Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 173 of 173

Thread: Global Warming Discussion

  1. #101  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    magabrian; that site may be the best composite, Ive seen. can you see this being part of grades k-12, curriculum. of the thousand or so previous discussions ive had, nearly are the opposing views were induced by, "what i was told in school".

    now, you are correct, it would seem we should do something about our role. my guess and stated opinion, is nothing much can be done, by us and that good old nature will take care of it. if we plant to many trees, they will in time cause the same problems, people are trying to fix. if we don't produce any co2, the inorganic life will suffer.

    its not wrong to conserve. frankly, i hate to shower, but if i go a month or two people get upset; they were taught to shower daily and wash hands every time they can. i don't care much for water and couldn't tell you the last glass of, ive had. but people are told to drink eight glasses per day and don't count all the other liquids you consume, made from water. generally i flush the toilet when im tired of the smell, but people are told to flush after every use and twice if that last little whatever doesn't go down. i could go on...and this is all taught in schools, around the world.

    now; if this planet and all the people on it, have a pending problem that will need addressing, its fresh water. if all the problems of mankind were on a 1 to 10 scale and 10's the end, water is at 7 or 8. this is not taught in school, never seen in the media and certainly not addressed in politics. you can get a glimpse of it, on the weather channel during a drought, but they don't explain the amount of water needed to produce one stalk of corn or one bean plant or to maintain one chicken.

    what we, in the industrialized nations, our way of life, our freedom and the ease we have in getting what is needed to maintain a very good living standard, is not wrong either. we should and do encourage all nations to adopt some of this capitalistic type economy to enhance their standards of living. this will increase our role in nature, but should not be stopped for that. the country, most refer to as the integral cause for GW, is the US and that nation, has created a large percentage of goods, services and food for most of the world for 100+ years. that nation, my nation, should not be blamed for what its given the world nor should the young be taught the people of that nation are greedy, or its industry or the system are in some manner responsible for ending something they cannot conceivably cause.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Guest
    There is a hell of a lot people can do to reduce their own consumption of electrical and fossil fuel energy. On the subject of water there is the same amount on the planet now as there has ever been, the problem with fresh water is that industry takes more and more of it. It is stupid not to flush the toilet or use less water to flush it, it takes a certain amount of water to wash the waste through the sewer, without this they would clog up very quickly. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    There is a hell of a lot people can do to reduce their own consumption of electrical and fossil fuel energy. On the subject of water there is the same amount on the planet now as there has ever been, the problem with fresh water is that industry takes more and more of it. It is stupid not to flush the toilet or use less water to flush it, it takes a certain amount of water to wash the waste through the sewer, without this they would clog up very quickly. 8)
    no, less fresh water, but not going there now. you missed my entire point, but maybe the others picked up on it. billards and M.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Guest
    Yeah I know what you mean, I just think freshwater is at a low through industrial use.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Jackson, it can be hard to grasp your point when you type as much waffle as you do. Having said that there was a distinct "don't blame America" vibe to it. I'm guessing that's where you're coming from?
    Perhaps it would help America's defence if they weren't the worlds single biggest polluters, pumping out 25% of the world's annual carbon emmissions. Furthermore the attitude of the Bush administration seems highly ignorant (queue.. anti Al Gore speach) to the risks of global warming. Note I used the word risks, I have conceeded in earlier posts that we don't fully understand global warming - perhaps all these positive feedback mechanisms that have been postulated (, the things that scientists claim will cause a runaway greenhouse effect) all have countering mechanisms that have not yet been discovered, and nature will heal itself.
    I think that we would have to be crazy to expect nature to heal itself on a whim; it is much more sensible to realize the risks (potentially disastrous on an unforeseen scale) and act, it is up to the biggest polluters to stop polluting, that is the industrialized nations must find cleaner ways of conducting their business. Bush needs to recognize this, it is his responsibility as the leader of the world's biggest polluter, he could at least agree to meet international guidelines.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    pumping out 25% of the world's annual carbon emmissions
    Could you just make it clear you are actually talking about man-made CO2 and not CO2 in general.

    Ta!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    billards; really don't understand you opposition to Bush's, reaction to the Twin Tower, act of war, or his worry of nuclear threats from lunatics. since you mention war, i might suggest all the stuff that was thrown into the air,
    by all nations in the early 1940's, did influence quality. this, nature took care of in short order depending on which assessment you embrace.

    you are correct, the real problem facing mankind, is likely to come from elsewhere or from a natural action of nature on earth. i might suggest in the life of earth, environmental and climatic conditions for life as we know it, to exist, is relatively short. you know i do not think we can do anything to help or destroy the planet and feel nature, if had intelligence, would not be aware of our presence. with this in mind, nature will cure the problems,
    but its intent, will not be to preserve mankind. it may change us to adapt, or we may die out and become one of the 99% of all species that have.

    we are adding a very small percentage of co2, to the levels of the atmosphere, some say 2 to 6%. at many times in earths history the total were much higher, but the current content of atmosphere today (77% nitrogen and 21% oxygen) has been near constant for a good while, certainly the past 300 years..w or w/o industry.

    yes, the US does add more than its share, but some is due in the production of food and goods, that go to people around the world. this figure will always be higher, since we are blessed with natural resources
    beyond most nations, have the technology and industrial might to do so and this also gives the US a standard of living 4 to 400 times, others. i would never apologize for this.

    if you are maintaining an open mind on GW, the issue, my hat is tipped.
    you can read all thats written by people who should know, and nothing i could say should, much less could, change your mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Yeah I know what you mean, I just think freshwater is at a low through industrial use.
    of 100% of water; 97.5 is salt, 2.5% fresh and 70% of that ice. .007 is ready accessible, in lakes, rivers and under ground reserves.

    renewable rates range from highs in So. America to No. America and down to most Asia and all Africa. 6-700 per capita, down to near zero in Africa.

    if agriculture, is included in Industry, then yes, it requires about 40% of all reserves and agriculture depends on renewed sources where industry re-uses, the same water. even society re-uses, water to a large degree.

    the ice, could be used and there are plans to, if required. also salt water can be purified to fresh and is so done in Israel, Saudi Arabia and many countries in that area, that can afford it.

    the amounts of fresh water have gone down, from 4 or so percent 2000 years ago to 2.5% today and population increase is given credit. the ice/accessible factor is unknown, but some suggest ice melts into salt water as 70% rainfall (water surface 70% of earth), and could be more a nature event, than mans faults.

    no point here, confirmations can be found on many search results, (water- available).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    billards; really don't understand you opposition to Bush's, reaction to the Twin Tower, act of war, or his worry of nuclear threats from lunatics. since you mention war, i might suggest all the stuff that was thrown into the air,
    by all nations in the early 1940's, did influence quality. this, nature took care of in short order depending on which assessment you embrace.

    you are correct, the real problem facing mankind, is likely to come from elsewhere or from a natural action of nature on earth. i might suggest in the life of earth, environmental and climatic conditions for life as we know it, to exist, is relatively short. you know i do not think we can do anything to help or destroy the planet and feel nature, if had intelligence, would not be aware of our presence. with this in mind, nature will cure the problems,
    but its intent, will not be to preserve mankind. it may change us to adapt, or we may die out and become one of the 99% of all species that have.

    we are adding a very small percentage of co2, to the levels of the atmosphere, some say 2 to 6%. at many times in earths history the total were much higher, but the current content of atmosphere today (77% nitrogen and 21% oxygen) has been near constant for a good while, certainly the past 300 years..w or w/o industry.

    yes, the US does add more than its share, but some is due in the production of food and goods, that go to people around the world. this figure will always be higher, since we are blessed with natural resources
    beyond most nations, have the technology and industrial might to do so and this also gives the US a standard of living 4 to 400 times, others. i would never apologize for this.

    if you are maintaining an open mind on GW, the issue, my hat is tipped.
    you can read all thats written by people who should know, and nothing i could say should, much less could, change your mind.
    I barely understood a sentence of that because your grasp of the written English language is so poor. Where did I mention war?
    Oh and did you know that the US imports a lot more than it exports and that is especially the case with oil.
    Megabrain, I acknowledge that I could have made a clearer distinction between the human and the natural CO2 emissions. I realize that 3% (i.e. the estimated total human contribution) may not seem like a lot, but it is not the level of CO2 as such that is the problem, more what that 3% means in terms of the repurcussions to life on earth.
    If you (as Jackson appears to be) are happy with the threat of a mass extinction then fine, nothing will change your mind, I just hope that you die a pleasant death before the shit hits the fan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Guest
    Billiards:
    Hold on a minute, as I said earlier whether or not we are making a difference I don't think we should run the risk.

    I like to take a balanced look at this, there is compelling evidence on both sides, and I don't mean guff poured out by the US government or industry or greenpeace. We are approaching the peak of a 'solar heat cycle' which will melt a lot more Ice. My remark on the CO2 was merely to point out that the US contributes less than 1% total earth CO2 generation, I think it unfare that statements are made without clarification, indeed such statements can and I suspect do, harm the cause.

    I would certainly not dispute all the other crap we are pumping into the atmosphere (CFC's, mercury, lead, arsenic,cyanide and all the others).

    So I'm not convinced either way, I don't think we should 'push it' and I prefer to examine the raw data and not listen to either of two very biased camps, by which I do not mean ordinary folk like you and J33.

    If I were to take a guess at the future, I reckon that both ice caps will melt, a higher temperature will produce more sea evaporation, clouds, and precipitation to a point where the sun is seen much less, this I believe will lead to a cooling and then an Ice age again. There is evidence for this in the temperature record of the last 800,000 years, where several times the deserts have 'bloomed'

    MB.



    In the following link I looked at the Data and not the text. THe data is consitent with what I have seen elsewhere.

    http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html

    UK MET OFFICE Temperature Figures 1850-2006 and other charts.
    http://www.met-office.gov.uk/researc...mperature.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    billards;

    you mentioned "Americas Defense" and i assumed your connection to war on terror. if your problem was other, i have no idea what that could be.

    the US ships raw material and imports many goods made from those material. export value is very little to the cost of import value. we actually receive most of our oil from domestic fields, Mexico and Canada, known as sweet crude. thick oil is only refined by Valero and this comes from Saudi Arabia. US firms do buy a good deal of thick crude, refine it elsewhere and ship around the world including the US. the balance seems to lean toward import, but not near what you might think.

    the US import and export of investments, is 25 to 1 into the US. the exact figure i think is in trillions per years and far exceeds product. nations and individuals from every place on earth, seem to prefer the stability of the economic systems of this country. even high taxes, in some cases double taxes, doesn't slow this process.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    If I were to take a guess at the future, I reckon that both ice caps will melt, a higher temperature will produce more sea evaporation, clouds, and precipitation to a point where the sun is seen much less, this I believe will lead to a cooling and then an Ice age again. There is evidence for this in the temperature record of the last 800,000 years, where several times the deserts have 'bloomed'
    Tis a fascinating topic. Stratification of the ocean is very important. You see, if the earth heats up enough the current known mechanisms for deep water formation will shut down; this will make the ocean more stable as its upper surface warms. The heat will be concentrated in the upper ocean, this water cannot sink because it is naturally buoyant so it will presumably continue to heat up. This of course will mean that the air will also hotter as the air is heated by conduction at the ocean surface.

    Presumably there will be more clouds. However your ascertation that this will act to cool the earth to a new ice age may be flawed. This is because at high latitutudes the clouds will have a heating effect, they absord and re-emit long wave radiation back down to earth where the solar influx is very low anyway i.e. the poles.

    I must say that my position has shifted somewhat since my last post. From what I've learned since then it seems that it is not normal for the earth to have bipolar glaciation, this state that we currently observe might naturally be unstable. This has much to do with ocean circulation and the position of continents and mountain belts (I don't claim to have even a feeble understanding of how it all works); of course this complicates our understanding in relation to past climates where these things were somewhat different.

    There is no point in me trying to conclude this post because I can offer little more than a futile opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Guest
    Well on summer days when it's cloudy it's also cool, here in the UK in mid summer a run of cloudy days will drop the temp to as low as 17 degs or so whereas a run of 5 sunny days will usually take it into the high 20's

    I think if the earth clouded over then the white clouds would reflect more heat back to space. We seem to look at venus as the model but it's closer to the sun, may be geologically active producing CO2 from volcanoes, no plants or tectonics to remove it so I'm not convinced Venus has 'global warmed'.


    As for your opinion - it counts, a lot of what I say might be all bollocks where earth science is concerned, and let's face it, there's more crap in (modern) science than in a water treatment works!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Well on summer days when it's cloudy it's also cool, here in the UK in mid summer a run of cloudy days will drop the temp to as low as 17 degs or so whereas a run of 5 sunny days will usually take it into the high 20's

    I think if the earth clouded over then the white clouds would reflect more heat back to space. We seem to look at venus as the model but it's closer to the sun, may be geologically active producing CO2 from volcanoes, no plants or tectonics to remove it so I'm not convinced Venus has 'global warmed'.


    As for your opinion - it counts, a lot of what I say might be all bollocks where earth science is concerned, and let's face it, there's more crap in (modern) science than in a water treatment works!

    Looking at the facts.

    Incoming solar radiation contributes an average energy of 342 W/m^2 across the globe. The outgoing geothermal radiation is about 60 W/m^2 at all latitudes.

    Clouds will act to reflect some of the solar radiation away (as do ice sheets and other high albedo surfaces), they will also acts to "trap" (I don't like using that word in this context) energy from the earth and re-emit back down to us. Effectively I think you're right, if the Earth were covered with clouds, we'd lose out on the solar energy which is our greatest source of energy. Because advection plays a great part in heat transfer the Earth would cool down, even at the poles.

    But it is complicated by the fact that in the winter months there is 0 solar influx at the poles, here clouds will have a warming effect, although in the summer the polar oceans receive about 120 W/m^2 from the sun so the clouds would then have a cooling effect. So yeah I think that would be out weighed...

    So perhaps you're right??? :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Guest
    I can see you have thought about it and either calculated the 342 watt figure or looked it up, incidentally the radiation at the equator is around 1400watts/m^2 when the sun is overhead, this figure is based on the earth's disk pi x r^2 if you use 4pi x r^2 then 350watts is about right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Hello!

    I will add an interesting thought to your survey. Many folks quite quickly link global warming to emissions.
    What as global warming was caused only by the heat produced with almost every process running and
    not emissions.

    Every city, every car, every ship, every heating, every electronic device, what else, emits lots and lots
    and lots of heat.

    This heat has to go somewhere, respectively, was set free additionally to natural things like volcano
    eruptions and so forth.

    Interesting aspect
    I think.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Hello!

    I will add an interesting thought to your survey. Many folks quite quickly link global warming to emissions.
    What as global warming was caused only by the heat produced with almost every process running and
    not emissions.

    Every city, every car, every ship, every heating, every electronic device, what else, emits lots and lots
    and lots of heat.

    This heat has to go somewhere, respectively, was set free additionally to natural things like volcano
    eruptions and so forth.

    Interesting aspect
    I think.

    Steve
    all those you suggest create energy or heat, do just that. however so does the sun and the planet itself. by comparison all we contribute to the total heat may increase the over all earths temperatures .5 degree at any given time. natural forces likewise disperse heat. a good rain will take out most all mankind's efforts in seconds.

    weather patterns however can be effected by heat. El Neno, of course is well know, but a city which absorbs great amounts of solar heat into its concrete structure (many thousand times what the residents do) will and often creates weather patterns down wind from it. the same is shown in thunderstorm patterns when the sun or heat of the day precedes the actual storms. they tend to be more violent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    I don't think like that. Rain my clean so something but not let disappear trillions of devices beaming heat
    for centuries.

    The ozone hole and global warming could be separate subjects of concern. Thanks for your reply anyway.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Hello!

    I will add an interesting thought to your survey. Many folks quite quickly link global warming to emissions.
    What as global warming was caused only by the heat produced with almost every process running and
    not emissions.

    Every city, every car, every ship, every heating, every electronic device, what else, emits lots and lots
    and lots of heat.

    This heat has to go somewhere, respectively, was set free additionally to natural things like volcano
    eruptions and so forth.

    Interesting aspect
    I think.

    Steve
    Im not sure how the heat from home heating and electronic devices compare to the regular hundred square miles of forest firestorms :wink: , perpetual geothermal vents at the bottom of the sea and occasional tons of magma flying off in volcanic eruptions, but your raise a valid point. The question is what proportion of the Global warming is caused by the human activity in itself in relation to the heat from the 'Sun' being trapped in.

    And the other issue is that even if its as high as 50/50, theres something that can be and ought to be done about GHG, if we affect the earth's temperature in other ways we might consider reducing GHG even more to compensate.

    It should be studied but until someone (not funded by Oil industry) does we should act on the massive research on GHG that already exist.

    natural forces likewise disperse heat.
    Dispersed but not negated or evacuated, locally you feel better but that heat is spread around, in a global perspective the heat is still present. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    yes, the US does add more than its share, but some is due in the production of food and goods.
    Its not simply due to production, it has a lot to do with wasteful gas guzzleing Oil and Coal industry controled energy policies in which they have a vested interest in making sure alternatives are postponed, demonized, hampered and suppresed.

    goods, that go to people around the world.
    How touching.

    I realize theres a big trade deficit, but What's the main US export?
    Hum, let me think about it (whips out cigarette, acounting cap and paper roll calculator ala The Mask ).

    You have your billions in Saudi Oil funded military exports, your multi-billion weapon and military equipment tax paid gifts to Israel, guns and chemical weapons to saddam in the 80s, a little to Iran, more weapons to dictators here and there, a little to terrorist groups here and there, contras(freedom 'fighters'), Osama Bin Ladden, (paper rolling of the calculator),

    ... some more weapons to Indonesia to support their genocide in East Timor where scores of men, women and children were massacred with the US's two thumbs up,

    now lets factor in tax payer subsidized weapons exports to civil wars and marauding militias in Africa euphamistically labeled as 'international Aid' (so people in the US can shed a tear at the goodness of the US without knowing what the money figures they're throwing around are actually used for).

    Ok now lets add to this the millions of bombs dropped in Vietnam (ha, the sweet smell of napalm charred human skin) and Iraq, the bombs and ammo shelled on Panama in the euphamistic "Operation Just Cause" (another Orwellian Gem, they should hand out awards), you get the idea...

    Alright, now lets compare this grand total to the US's abysmal commercial trade deficit, and let me think about the goods, that go to people around the world.

    this figure will always be higher, since we are blessed with natural resources
    beyond most nations, have the technology and industrial might to do so and this also gives the US a standard of living 4 to 400 times, others. i would never apologize for this.
    As mentioned you import a lot of energy, thats because the Oil corporations profit from selling you the Oil you dont have while the Industrial Military complex profits from Robing you blind of the Money you dont have (National Debt) to secure that Oil, and both Oil and Military Complex run your country (was Heisenhower's warnings in vain?).

    The Standard of living is indeed much higher than the third world nations you pillage through corporate collonialism, considering nations with pro-US-Corporate puppet regime with a Vast and abundand wealth of natural ressources live in near starvation while the massive wealth and resources are plundered away for slave pitance and a mere puppet dictatator's bribe. However, I would point out that the US standard of living (and quality of life) isnt that great compared to other industrialized nations, infant mortality, health care coverage, crime, education, are put to shame. :?

    The reasons for this are purely political, its got nothing to do with production or natural ressouces(which japan lacks), its just that the overwelming 'many' pay with cuts in services for the luxury of the opulent few who control the media and so what people think as well as which politician has the advantage (the ones that do their bidding). :wink:

    But I cant and wont blame you for dismissing all this with a laugh :? , while speaking of the US government(as opposed to the good intentioned Americans) quotes from the Nazi Propaganda minister would be fitting :wink:

    If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State -Goethe


    There is no one so hopelessly enslaved as he who falsely believes he is free -Goethe

    (sorry for US viewers, take it with a grain of salt if possible. Meanwhile 'brace for impact', 'get damage control crews ready', 'send out the destress beacon', 'incoming')

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Hello!

    I will add an interesting thought to your survey. Many folks quite quickly link global warming to emissions.
    What as global warming was caused only by the heat produced with almost every process running and
    not emissions.

    Every city, every car, every ship, every heating, every electronic device, what else, emits lots and lots
    and lots of heat.

    This heat has to go somewhere, respectively, was set free additionally to natural things like volcano
    eruptions and so forth.

    Interesting aspect
    I think.

    Steve
    Im not sure how the heat from home heating and electronic devices compare to the regular hundred square miles of forest firestorms :wink: , perpetual geothermal vents at the bottom of the sea and occasional tons of magma flying off in volcanic eruptions, but your raise a valid point. The question is what proportion of the Global warming is caused by the human activity in itself in relation to the heat from the 'Sun' being trapped in.

    And the other issue is that even if its as high as 50/50, theres something that can be and ought to be done about GHG, if we affect the earth's temperature in other ways we might consider reducing GHG even more to compensate.

    It should be studied but until someone (not funded by Oil industry) does we should act on the massive research on GHG that already exist.

    natural forces likewise disperse heat.
    Dispersed but not negated or evacuated, locally you feel better but that heat is spread around, in a global perspective the heat is still present. :wink:
    Hello!

    I see how you're out. It will not functioning. Earth nature was, for today's standard of knowledge, not known
    as for how far the cultural development is going along.

    The energy set free by any device was simply additional heat and does not remain in its energetic
    structure. This fact only, times 6.? bill folks on earth was nearly predestined being responsible for global
    warming.

    Ahoy,
    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    I see how you're out. It will not functioning. Earth nature was,
    I dont know if you are familiar with Star Control 2, but the Orz comes to mind.

    "enjoy the sauce" :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Guest
    Welcome to 2007! The soon to be warmest year on record!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    I know people to the south might not yet see anything odd about the weather where they live, but up here theres no snow in January, this is freak show unusual and unprecedented. Its the first year street cleaning vehicles (to remove dust) are used in january instead of snow plows. Last year (2006) was the first year in Canada where people in northern canada (Inuit) expressed the desire to buy air conditioning for summer months, and some houses built on permafrost are starting to tilt and crumble because the soil is no longer as frozen as it has always been in countless generations. Changes predicted to prehaps happen maybe sometime in the distant future are happening right now in the north.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Welcome to 2007! The soon to be warmest year on record!
    well lets pick this apart....

    what kind of records are you referring to. tree cores which give growing conditions going back 1000 plus years. Maybe ice cores from the glaciers them selfs going back many thousands of years or the sediment cores from the oceans. you couldn't be talking about weather records from man, which at best are 150 years old.

    the planet started out very hot, went to very cold, took about 4.3 billion years, then got hot again and then cold and so on. each time the extremes have declined.

    a thousand years or so ago, Greenland was indeed Green and grapes were grown in England, every year. neither true today, because its to cold.

    do you really want to hear it all again....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    I know people to the south might not yet see anything odd about the weather where they live, but up here theres no snow in January, this is freak show unusual and unprecedented. Its the first year street cleaning vehicles (to remove dust) are used in january instead of snow plows. Last year (2006) was the first year in Canada where people in northern canada (Inuit) expressed the desire to buy air conditioning for summer months, and some houses built on permafrost are starting to tilt and crumble because the soil is no longer as frozen as it has always been in countless generations. Changes predicted to prehaps happen maybe sometime in the distant future are happening right now in the north.
    its the people in the south that should feel it first. the big argument is the planet is heating up. think its said 2 degree per century is expected. mankind cannot have this. well in Phoenix their average summer high is 103. according to environmentalist in your area, people will die off from heat at plus 2 or four whatever the average is. make sense.

    water levels, ice levels, atmospheric conditions and many of nature qualities have changed in the past and its unreasonable to think they won't again. maybe NYC will need to build a levy, the island probably was 20 or 30 foot under water a thousand years ago.

    my only point is people with all their good intend are blaming things are not and should not be the problem. Mt. Saint Helen's, blew its top and played havoc on weather condition about the same time this warming trend began, so lets blame that event. after all a little asteroid hit in the Gulf of Mexico, 65 myo and we blamed that for entire species of animal
    and plant life extinctions. all the credit you can give mankind will never amount to beans with all the mass and energy of the earth & sun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127 to Quote 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    To Quote Sacha Baron Cohen....

    "With global warming going the way it is, in 50 years time Britain could get as hot as Ibiza......................................Lets make it happen!"
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Guest
    I live about 120ft above sea level - If Megabrain won't go to the beach, let the beach come to Megabrain!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129 Re: to Quote 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    To Quote Sacha Baron Cohen....

    "With global warming going the way it is, in 50 years time Britain could get as hot as Ibiza......................................Lets make it happen!"
    if we do continue to warm at the rates we have over the past 100 years your average daytime temperatures will be about +1.5 degrees in 50 years from todays temp.

    grapes were harvested in England every year about 1000 years ago, dropped to rarely ever for much of the past 200 years and have got back to 2 in 10 currently. may be in 50 years you will harvest 5 in 10.

    i am not sure what Ibiza is, but in California they harvest grapes every year already and enjoy some very nice weather.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Anyone interested in why there's still even a debate about Global Warming when 99.99% of scientists around the world agree about Global Warming should see this report

    http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

    (once there, click on the tiny red camera on the right)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    I don't know if it can be directly linked to climate change, but we're having some of the wierdest weather here I've ever seen. The weather is alternating between deep cold and record high temps. We're also getting hammered with repeated devastating windstorms. Vancouvers' Stanley Park has had a significant portion of it's old-growth trees blown down in two sucessive windstorms and mass power-outs are becoming common here in B.C. in the last two months. Along with record high temperatures, we're also getting record precipitation.

    With more energy in the system, weather is becoming more erratic. Chaos theory I guess, there's more variables to affect local conditions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Last summer we experienced a windstorm with by far the most violent winds I've even seen in my region.


    Have you seen the "The Denial Machine"

    http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

    on the fifth estate?

    In a nutshell, while virtually all scientists around the world recognize global warming, the Oil and Coal corporations fund the same pay-per-view scientists that the Tobacco lobby had paid to say theres no link between Cancer and cigarettes. And their effort to confuse the public has got nothing to do with climat science but everything to do with orwellian propaganda, even studying test audiences like guinee pigs to select the exact language and words that are most effective at making lay people doubt the science and buy the industry fabricated BS. Its not "Global Warming" its "climat change"(sounds more gradual, natural, and less of a catastofuck)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Well if the recent weather here is any indication, it's going to get harder and harder for the fossil fuel industry to deny Global Warming or say that it's a good thing. Just in the same way it eventually became apparent how damaging tobacco use is for people I guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    Well if the recent weather here is any indication, it's going to get harder and harder for the fossil fuel industry to deny Global Warming or say that it's a good thing. Just in the same way it eventually became apparent how damaging tobacco use is for people I guess.
    Record cold today for the folks living in in the mid and eastern Canadian Prairies. That proves...?... nothing about global warming one way or the other. Cherry picking one's local 'weather' is a statement on the quality of some so-called 'proof' of global warming and climate change.

    Our local temperatures have risen just about one degree celsius over that last 4 decades. If I went outside right now I couldn't tell you if it's minus 7c or minus 8c. Much of the anecdotal global warming 'proof' is local hysteria over non-events. Real evidence of global warming isn't because 'Grandma said' or similar non-scientific hooplah. Of course Grandma is going to remeber the one or two days when the snow was up to the windows and school was cancelled. She doesn't remember the other 100 days of winter when not much happened.

    Unfortunately the naysayers on global warming have lots of ammunition to rebuff a real phenomenon precisely because the politically correct crowd is thrilled to throw non-meaningful 'evidence' of global warming around and call it 'proof'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    the politically correct crowd is thrilled to throw non-meaningful 'evidence' of global warming around and call it 'proof'.
    I didnt say my local weather is either evidence or proof. If you have something about the topic to say, say it by all means, dont put words in other peoples mouth, please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Anecdotal evidence can play a roll in determining some of the effects of Global Warming. When older Inuit talk about seeing for the first time insects like dragonflies and other species and how the ice pack is breaking up a month or more early there's something out of the ordinary going on. They're starting to lose a greater number of hunters due to poor ice conditions.

    It may be -30 Celsius where I am right now but I just have to look around to see that something has changed drastically with the climate. The cold winters that used to kill off the pine beetle no longer occure, and most of the jack pines in B.C. are dead or dying. I don't need to take detailed measurements to know a change has occured. The last winter to seriously affect their numbers was in the mid 80s. Fly over northern B.C. and all you can see is the red from the dead forest.

    How about the recession of glaciers worldwide, and we just had one of the largest pieces of ice-shelf break off in our north. It's the size of Manhattan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    Anecdotal evidence can play a roll in determining some of the effects of Global Warming. When older Inuit talk about seeing for the first time insects like dragonflies and other species and how the ice pack is breaking up a month or more early there's something out of the ordinary going on. They're starting to lose a greater number of hunters due to poor ice conditions.

    It may be -30 Celsius where I am right now but I just have to look around to see that something has changed drastically with the climate. The cold winters that used to kill off the pine beetle no longer occure, and most of the jack pines in B.C. are dead or dying. I don't need to take detailed measurements to know a change has occured. The last winter to seriously affect their numbers was in the mid 80s. Fly over northern B.C. and all you can see is the red from the dead forest.

    How about the recession of glaciers worldwide, and we just had one of the largest pieces of ice-shelf break off in our north. It's the size of Manhattan.

    I know its also only a local observation and could be down to regular cycles in the weather system but...


    Weve still got many flowers in our garden thats never been there this time of year in my short life and our roses haven't stopped flowering since we got them in may

    But it could be other reasons other than global warming
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    You can't rely on just a few local observations when it comes to climate change but people everywhere are noticing changes. Whether it's more frequent and violent weather like hurricanes/typhoons, icestorms, tornados etc... or droughts and flooding. All these things, and more, were predicted several decades ago to happen as the mean temperature of the globe increased.

    Personally I have no doubt that climate change is occuring and that it will accelerate as things like our northern perma-frost begins to thaw and release enormous amounts of methane, a gas that is 30 times more efficient at trapping heat than CO2. The only question I have is whether or not there's anything we can do to slow the process or if it's now out of our hands.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    You can't rely on just a few local observations when it comes to climate change but people everywhere are noticing changes. Whether it's more frequent and violent weather like hurricanes/typhoons, icestorms, tornados etc... or droughts and flooding. All these things, and more, were predicted several decades ago to happen as the mean temperature of the globe increased.

    Personally I have no doubt that climate change is occuring and that it will accelerate as things like our northern perma-frost begins to thaw and release enormous amounts of methane, a gas that is 30 times more efficient at trapping heat than CO2. The only question I have is whether or not there's anything we can do to slow the process or if it's now out of our hands.
    Why would global warming result in more floods? Why more ice storms? Why not less? Why more violent weather and not less violent weather?

    More tornados? That makes no sense at all. There are so many variables at play in the formation of a tornado: pressure systems, etc. that any such prediction is just 'thrown out there' and makes a mockery of science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    You can't rely on just a few local observations when it comes to climate change but people everywhere are noticing changes. Whether it's more frequent and violent weather like hurricanes/typhoons, icestorms, tornados etc... or droughts and flooding. All these things, and more, were predicted several decades ago to happen as the mean temperature of the globe increased.

    Personally I have no doubt that climate change is occuring and that it will accelerate as things like our northern perma-frost begins to thaw and release enormous amounts of methane, a gas that is 30 times more efficient at trapping heat than CO2. The only question I have is whether or not there's anything we can do to slow the process or if it's now out of our hands.
    Why would global warming result in more floods? Why more ice storms? Why not less? Why more violent weather and not less violent weather?

    More tornados? That makes no sense at all. There are so many variables at play in the formation of a tornado: pressure systems, etc. that any such prediction is just 'thrown out there' and makes a mockery of science.
    We're talking about a very complex system that is always in the process of seeking an equilibrium state. Weather is produced by the interactions between atmosphere, land and bodies of water. It is powered by solar radiation and if more solar energy is trapped by the atmosphere it means more intense weather. There's more energy to power winds, create pressure difference, change the path of jet streams, effect long term factors like El Ninos etc... All these things are going to result in the more extreme weather that is being observed worldwide.

    More energy in the system results in a greater number of variables at play and due to Chaos theory there is a greater opportunity for them to come together to creat extreme weather conditions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    Quote Originally Posted by Jellyologist
    Quote Originally Posted by DarcgreY
    You can't rely on just a few local observations when it comes to climate change but people everywhere are noticing changes. Whether it's more frequent and violent weather like hurricanes/typhoons, icestorms, tornados etc... or droughts and flooding. All these things, and more, were predicted several decades ago to happen as the mean temperature of the globe increased.

    Personally I have no doubt that climate change is occuring and that it will accelerate as things like our northern perma-frost begins to thaw and release enormous amounts of methane, a gas that is 30 times more efficient at trapping heat than CO2. The only question I have is whether or not there's anything we can do to slow the process or if it's now out of our hands.
    Why would global warming result in more floods? Why more ice storms? Why not less? Why more violent weather and not less violent weather?

    More tornados? That makes no sense at all. There are so many variables at play in the formation of a tornado: pressure systems, etc. that any such prediction is just 'thrown out there' and makes a mockery of science.
    We're talking about a very complex system that is always in the process of seeking an equilibrium state. Weather is produced by the interactions between atmosphere, land and bodies of water. It is powered by solar radiation and if more solar energy is trapped by the atmosphere it means more intense weather. There's more energy to power winds, create pressure difference, change the path of jet streams, effect long term factors like El Ninos etc... All these things are going to result in the more extreme weather that is being observed worldwide.

    More energy in the system results in a greater number of variables at play and due to Chaos theory there is a greater opportunity for them to come together to creat extreme weather conditions.
    100% Baloney.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    LOL...You explain what's going on then. In terms that don't try and contradict masses of observational evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I bought a few magazines for a long flight recently and one of them I picked up was Discover's top 100 science stories of 2006. Coming in at #4, #20, #35, #52 - global warming related topics. Check em out here, they are some interesting reads.
    The picture alone is a great one on story #4
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Interesting articles Neutrino. It's pretty clear something serious is going on, all that remains is to work out the details and there's plenty of drastic changes to study.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145 Re: to Quote 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    i am not sure what Ibiza is, but in California they harvest grapes every year already and enjoy some very nice weather.
    Well think of Ibiza as being like a mini california then, except that its an island in the medditeranean and instead of harvesting grapes you harvest women.

    Now THATS the Ibiza we brits know and love !
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Global warming is a lie though up by a few scientists that wanted a reserch grant (that's my opinion anyway). Two thirds of an ice berg is underwater, and ice expands when it freezes so technically shouldn't it not make any difference to sea levels. If the planet warms up there is going to be more cloud coverage due to increased amounts of water vapour in the atmostphear so the planet will cool. And we know that the planet has been warming and cooling in cycles for hundreds of thousands of years now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    Global warming is a lie though up by a few scientists that wanted a reserch grant (that's my opinion anyway). Two thirds of an ice berg is underwater, and ice expands when it freezes so technically shouldn't it not make any difference to sea levels. If the planet warms up there is going to be more cloud coverage due to increased amounts of water vapour in the atmostphear so the planet will cool. And we know that the planet has been warming and cooling in cycles for hundreds of thousands of years now.
    Come on - conspiracy theory? People who deny global warming need to do better than that. Whether you're suggesting a mass conspiracy or the ignorance of the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community, both are equally poor hypotheses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    In Britain this was the hotest year on average for 100 years, yet no one looked at the coldest year whichsidentally that was 2004
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    Global warming is a lie though up by a few scientists that wanted a reserch grant (that's my opinion anyway). Two thirds of an ice berg is underwater, and ice expands when it freezes so technically shouldn't it not make any difference to sea levels. If the planet warms up there is going to be more cloud coverage due to increased amounts of water vapour in the atmostphear so the planet will cool. And we know that the planet has been warming and cooling in cycles for hundreds of thousands of years now.
    That really is hardly the point. for starters where do you get off thinking the planet will cool with increased cloud coverage ??

    Actually; it will be hotter as less of the suns rays will be able to escape back into space; they will penetrate the clouds because of their high energy, then they will hit the earth; those that get bounced back will be of less energy and reflect back off the clouds. Ever noticed how in winter it is cooler when there is LESS cloud ? - Thats why !

    Secondly the ice-caps are made from mostly fresh water; that is very little salt in them; Ocean salinity isnt something you want to mess with; species will die, food chains will become disrupted, ocean density will change, gulf streams could reverse direction etc.

    And to quto your latest quote of 2004 being the COLDEST year on record so far; that says one thing, that we are now facing the extremes.

    Yes you're right, the planet HAS been cooling and warming over cycles over thousands of years; as has mass extinctions; so hey, why worry about is so much, aye.

    By the way, one question for you, are you a politican or a major share-holder in the fossil fuel's industry ? If not, you definately sound like one !
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    The largest eruption of the 20th century, Mt Pinatubo is tiny compared to the Siberian Traps but caused a 0.5 degree drop in global temps the year after it erupted. The largest eruption in historic memory occured on Iceland in 1783-84 spewing out 12 cubic km of lava onto the island (the Siberian Traps erupted about 3 million cu km). The poisonous gases given out lowered global temps by about 1 degree.

    Initially sulfur aerosols and volcanic ash envelop the earths atmosphere blocking out sunlight and sending surface temperatures plunging . Ash and sulphur aerosols can remain in the upper atmosphere for 100's to 1000's of years which would be enough to cause a significant glaciation. At the end of the Permian period the biggest ever drop in sea level in history occurred.

    You were saying about cloud coverage?

    And to answer your politicion qu. i am only 15 and i despise politicions and how would i get money to invest in fossil fuels?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    instead of debating global warming just take a cold drink and enjoy the hot weather while it lasts.
    It wont last for ever, it will either get hotter cause of natural reasons or get colder of natural reasons in the endless cycle of climate
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152 How old 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    How old are you Zelos, if you dont mind me asking ?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Zelos what you are forgetting is, as leohopkins pointed out, if the planet does heat up and the gulf stream collapses, the heat that it brings with it from the equator will not come to europe and east coast north america, so to have your cold drink in sweden, you would need to put it in the oven to turn it back into a liquid.

    Global warming is a fact, what we don't know is whether it is man made, natural or both. Peoples local weather is not a very good example of global warming (hence the name) It's the global temperature going up and the domino affect that could have on the worlds climate. We have managed to raise the human population to six billion under are current climate, this simply would not have been possible 10,000 years ago. Here is a graph of the ice age cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png
    We should be getting cooler, the problem is that the climate is heating up faster than at any time in human history http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif This does not give us or the plants and animals we live on enough time to move about and find their natural climate. Also, weather will become more extreme, this means we will have record hot temperatures one year and then record low the next. Whether we can cope with those changes who knows.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154 Re: Global Warming Discussion 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by macoy
    tell me your thoughts on global warming, whether you think it's too late to do anything about it, what we could do to stop it, if you think global warming will end the human race etc. thanks
    Few take the cold approach to global warming, the one I favor and realize it won't be well-received. No, I don't mean tempurature-wise, I mean . . . other-wise.

    What really is the true nature of man? My opinion is he's not very caring of others (in general), quite selfish, violent, egotistical, and still very much influenced by biological factors rather than lofty philosiphical ones when his own self-preservation is at stake. For these reasons then I have a . . . cold approach to global warming: We're not going to do anything meaningful at all about it, principally I think because of selfish reasons. We're still rulled by our biology, still very much well, man-animals. You might not think so but it's there all around us if the social fabric that clothes our civilized lives is removed -- she carefully pursues him and wins for her prize, his dominant genes for her offspring -- Stacy Keech, talking about elephants but still very much applicable to us don't you think?

    Too often we glamorize mankind, holding him on a pedestal of intellectual success but beneath it, still in many ways, a monkey in a suit, still willing to kill to pass on his genes, take from others that which is not his, fight to the death for recognition, and give in to excesses, waist, consumption, and addictions.

    So I don't have faith in anything being done in a meaningful manner to affect global warming. To me only a catastrophy will effect change and perhaps from the perspective of life, not just man, but life in general, that is the best solution of all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5
    I'd been led to believe that climate change was a man-made situaltion.

    Now that i have looked into a bit of the science I think we are being mislead for political and taxation reasons.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    The above link gives a more reasonable scientific account of the situation and the fact is that of all greenhouse gases water vapour accounts for 95%, 99.99% of which is naturally occuring.

    Co2 only accounts for 3.618% of greenhouse gas with man made Co2 only accounting for 0.117%. Even if we reduce emissions by the Koyoto proposed 30% - it's a fart in the wind compared to the natural effect of water vapour which is never properly represented in the official statistics even if we reduced by 30% Co2 we would still not effect natural climate change.

    I also think for all those on the Al Gore bandwagon - why did he fail to represent the ice core data properly when looking further into it Co2 only rises AFTER a rise in temprature i.e. it cannot therefore be causing it.


    I think that a lot of the data surrounding this has been manipulated to promote particular goverment policies to retard the development of the third world and impose taxation to squeeze more money out of everyday people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Guest
    The debate is about how much man is contributing to Global warming, data shows a warming climate - nice to see that somebody else has spotted the water vapour element, we all know the clouds retain heat at night many hundreds of times more efficiently than CO2 ever could. Con trails, Power stations and homes pour the stuff into the atmosphere, as do all creatures that breathe.

    But then clouds reflect light back into space, so you'd need to find the ratio...

    Welcome to the forum!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Senior anand_kapadia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    300
    Hey as every body is saying either we the climate get hotter or colder.
    My point of view is that if the rate of change in climatic condition i.e. getting hotter or colder is very slow. Then is there not a possibility of ouselves getting adapted to the climatic conditions. We could have accordingly increased or decreased our body temperature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Guest
    It's not about us adapting, that's not an issue, man can live anywhere on the planet he likes, the problem is can our food sources keep up with the change?

    Say for example northern europe rises by 3dg c, you would then find many species moving north as their habitat became hotter, what effect would they have on their new environment where there may be no resistence to their presence? - thy have no predators and run unchecked?

    Can you imagine what would happen if Locusts took hold of the the American 'breadbasket' ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    you would then find many species moving north as their habitat became hotter
    thats what im saying for example where i live its red squirrels always has been and always should. but if the climate keeps getting warmer the black squirrels are going to move north and push the red squrriels out cause there bigger and stronger.

    thy have no predators and run unchecked
    in this case size would be greater then speed

    id say that if black squirrels take over confier forests id say shoot them all, sorry but that might happen.

    And then on the west coast in BC theres beetles destroying trees like crazy

    theres alot of crazy shit going on because of climate change...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Senior anand_kapadia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    It's not about us adapting, that's not an issue, man can live anywhere on the planet he likes, the problem is can our food sources keep up with the change?

    Say for example northern europe rises by 3dg c, you would then find many species moving north as their habitat became hotter, what effect would they have on their new environment where there may be no resistence to their presence? - thy have no predators and run unchecked?

    Can you imagine what would happen if Locusts took hold of the the American 'breadbasket' ?
    See as camel has adapted to increase it's body temperature to cope up with the surrounding. The same can be done us.
    Similarly as you said of the food. The plants can also adapt to the same if no abrupt environmental change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Guest
    I think the camel took quite a few generations to adapt to desertification creeping across northern africa, maybe even 100's of thousands of years or perhaps longer. If global warming happens in the sort of time frame that is mostly spoken of ( a few hundred years or so) - evolution/adaptation is a nonstarter!.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    95
    should humans control southern animal populations from moving north?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Guest
    Nope, not if it happens, since it will be a normal result of natural global warming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    95
    when you say as a result of natural global warming, does that mean they have proved that everything happening now is natural and not man made?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Guest
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

    See the thread on the great global warming swindle....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    95
    no shit lol cool watching it now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    95
    -so what about the holes in the ozone layer created from CFC's?, will the sunlight pentrating through the atmosphere just go back to space?

    -or will that little bit of extra CO2 act as a badage on those "holes"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Guest
    hehe The ozone layer is nothing to do with global warming, it protects us from some harmful UV rays. The problem is Ozone, Global warming and energy resource seem to have been bundled all into one, and many people think they are the same! - they aint.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    hehe The ozone layer is nothing to do with global warming, it protects us from some harmful UV rays. The problem is Ozone, Global warming and energy resource seem to have been bundled all into one, and many people think they are the same! - they aint.
    -cool, but isnt the pollution killing the ozone layer? so we should still cut down our emmisions dont you think or is that a lie?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Guest
    It is/was the CFC'c that are mostly thought responsible for the reduction in the Ozone layer. The original holes were at the poles, where the sun's low angle mean it made very little difference anyway. Antother important point to remember is that the holes were discovered at the time the ozone layer was investigated for the first time, this actually means we do not know if the layer was ever complete!. The production of ozone comes primarily from lightning (as I understand), since the poles contain the dryest air anywhere on the planet was it ever produced there [in large quantities] ?

    CO2 so far as I know has no effect on this layer, if it did then there would simply be no ozone as CO2 has always been in our atmosphere.

    It's sensible not to pollute things of course as long term effects [by their very name] will not be experienced for a 'long time'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    I dont think lightning contributes to any large extent to the ozone layer. Ozone is in fact produced naturally BY UV rays! This brings me back to my chemistry days, UV rays cause the formation of Oxygen by producing oxygen radicals, these collide with other oxygen molecules and eventuall result in ozone O3 bein formed. they say on a hot sunny day that if you ever see a blue haze, that's ozone (I live in Ireland so I've never seen it!)

    (Ive never heard the idea that the ozone never existed around the poles but by this explanation, it would make sense although surely the layer would diffuse is it has always existed.)

    CFCs then damage the ozone because they readily decompose to form radicals which in turn destroy the ozone and to a lesser extent inhibit its production in the first place.

    Anyway, the whole ozone layer thing seems to have quietened down as they're now saying that thanks to the changes we made regarding CFCs, it should be repaired by 2050 (if current trends continue); so problem solved pretty much.


    Also, just a sudden idea that struck me while typing this and I havent really thought it out but here goes...
    If global warming is due to increased solar activity, that would imply that there would be increased UV rays anyway, more UV: more ozone production, if there is more ozone being produced, wouldnt that mean that the layer would appear to be "repairing itself" even if it had never been damaged to start with? (I'll explain this properly if you dont understand)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    The Ozone hole is shrinking apparently...

    http://www.livescience.com/environme...zone_hole.html
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    I dont think lightning contributes to any large extent to the ozone layer. Ozone is in fact produced naturally BY UV rays! This brings me back to my chemistry days, UV rays cause the formation of Oxygen by producing oxygen radicals, these collide with other oxygen molecules and eventuall result in ozone O3 bein formed. they say on a hot sunny day that if you ever see a blue haze, that's ozone (I live in Ireland so I've never seen it!)
    Yes - I keep forgetting that since I was told that all ozone was produced by lighning, science has moved on, and since the late 1950's we have benefitted from space related research.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    (Ive never heard the idea that the ozone never existed around the poles but by this explanation, it would make sense although surely the layer would diffuse is it has always existed.)
    Well the poles get considerably less sunlight and since it is at a much lower angle any energy recieved will produce far less ozone here than say at the equator.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    CFCs then damage the ozone because they readily decompose to form radicals which in turn destroy the ozone and to a lesser extent inhibit its production in the first place.
    Anyway, the whole ozone layer thing seems to have quietened down as they're now saying that thanks to the changes we made regarding CFCs, it should be repaired by 2050 (if current trends continue); so problem solved pretty much.
    I think that's their way of admitting they might have been initially wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    Also, just a sudden idea that struck me while typing this and I havent really thought it out but here goes...
    If global warming is due to increased solar activity, that would imply that there would be increased UV rays anyway, more UV: more ozone production, if there is more ozone being produced, wouldnt that mean that the layer would appear to be "repairing itself" even if it had never been damaged to start with? (I'll explain this properly if you dont understand)
    No - it is not said that the temperature of the surface of the sun is at fault but the solar winds, so I don't think extra UV would be experienced - this if it were true would certainly have been noticed as NASA now have several satellites exclusively monitoring the sun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
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
  •