Thread: Global Warming, Ice Ages??, Pollution...

I would like to see what everyone thinks on Global warming. Whether it is humans fault and we need to fix it now or bad thinks will happen (to say it bluntly) or is it a natural phase in the earths cycle.
My initial opinion is that this is one of the earths natural processes where the earth heats up due to carbon dioxide in the air, ice caps melt & floods alot of the land and then they will freeze over taking us into another ice age.
However I came to this conclusion with no in depth information, but i would just like to see everyone else’s theories, maybe some people work on preventing global warming and have research of their own.
Thanks Lee W.

Originally Posted by Lee W

I would like to see what everyone thinks on Global warming. Whether it is humans fault and we need to fix it now or bad thinks will happen (to say it bluntly) or is it a natural phase in the earths cycle.
My initial opinion is that this is one of the earths natural processes where the earth heats up due to carbon dioxide in the air, ice caps melt & floods alot of the land and then they will freeze over taking us into another ice age.
However I came to this conclusion with no in depth information, but i would just like to see everyone else’s theories, maybe some people work on preventing global warming and have research of their own.
Thanks Lee W.

Well you say right that it is a natural process but it has been furthered by 100 or 1000 times by humans. Have we not created machines and automobiles the quantity of carbondioxide would not have increased to the present extent. I remember it has been incresed by 25% in these past 100 years.

I came across a article in local newspaper. It says here..

Im not sure whether the melting of the ice-caps would cause global floods, as water expands when it freezes.

I see that north korea has recently entered into a successful negotiation into closing one of its nuclear reactors down in return for aid. If I was a British politician I would have had a word in Kim Jong Il's ear quietly and said something like "Listen mate, I know your gonna do this thing anyway but we (the british) will give you even MORE aid if you publically tell the UN that you will only shut it down if the USA signes and adheres to the Kyoto Protocol, but you must announce that request publically"

Of course im not a politician, but that could work.

I think global warming is probably about 95% natural and 5% man-made.

Originally Posted by Lee W

I would like to see what everyone thinks on Global warming. Whether it is humans fault and we need to fix it now or bad thinks will happen (to say it bluntly) or is it a natural phase in the earths cycle.
My initial opinion is that this is one of the earths natural processes where the earth heats up due to carbon dioxide in the air, ice caps melt & floods alot of the land and then they will freeze over taking us into another ice age.
However I came to this conclusion with no in depth information, but i would just like to see everyone else’s theories, maybe some people work on preventing global warming and have research of their own.
Thanks Lee W.

using figures from the the worst scenarios; CO2, in our atmosphere is up 7%, in the past 100 years. well CO2 today makes up less than 1% of our atmosphere and presumably .993 or less was there in 1900. 77% is nitrogen and 22% oxygen pretty much constant in this period.

three volcano eruptions (forget which ones) have been credited with creating more CO2 and other elements, then all of mankind's efforts, put together.

most climatologist, feel the earth is in a warm up period from a recent mini-ice age about 100k years ago and will continue for some time to come, with intermittent or comparatively cold spell. during the Dino period, 65 to 240 million years ago, estimates on the earths mean temperatures range from 15 to 25 degree F over todays.

all animals, which we are one are subject to quick changes opposed to gradual change. we survive quite well with 30 to 50 degree changes on a daily bases, and any increase will easily be tolerated.

Part of the problem is that we can only guess. Earth's temperature (as we all know) has always gone up then down again etc, but trying to compare the last 200 years against the last 200 thousand years is pointless as there has always been blips in the earths temperatures. As someone else said (i think it was you megabrain) at best it is only circumstantial evidence, but by simple making the guess that it is a natural cycle, well, we would be taking a huge blind gamble.

And what harm would we be doing by presuming that it is us, none, only a small slow-down in our economy's. I would much rather see fields and fields of wind turbines than one shitty, stinking coal power-plant, a clean quite car, yes please. And as a bonus, no more dependency on Russia and the middle east for our oil and gas.

As you will probably expect jackson, i am not so confident on how easily we would cope with the temperature increase.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

Part of the problem is that we can only guess. Earth's temperature (as we all know) has always gone up then down again etc, but trying to compare the last 200 years against the last 200 thousand years is pointless as there has always been blips in the earths temperatures. As someone else said (i think it was you megabrain) at best it is only circumstantial evidence, but by simple making the guess that it is a natural cycle, well, we would be taking a huge blind gamble.

And what harm would we be doing by presuming that it is us, none, only a small slow-down in our economy's. I would much rather see fields and fields of wind turbines than one shitty, stinking coal power-plant, a clean quite car, yes please. And as a bonus, no more dependency on Russia and the middle east for our oil and gas.

As you will probably expect jackson, i am not so confident on how easily we would cope with the temperature increase.

i will never forget the day i left Wisconsin, when the temperature was -30 and landed in Abilene Texas, where it was +80. i did survive and as i recall really liked the change. just as did the 100 or so others on the plane. biologically we are programed for failure, as are fish, animals and plants are, to sudden changes, certainly more so then 1 degree per hundred years. plants have means to control these minor or seasonal changes, but will dies if sudden. fish in your aquarium will all die if you drop the temperature 10 degree in a few minutes, but will be OK if its over a years time. we are in no danger of extinction from a warming trend now or the cooling trend to come.

there is nothing wrong with conservative use of resources, protecting species, the desire for clean water, clean streams and fresh air. i am all for it, will support the idea and pay the taxes required to maintain the principle. as with all projects, i get off the road when i see obvious mis- use of an issue, for monetary, political, notoriety or some personal or organizational gain. i have gone through it before and it will never end so long as the purpose will benefit the philosophy of a few. currently its capitalism, perceived wealth and frankly jealousy of some wanna a be's.

to mildly demonstrate this those same people that wanted Wind energy are now saying too many birds are dieing and this cant be. they will not allow anything in the oceans, taking out tidal energy, nuclear is taboo for multiple reasons and the only true resolution is to just stop being the thriving economic power we are. believe me if they could succeed, the limits of this reduction would end up being living in 2by4 boxes, so they the saviors could live we do now. Al Gore the loudest in this chorus, with the least knowledge has the worst CO2 footprint on this planet and ambitions to match in politics. Nancy P. and Hillary, right behind him are just as hypocritical, with some unexplained desire to control the masses.

you mentioned those coal fired generators. before, Greenpeace, before PETA, before Al Gore or even the EPA, the people in this country cleaned up their own act. we were on our way to nuclear power, factories were putting in mufflers of sorts, trash was not thrown from their cars and autos and fuels were up graded. with twice the people and 10 times the efficiency you can drive for days, not seeing smoke, where 60 years ago you couldn't go a mile.

Cat, this post is not directed at you personally. there are 10's or maybe 100's of thousands that have been influenced by educational or media to believe things not real. i recall those days when you couldn't see the blue sky for the smoke as the planet cooled and now the skies are blue and the planets warming. we do have records in core samples from old growth trees, ocean depths and ice caps core readings and know these trends. we even have an exact 20+ year history from exact reading from NASA, all indicating, no apparent problem...

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Im not sure whether the melting of the ice-caps would cause global floods, as water expands when it freezes.

I heard somewhere that the waterlevel worldwide would go down an average of 10 feet.

Jackson, i agree with most of what you have written, particularly this....

to mildly demonstrate this those same people that wanted Wind energy are now saying too many birds are dieing and this cant be. they will not allow anything in the oceans, taking out tidal energy, nuclear is taboo for multiple reasons and the only true resolution is to just stop being the thriving economic power we are. believe me if they could succeed, the limits of this reduction would end up being living in 2by4 boxes

But i respectfully disagree with the following...

we do have records in core samples from old growth trees, ocean depths and ice caps core readings and know these trends. we even have an exact 20+ year history from exact reading from NASA, all indicating, no apparent problem...

On a previous thread, i was going to use the famous "Hockey stick graph" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm when i look it up on google many of the web-sites had the opinion that the graph was not 100% true as many factors were not included, i tried to find a graph that was universally accepted but could not, as far as i know, there isn't one. To get an estimate of the global temperature from the past you would need several indicators from around the world going back thousands of years. Unless someone can show me something with the global temp's dating back at lest a thousand years and is widely accepted, i will continue with my belief(or the media,s :wink: ) that man made global warming is a very real possibility.

I am always wary of graphs that 'conveniently' omit one axis or another, and even sometimes switch from log to lin or vice versa to 'prove a point'. The evidence of temperature rising (globally) does seem to be overwhelming though that man has some effect on global temperature.

Cat; much of where my opinion is drawn, come from none related data. that is subjects that only relate to one of interest. some are; grapes were a yearly crop in England about 1000 years ago, now at best twice each 10 years do they get a mature crop, due to cold weather. Greenland was an agricultural haven about the same time and many artifacts have been found by archaeologists to substantiate this. neither of these could have been under your chart and there are many more such items, not of my creation.

IF, the temperatures are on a long term rise the human race will adapt, as will the majority of life. the very worst predictions are 1 degree by 2100 with suggestions of 1 degree each century. this tells me at worst, if thats bad, we should be back to what was 1000 years ago, in another 400 or 500 years. crops will be grown in Canada, maybe Greenland, grapes annually in England, and maybe people will not have to move so far south, to keep warm in retirement. unfortunately, i think this general warming trend is from the 100k year ago, Mini Ice Age and this 5 degree increase is about 100k years from now. with many more cold spells in our future. this scenario does fit the overall cycles of climate and temperature changes, accepted by most meteorologist. we will then get colder and warmer, with a slight increase in each mini cycle.

Originally Posted by chamilton333

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Im not sure whether the melting of the ice-caps would cause global floods, as water expands when it freezes.

I heard somewhere that the waterlevel worldwide would go down an average of 10 feet.

thats the figure given from the last ice age...primarily this was from snow and ice coverings down to about the 45 parallel, not the poles.

it is thought water levels will go up and maybe a few feet, if all the northern cap and high elevation ice glaciers were to melt. however the northern caps are not melting and the southerns are increasing in size. some inland mountain ice caps are melting to a degree and some are increasing. over all some think feel the ocean levels are up about an inch over the past century, but when you consider in the massive amounts of water from weather that inch seems unimportant. water falls into the oceans, drains into the oceans or evaporates into the atmosphere daily all of which could increase or decrease this measurements.

Global warming is a natural phenomenon sped up by our carbon dioxide emissions. I think it's somewhere in the 50% human 50% nature range.

I believ that it is going to happen any way, whether or not man was there, However i also believe that mans presence is speeding up the natural increase in CO2, so we are only a catalyst as it were

Definitely. The catalyst reference is perfect.

as water expands when it freezes.

What do mean to say. I thought water contracts on freezing and expands on melting.

Originally Posted by anand_kapadia

as water expands when it freezes.

What do mean to say. I thought water contracts on freezing and expands on melting.

Water is one of the few liquids that doesn't. It is densest at about 4 degrees centigrade and expands upon freezing because of the way molecules bond to each other, which is why it floats.

Originally Posted by jackson33

i will never forget the day i left Wisconsin, when the temperature was -30 and landed in Abilene Texas, where it was +80. i did survive and as i recall really liked the change. just as did the 100 or so others on the plane. biologically we are programed for failure, as are fish, animals and plants are, to sudden changes, certainly more so then 1 degree per hundred years. plants have means to control these minor or seasonal changes, but will dies if sudden. fish in your aquarium will all die if you drop the temperature 10 degree in a few minutes, but will be OK if its over a years time. we are in no danger of extinction from a warming trend now or the cooling trend to come.

I don't think anyone has implied that extinctions will occur due to animals or plants being a tad warm/chilly. It's more the ecological knock-on effects of a changing climate, for example climate change could reduce rainfall, thus reducing plant cover promoting desertification & meaning less food & water for the entire community that depends upon the plants as a food source. Another example would be rising seas and increases in stormy weather could put increased pressure on coastal marshes, reducing their size and making it a lot harder to survive there. It's by these kinds of changes that people believe we may see extinctions.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Im not sure whether the melting of the ice-caps would cause global floods, as water expands when it freezes.

This may apply to sea ice, but great quantities of ice are stored on landmasses, such as Greenland & Antarctica. It's if this water enters the sea that we might see flooding.

i heard, couldnt see if it was mentioned already, that the earth doesnt revolve in perfect orbits around the sun. Like i heard it is close and stays on track but some decades it could be a little closer to the sun and a little farther. So obviously if its a little closer ice will melt and farther ice will grow. Is this true, or valid and can the miny ice age be attributed to this?

Then is the volume of water less than that of ice.

Originally Posted by johnny

i heard, couldnt see if it was mentioned already, that the earth doesnt revolve in perfect orbits around the sun. Like i heard it is close and stays on track but some decades it could be a little closer to the sun and a little farther. So obviously if its a little closer ice will melt and farther ice will grow. Is this true, or valid and can the miny ice age be attributed to this?

Look up "Milankovitch cycles".

Originally Posted by anand_kapadia

Then is the volume of water less than that of ice.

Thats right!

Originally Posted by jackson33

Greenland was an agricultural haven about the same time and many artifacts have been found by archaeologists to substantiate this. neither of these could have been under your chart and there are many more such items, not of my creation.

No, you are talking about local climates. Look at a map of the world, have a look at where England is compared to other country's along the latitude, we are in line with Russia and Canada, not the first countries that come to mind when you think of grapes and wine. The reason we can grow grapes is because England is kept warmer by certain weather systems, if the planet does become too warm then them weather systems could collapse, if that happens the only thing we could export would be ice cubes :wink: . The reason i showed you the graph was in response to your claims that we already have the means to predict historical temperatures. It was based on tree ring, coral and ice cores for it data, even after all that it was not widely accepted as it did not include all available data. (Note : The graph is for the northern hemisphere only) Please Jackson, have a another look at it, very small fluctuations in temperatures, the odd cold hundred years then a warm one, all of a sudden, boom, a very fast increase of 1.1C just at the same time the world is becoming industrialised.

Originally Posted by jackson33

IF, the temperatures are on a long term rise the human race will adapt, as will the majority of life. the very worst predictions are 1 degree by 2100 with suggestions of 1 degree each century. this tells me at worst, if thats bad, we should be back to what was 1000 years ago, in another 400 or 500 years.

The "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" who have been making a study for the United Nations published their findings this year (2007). They made temperature rise predictions of between 1.4C - 5.8C for the 21st century, far higher then the 1 degree you say.

As for the people that have been talking about the melting ice, another thing you should consider is the amount of heat that is reflected by the ice and snow

Yes. Ice reflects light/heat, about 90% of it. Water absorbs light/heat, about 90% of it. So really our polar ice caps work as mirrors, keeping Earth cool by reflecting rays from Sun. However, if those ice caps melt, which they are, all that cooling will be lost, AND the water will increase the warming by absorbing the rays. This means a 1 degree change at the equator translates into a 12 degree change at the poles. So... better keep those ice caps from melting. Plus the fact that the North Atlantic Conveyor Belt would shut off, and... a bunch of other great stuff.

Very well put The P-manator. Just to add to your comments. Although we have seen only a 1C rise in temperatures over the last 100 years this could just be enough to tip the scales, as The P-manator said "However, if those ice caps melt, which they are, all that cooling will be lost, AND the water will increase the warming by absorbing the rays." Which would increase the speed at which the earth's temp's are rising regardless of whether we continue to contribute to global warming, this would again change other weather pattens, possibly increasing the temp's again (a domino affect) i don't think we want to push the first domino.

the reflections of ice cap formations are being given a little too much influence. first, there is little or no energy to reflect 9 months per years on either. the little that is goes back thought the atmosphere at an angle which allows much absorption, remaining part of the earths over all warming.

as to cap melting; the latest is the northern cap is melting at a much reduced rate to what was thought. the southern cap, on Ant Arctic is in fact increasing in size as temperatures are decreasing at an alarming rate. NASA, which as a outpost there, indicates this is .6 degree per 10 years or at a 6 degree pace per 100 years. ice formations were from space observations made over the past 20-30 years.

weather patterns do change and very often. it has much to do with were the heat is in the oceans. in short its a guess from day to day and any guess as to next month, the next decade are speculative, since any pattern is subject to about 20 other factors. we have only the well known and studied cycles to give us a glimpse into future activity.

local conditions were an analogy to what the human can endure. if we can adjust to a 30-50 degree change over 24 hours, whats the problem with a mean change of 2 or 3 degree over 100 years. the record one day change is over 100 degree and there was no mentions of death of humans.

Originally Posted by johnny

i heard, couldnt see if it was mentioned already, that the earth doesnt revolve in perfect orbits around the sun. Like i heard it is close and stays on track but some decades it could be a little closer to the sun and a little farther. So obviously if its a little closer ice will melt and farther ice will grow. Is this true, or valid and can the miny ice age be attributed to this?

johnny, the earth does have a slightly off a circle orbit. its not much, which a quick google of *earths orbit* will give you details.

no, the ice caps have little to do with this orbit. neither did the forming and exiting of ice ages. indirectly what energy reaches the earth (space dust), or is retained (atmosphere conditions) is given the cause by most. keep in mind we could not be if the upper or ionosphere was our source for life. the temperatures there are over 600 degrees and some say are over 1000 degree, where much of the solar energy is absorbed. to me its here were people should be looking for future predictions, not so much how much i drive my car. by the way, just this week a couple of satellites were sent into orbit, to study this layer of atmosphere, by NASA.

I believe the earth is closest to the sun in February and furthest in Augus - but check it out, it's only a million or so miles, enough to make eclipses become annular on occasions (ie not able to totally 'cover' the sun's disk).