global warming models I've seen, either.
    Thanks for the interesting post steve.. since my last post in this thread all the stuff I've read on global warming since, and talking to a geologist and oil mining expert (yes, yes, I know, but she isn't the sort to lie to protect her conscience), have all indicated to me that no-one can really say whether or not humans are to blame for global warming.. Even though people like Ophiolite may call people names and act like they have all the answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kestasjk
    Thanks for the interesting post steve.. since my last post in this thread all the stuff I've read on global warming since, and talking to a geologist and oil mining expert (yes, yes, I know, but she isn't the sort to lie to protect her conscience), have all indicated to me that no-one can really say whether or not humans are to blame for global warming.. Even though people like Ophiolite may call people names and act like they have all the answers.
    1. That's the first time I have heard it called oil mining. Is your friend involved with oil shales?
    2. You may choose to consider the views of your friend, who is not I suspect even an amateur climatologist. I shall continue to heed the UN committe on climate change.
    3. Please indicate, in relation to this thread, where I have called people names.
    4. I act as if the experts have gathered sufficient data, analysed it rigorously enough and concluded that we have a serious problem which can be lessened by specific actions relating to the generation of greenhouse gases. I decidedly do not have all the answers and if you have taken that out of my posts on global warming you are misreading them.
    I politely pointed out that this was a topic I did not wish to debate, because of the seriousness of it. I provided you with a reference to the most authoritative work on the issue. Have you studied that? Your position strongly suggests not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman kestasjk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by kestasjk
    Thanks for the interesting post steve.. since my last post in this thread all the stuff I've read on global warming since, and talking to a geologist and oil mining expert (yes, yes, I know, but she isn't the sort to lie to protect her conscience), have all indicated to me that no-one can really say whether or not humans are to blame for global warming.. Even though people like Ophiolite may call people names and act like they have all the answers.
    1. That's the first time I have heard it called oil mining. Is your friend involved with oil shales?
    I'm not sure, I'll ask her next time I have the chance. All I know is she's in the industry and seemed to know her stuff.

    3. Please indicate, in relation to this thread, where I have called people names.
    You said "I shall, however, be glad to continue discussing your dumb ass idea that the solar system is warming up. :wink:" I suppose it only implies you think I'm a dumbass (even though the idea isn't mine).. And hey I'm sure I am, I just don't care to be told it and get talked down to like that.

    4. I act as if the experts have gathered sufficient data, analysed it rigorously enough and concluded that we have a serious problem which can be lessened by specific actions relating to the generation of greenhouse gases. I decidedly do not have all the answers and if you have taken that out of my posts on global warming you are misreading them.
    I politely pointed out that this was a topic I did not wish to debate, because of the seriousness of it. I provided you with a reference to the most authoritative work on the issue. Have you studied that? Your position strongly suggests not.
    Checking back to the IPCC site now I noticed a summary doc which I didn't before, which was much more readable for someone like me than the one which I tried to wade through last time. It also gave me the impression that we're not really sure what's going on, eg

    The majority of the climate changing forces there have a 'Very low' level of scientific understanding, which is all I was saying earlier. If the paper steve described is right maybe solar activity is increasing more than people think (it is at the lowest end of the scientific understanding spectrum according to that graph), I think it's safe to say it has at least increased fairly significantly relative to 1750, if it's coming from the IPCC. Not "insignificant over the timescales we're talking about", as you said earlier. Perhaps it isn't such a "dumbass idea" after all?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kestasjk
    3. Please indicate, in relation to this thread, where I have called people names.
    You said "I shall, however, be glad to continue discussing your dumb ass idea that the solar system is warming up. :wink:" I suppose it only implies you think I'm a dumbass (even though the idea isn't mine).. And hey I'm sure I am, I just don't care to be told it and get talked down to like that.
    Well, I supose I must apologise for lack of clarity.
    First I did not call you a dumbass. I very specifically called your idea a dumbass idea. If I fail to have fewer than five dumbass ideas in a day I consider I have been slacking. It is only by considering 'dumbass ideas' that we can pick out the occasional gem amongst the dross.
    Secondly, the use of the :wink: symbol was very definitely used to show that my characterisation of your idea as 'dumbass' was lighthearted and not intended in any way as a put down. May I suggest that you are being overly sensitive - you have taken considerably more out of my words than I put there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    From what I've seen I agree with Ophiolite's position that humans have contributed significantly to global warming. And especially to the break up of the ice shelves of Antartica which are no doubt accelerated by the presence of the ozone hole there, which would not be anywhere near as massive if not for the destructive power of the chlorine radicals produced by the man made and very stable CFCs. Our contribution will only get worse as India and China (which account for about 40% of the world's population) become more mobile and in need for energy every day. Plant as many trees and plants as you can everyone, and please stop smoking.

    Also, I think that the jury may still be out (for scientific consensus (either way)) as to the extent of human contribution to global warming is still out, though I'm not sure why. Though it is a fact that global warming is occuring, especially in the polar regions.

    Ophiolite, I was wondering if you had heard of this phenomenon:


    http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bull...t=479&start=15

    That link goes to a thread on another forum that and it talks about this threat of methane hydrates coming to the surface in giant bubbles and quickly warming the earth (methane being 20 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2) setting off a series of catastrophic events that led to the mass extinction and may be threatening us today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Yes, silkworm, I have run across these hydrates before. I do not know enough [I'm not sure anyone does] to know how much of a threat they constitute, but it could be massive (or inconsequential). I always feel that risks that have devastating potential consequences, even if these risks are low, need to be treated very seriously.
    On the plus side if we could figure out a way of extracting this resource, we have a hydrocarbon source that is at least an order of magnitude greater than all the oil and gas on the planet. That would defer 'peak oil' for a couple of centuries, giving us a chance to enjoy our new beach front property.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    "Ophiolite"

    On the plus side if we could figure out a way of extracting this resource, we have a hydrocarbon source that is at least an order of magnitude greater than all the oil and gas on the planet.
    Agreed, however wouldn't you think that logistics issues up there would be beyond your worst nightmare?

    Why did you change your picture and what is that a picture of? I'm having trouble making it out for some reason. It looks like a metal ball with spikes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    Agreed, however wouldn't you think that logistics issues up there would be beyond your worst nightmare?
    They would be challenging, certainly, but manageable. You have to think in terms of what we presently spend on oil exploration and production. An offshore drilling rig can easily cost $150,000/day to run, so the cost of developing hydrates can reflect this kind of level.
    The difficulty is developing the technology to extract it, but that simply requires some dedicated and well financed research. I envisage some sort of sub sea moving assembly that extracts the gas then passes it via flexible piping to a mobile storage vessel, from which tankers periodically offload.
    Now, if I knew what kind of sub-sea extraction device we could use I wouldn't be sitting here passing time on a forum, but be planning on how to spend my first ten billion.

    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    Why did you change your picture and what is that a picture of?
    I changed the picture just for a change. I'll change this one in a month or so - maybe to the castle that abuts my property, or the stone circle about half a kilometre away.
    The current picture is one cone of a three cone drill bit. The 'spikes' are tungsten carbide teeth pressed into the steel cone. It is 8 1/2" in diameter, drilled around 800' and sold for about $16,000.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    I just saw this today, I'm not sure of its validity or its methods but Nature is interested in it, so here it is.

    Pollution May Slow Warming; Cleaner Air May Speed It, Study Sayshttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/sc...syahoo&emc=rss

    Writing in the journal Nature, an international scientific team provides evidence suggesting that a reduction in haze from human causes may accelerate warming of the earth's atmosphere. The researchers said pollutants had held down the rate of global warming by absorbing and scattering sunlight.
    The scientists, who work for government agencies in Britain and the United States, made the finding after adding satellite-based measurements of haze to computer models estimating the consequences of industrial emissions of aerosols, or airborne particles.
    Haze scatters and absorbs some sunlight, keeping it from reaching the ground, and this cooling effect is stronger than many scientists had believed, the study says. The cooling offsets about one-third of the warming from the use of fossil fuels and other manmade causes, the study says.
    The new estimate of the cooling effect of haze is at the high end of ranges cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a study group created by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization.
    But Dr. Coakley noted that the science was still complicated and that other factors remained to be measured, including the cooling effect of sunlight reflections from water droplets associated with haze, as distinct from the haze itself. Reducing haze would eliminate the droplets and remove yet another source of cooling, he said.
    Global temperatures are already about seven-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit higher than they were in the 1880's, Dr. Coakley said, and expected further warming may mean that within decades, summers will be about a month longer than they are now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Test post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    I found this graph (from http://www.scotese.com) and found it of interest in this discussion. Where we are now is at the top. It appears that the temperature is in a trend of rising, however it's from the base.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman cs-comm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    42
    [quote="silkworm"]I just saw this today, I'm not sure of its validity or its methods but Nature is interested in it, so here it is.

    Pollution May Slow Warming; Cleaner Air May Speed It, Study Sayshttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/sc...syahoo&emc=rss

    The scientists, who work for government agencies in Britain and the United States, made the finding after adding satellite-based measurements of haze to computer models* estimating the consequences of industrial emissions of aerosols, or airborne particles.
    *emphasis added

    Computer models of the climate havn't been know to be very accurate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman kestasjk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    74
    A friend of a friend works on the supercomputers which predict the climate and apparently they are fairly accurate. See the IPCC summary to see a supercomputer's estimates match up to recorded temperatures in the past fairly accurately.

    But that timescale graph is pretty interesting, I've seen it before. It doesn't seem unreasonable that we may be due for a natural climate shift.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    "cs-comm"
    Computer models of the climate havn't been know to be very accurate.
    Have they been known to be innaccurate? I've been looking for things on these computer models. I know very little about them, and want to know everything. Any ideas?

    "kestasjk"
    A friend of a friend works on the supercomputers which predict the climate and apparently they are fairly accurate. See the IPCC summary to see a supercomputer's estimates match up to recorded temperatures in the past fairly accurately.
    Same question. Do you have any ideas where I can get more information on these climate modeling computers? What is the IPCC?

    It doesn't seem unreasonable that we may be due for a natural climate shift
    Yeah, either way it appears we're definitely getting warmer, and I have no idea what that means with the continents in their modern shape.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman cs-comm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    42
    The fact that it is a computer model means that it is at best an approxamation of the real world. Some computer models have been accurate in the short term but the rest aren't. Just ask your local weather man.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •