Global warming hysteria?

Vangelis

I'm wondering... Do we really need to worry about the global warming? Do we have to be hysterical? Are we hysterical?

I've read so many articles both on NASA's webpage(about changes in the spheric chemical cycles, ozone-changes) and in general science magazines that a global warming is taking place..

But I have not seen direct indicator that the climate is getting warmer in many places. It does, but I've heard so many examples of the same thing happening in the mid 1800's and early 1900's. Floods, acid precipitation and more snow or less snow here and there.

In the last 5 years, at least in my country where it snows, and the snow falls, people panic and make comments on how early the snow is this year or how late it is. And suddenly they believe, for no reason really, that there is a huge climate change going on. But there were irregular snowing period 100 years ago and 200 years ago too.

What's really the truth?

Dunn. From my own viewpoint it is indeed happening. I don't read the science journals or such so I don't know the specifics. All I see is the longer & better summer periods we've been having, and the deeper winter months we get here in Ireland. But then I could be completely off, since I only moved to Cork 3 years ago, and I'm still getting used to the difference in weather.

Asiaprod

Vangelis wrote:

I'm wondering... Do we really need to worry about the global warming? Do we have to be hysterical? Are we hysterical?

Yes to all three. Check out the current problems with the shrinking of the ice in the antartic, the increase in the number of typhoons and bad weather systems, and the current cold spell in Europe. We really are damaging the planet and we will pay for this, IMHO

bus77

Reports of climate change are incresing at a fast rate. Just the other night I saw report that the warm currents that come up to us during the year are changeing direction a bit. So, colder winters for us here is the prediction.

I was out driving the other day and it hit me, looking around at all the cars on the road pumping out gas. It you combined all those exhausts(not to mention other emmissions) in ireland it would be like a mini volcano pumping out smoke 24/7. Combine everything worldwide and that's one hell of a big volcano, probably bigger than anything this world has seen since the dinousaur age.

Zombrex

Climate change is happening, that is for certain. The gulf stream is weakening, which will greatly effect the north atlantic drift (the thing that makes our summers hot and winters mild)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4485840.stm

What is in dispute is if it is anything to do with us and the release of green-house gasses during the industrial age.

New report out last weeks seems to suggest that this is the most rapid temp change in the last 600,000 years, which would suggest it is actually us that is changing the climate, not just part of a natural cycle on earth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm

BTW, climate change doesn't necessarily mean it is going to get hotter. In fact most models suggest that an increase in global temprature would cause both the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift to break down. Considering we are the same latitude to northern parts of Canada, without the NAD we can expect a dramatic decrease in temprature, with much longer, colder winters.

whiskeyman

Asiaprod wrote:

Yes to all three. Check out the current problems with the shrinking of the ice in the antartic, the increase in the number of typhoons and bad weather systems, and the current cold spell in Europe. We really are damaging the planet and we will pay for this, IMHO

It's the future generations that we should worry for because they'll end up paying for the way we've lived.
The fact that there's little immediate impact lessens the importance, however (as we've seen over the summer) the increase in Hurricanes etc... is a wake up call.

meditraitor

This graph illustrates the scale of change to earths surface temperature for the past millenium.
As you can see there is a bit of a problem

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm

plonk

Global Dimming another climate which was only proved recently was masking the affects of global warming. Global dimming basically is teh earth is getting darker the particles we are releasing is blocking sunlight and making clouds last longer some places have 30% less sunlight than they had in 1960 but its on the mend as we started to control our emmissions but CO2 levels are still rising steadily. The last time we had an equivalent rise in CO2 we had a temperature rise of 6degrees c but now we only have a temp rise of .6degrees c. google global dimming and see what it is for yourself

Vangelis

But will the climate change have negative effects on people?

Are there any arguements against a climate change?

plonk

yes they will have negitive effects on people as temps will rise by about 5-10degrees if we dont do something

Shazbot

Quite simple , yes , we should be worried about the effects of global warming.
It came up in a geology lecture a while back in college. Basicly if we keep going the way we're going there will be a definite change in climate in less than 200 years ( ok well past our life span , but we shuld have consideration for future generations ).

And when the climate change occurs ( slowly but surely ) , many ecosystems will be destoyed , marine or terrestrial. For Example , if the Temperature increase , polar ice-sheets melt and sea levels rise. Not only will it flood the lands but will also cause an increase in the salinity of oceans in certain areas and will make the water uninhabitable for the animals there now. All this will have a knock on effect , food chain etc.

And as many have mentioned already , the direct impact on humans.

CerebralCortex

There are alot of conflicting views here on the subject which suggests it is a hard one to pin down but IMHO there has been a very noticeable change in the weather throughout my life. I mean this year is the first time I have seen snow in November. Humanity have alot to answer for from the way we threat our home we are extremely wastefull and divided on all fronts when it comes to making decisions on making life easier for each other.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

Are there any arguements against a climate change?

There are arguments as to whether or not humans (ie the industrial revolution) is responsable or not. A lot of scientists would say yes, a lot of oil companies would say no.

But there is little doubt the climate has changed in the last 100 or so years. Again there is some doubt to how far this will effect us, will it be minor changes or lead to a very serious change like an ice age.

Vangelis

But the climate changes all the time..?

DeVore

We are a virus with shoes. The introduction of man has had phenomenally bad effects on wildlife and the natural habitat of every continent as we migrated there. We are simply, too smart. We don't form an equilibrium with nature, we simply consume until there is nothing left (Oil, Cod, Oxygen...)
We produce so much waste that our habitats become uninhabitable (Waste Dump protests, Nuclear fuel etc). We reproduce at an astonishing rate despite the lack of prey which normally keeps other animals in check (mass starvation in Africa, China's one-child policy).

But if you really want to look at it simply, how many times in your life have you heard the phrase "Worst XYZ in history" "Most devastating ABC since records began". Since each of those is (supposedly) a freak occurance, well outside the norm of such events, isnt it a little surprising that we seem to hit such "exceptional peaks" almost every year now? Most violent storm ever, worst earthquake, driest summer on record, wettest winter etc etc etc. I dont think a single record that stood when I was born, remains now.

Something is itching mother nature and this is her way of stratching it. I'm sure every other species on Earth is relieved.

DeV.

ps: get a before and after shot of the IceCaps in just 5-10 years. And then more before that. Frightening.

mike65

So we're to blame for the earthquakes as well?:eek:

A disaster timeline http://www.gesource.ac.uk/timeline_Disasters.html which helps put recent events in some context.

Mike.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

But the climate changes all the time..?

Not really, as meditraitor diagram shows.

Vangelis

Okay, perhaps all the time is too vague. But the Earth is dynamic, it doesn't stand still and I think that has something to do with it. At least it is connected to the formation of habitats, rivers, cold areas and so on. An eventually it's connected to the larger climate changes.

DeVore is right. We demand too much space and our greed causes species to die out. Who told me we are not too many people on the planet today. *grumpy*

But DeVore, there have been extreme heat, dry seasons, freezing of croplands and similar things many centuries ago too. And volcanic eruptions have also had their part to play in changing temperature and terrain. Mostly to the disadvantage of animals and humans living where these things happened. Allthough, those are only small events.

Since the tsunami catastrophe last year, the orbit of the Earth around its own axis has speeded up by 1/10,000 seconds. Some think that this can cause changes, but who knows.. Doesn't seem very likely does it?

The CO2 waste from our industries is clearly disturbing the atmospheric cycles and that's the cause for the increasing holes above both the North and South pole.

mike65

We're doomed, possibly.

Mike.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

But DeVore, there have been extreme heat, dry seasons, freezing of croplands and similar things many centuries ago too. And volcanic eruptions have also had their part to play in changing temperature and terrain.

You are looking at specific regions and at specific events. Of course the climate in an area changes, even just on the passing of the sessions. Ireland is 10-20 degrees or more colder in winter than summer.

But what global warming studies look at the big picture, the climate averages of the entire earth over long periods, that don't actually change that much over hundreds of years. They have been changing significantly since the industrial revolution.

Vangelis

mike65 wrote:

We're doomed, possibly.

Mike.

That articles leaves a frightening prospect. But surely, hysteria is the result of this kind of suggestive, vague things. They are saying that they need to examine the collected data better, as is the case with many such discoveries. The public is only left with a single piece of puzzles, not the whole picture.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

That articles leaves a frightening prospect. But surely, hysteria is the result of this kind of suggestive, vague things. They are saying that they need to examine the collected data better, as is the case with many such discoveries. The public is only left with a single piece of puzzles, not the whole picture.

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make ... are you saying that people should not get so hysterical over global warming until we know exactly what is happening? How are you defining hysterical? I mean is Kyoto an hysterical reaction?

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make ... are you saying that people should not get so hysterical over global warming until we know exactly what is happening?

Partly. People need to follow instructions on how to treat the environment. We cannot sit and wait for the whole picture to come. That can takes decades and it might be too late.

How are you defining hysterical? I mean is Kyoto an hysterical reaction?

I have experienced hysteria myself. And I am thinking that I'm not the only one afraid of the rapid climate changes that seem to give no clue as to what else to do than wait. Wait to die, wait to freeze down from an unpredicted ice age, and so on. I feel sometimes that I worry about these things and they bother me a lot as more and more evidence comes up. What worries me more is the lack of knowledge scientists have and the many misinterpretations they have made. At least the few that I have heard of.

The thought that Northern Europe can freeze down under a layer of ice does in itself worry me. Will I survive? Where will I live? What about my family, my husband... ? These unanswered questions are the most troublesome.

And I am sure... that I'm not the only one with this 'inner unease'. There is no reason why we should be calm either because at the moment, severe disasters seem to be the imminent outcome of drastic changes. It has allready begun some say.

Kyoto is not a good enough reaction. But it is not hysterical. What I'm talking about is the burdensome predictions laid on our shoulders that we do not know how to get away from. The fear, the ignorance.

Sangre

Check out State of Fear.
Michael Crichton basically tears apart global warming in a thriller. Basically like Da Vinci code. Uses a lot of facts which I couldn't be bother to verify or believe. Good read though

Redleslie2

The effects of climate change are going to result in a global war sooner or later, as the poor struggle to survive and the rich and the petite bourgeoisie struggle to hold onto power, property and privilege. It will be one big bloody but cool mess.

nesf

Redleslie2 wrote:

The effects of climate change are going to result in a global war sooner or later, as the poor struggle to survive and the rich and the petite bourgeoisie struggle to hold onto power, property and privilege. It will be one big bloody but cool mess.

Um dude, go back on the meds....

Redleslie2

nesf wrote:

Um dude, go back on the meds....

Ah sure we'll be grand.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I'm moving to canada in a weeks time, if it has happened by the time I'm back next year I'll glady share all the canadian tips and secrets I learned over there to keep warm.

For a price, naturally.

Zombrex

Mordeth wrote:

I'm moving to canada in a weeks time, if it has happened by the time I'm back next year I'll glady share all the canadian tips and secrets I learned over there to keep warm..

Well they build massive shopping complexs that stretch for blocks underground so people don't have to be outside when shopping. We can't build a small metro station ... yup, when the ice age comes we is screwed

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

Well they build massive shopping complexs that stretch for blocks underground so people don't have to be outside when shopping.

Lazy Canadians! :rolleyes:

... yup, when the ice age comes we is screwed

I hope Mankind dies before that day. Would be beatuiful though with so much ice and snow.

rsynnott

Vangelis wrote:

The CO2 waste from our industries is clearly disturbing the atmospheric cycles and that's the cause for the increasing holes above both the North and South pole.

Sorry, what? Where did you get this? You're referring to the ozone layer, I assume. The ozone layer is being damaged by CFCs and similar, from old spray cans, refrigirators, fire extinguishers and so on.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas; it reduces loss of heat to space.

Wicknight wrote:

Well they build massive shopping complexs that stretch for blocks underground so people don't have to be outside when shopping. We can't build a small metro station ... yup, when the ice age comes we is screwed

It seems quite likely that we could deal with an ice age, at least better than we could deal with global warming. Drop black paint, or black GM algae, on the ice caps, pump CO2 into the atmosphere... A lot of research has been put into heating planets, for terraforming purposes. We have no similar easy solutions for cooling a planet.

And global warming now seems inevitable - every year, Earth is able to dissipate less heat.

Vangelis

rsynnott wrote:

Sorry, what? Where did you get this? You're referring to the ozone layer, I assume. The ozone layer is being damaged by CFCs and similar, from old spray cans, refrigirators, fire extinguishers and so on.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas; it reduces loss of heat to space.

CO2 does cause damage to the ozone in the stratosphere. NASA had a good article about this, but that was before they refurbished their website and deleted many articles. From what I can remember, CO2 creates chemical compounds with single O-atoms that should originally create ozone-molecules. This results in a less quantity of ozone. Has my memory deceived me?

...Earth is able to dissipate less heat.

Doesn't this happen because there is an overload of heat or processes that cause heating in our atmosphere?

solas

I didnt read all the way back so apologies if its already been noted, but if any of yous are awake at 1.10am tonight (friday) there is a docu movie titled "the skies on fire" on tv3 on the subject.

MrSinn

How many ice ages have there been?
If there was only one then we know at least one thing,that at some stage the earth started to get colder(much colder)we also know that the earth started to get much warmer(to melt all the ice)
It's all natural,nothing to do with humans!

rsynnott

Vangelis wrote:

CO2 does cause damage to the ozone in the stratosphere. NASA had a good article about this, but that was before they refurbished their website and deleted many articles. From what I can remember, CO2 creates chemical compounds with single O-atoms that should originally create ozone-molecules. This results in a less quantity of ozone. Has my memory deceived me?

Do you have any documentation of this? I've been unable to find mention of it. Single O atoms don't really exist in the wild...

Vangelis wrote:

Doesn't this happen because there is an overload of heat or processes that cause heating in our atmosphere?

Nah, increased heat from humanity's activities is negligible compared to trapped heat from the sun.

MrSinn wrote:

How many ice ages have there been?
If there was only one then we know at least one thing,that at some stage the earth started to get colder(much colder)we also know that the earth started to get much warmer(to melt all the ice)
It's all natural,nothing to do with humans!

So you would contend that the Earth has noticed that we have been messing with its major temperature regulation device, the atmosphere, and will compensate in response? Interesting - how is this managed? Is there an operator somewhere?

Vangelis

rsynnott wrote:

Do you have any documentation of this? I've been unable to find mention of it. Single O atoms don't really exist in the wild...

I'll search on Sunday. Going away tomorrow.
Single O-atoms exist in the stratosphere, but they are unstable.
That is the reason why they so easily form compounds with the atoms in CO2. CO2 must be dissolved first.

Cannot write more now.

MrSinn

rsynnott wrote:

Do you have any documentation of this? I've been unable to find mention of it. Single O atoms don't really exist in the wild...



Nah, increased heat from humanity's activities is negligible compared to trapped heat from the sun.



So you would contend that the Earth has noticed that we have been messing with its major temperature regulation device, the atmosphere, and will compensate in response? Interesting - how is this managed? Is there an operator somewhere?

so who is responsible for the ice age that lasted millions of years?And who is responsible for ending it?

rsynnott

MrSinn wrote:

so who is responsible for the ice age that lasted millions of years?And who is responsible for ending it?

Some of them seem to have been caused by external intervention - comets and so forth. Some by volcanic eruption, and some by natural variation. So yes, the Earth does produce them naturally - in fact, there's one due in a few centuries, I seem to remember. My apologies - from reading your earlier post I thought that you were trying to imply that the Earth would automatically compensate for climate change.

MrSinn

Ever hear of the "baked apply theory"?

MrSinn

Ever hear of the "baked apple theory"?

rsynnott

This is the thing based on the earth's core shrinking as it cools (I'm fairly sure it hasn't been established that it's cooling, incidentally - it's kept hot by radioactive decay), right?

GuanYin

Ok, you all seem to be confusting the greenhouse effect with ozone depletion. They are completely different things.

The green house effect concerns the warming of the earths lower atmosphere (the troposphere) by the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and others) in the troposphere.
These gases absorb infrared (heat) radiation from the Earth which would otherwise escape from the atmosphere into space. The gases then re-radiate some of this heat back towards the surface of the Earth. This all lead sto rising surface temperatures.

The depletion of the ozone layer concerns the loss of ozone in the upper part of the atmosphere (the stratosphere)which is caused by dispersal of some kinds of halogenated hydrocarbons (such as chlorinated fluorocarbons, known as CFCs) into the atmosphere. These halogenated hydrocarbons degrade ozone in the stratosphere.
The ozone layer absorbs some of the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun, some of this radiation is harmful to biological organisms.

Vangelis wrote:

Single O-atoms exist in the stratosphere, but they are unstable.

While this is partially true, you're putting it forward in a fashion that is, to all intents and purposes completely wrong.

There is a natural ozone (O3) cycle inthe atmosphere.
This is regulated by the formation and degredation reactions of ozone and oxygen due to sunlight.

Atmospheric 02 and degraded 03 and 02 form new ozone molecules.

so:
O2 ---- (<200nm light)---> 2O :
O + O2

---

> O3

meanwhile:
O3

---

(200-300nm light) ----> O2 + O
O + O3

---

> 2O2


These events occur separately and simultaneously and under normal conditions they would occur at an equilibrium.

The reason its misleading to say that O atoms exist is because they only exist for an almost imperceivably short time.

Because O atoms will exist in an negligable quantity and
O2 and O3 will exist in HUGE quantities, O atoms will be transformed in one of the above reactions almost instantly.

Seeing as O doesn't degrade into any lesser components, it is wrong to say it is unstable. And it doesn't actually exist as a sole species, just as an intemdiate for a reaction.

That is the reason why they so easily form compounds with the atoms in CO2. CO2 must be dissolved first.

Nope as I said, you're confusing the issues, CO2 is not the molecule you're looking for here (it plays no prt in ozone degredation).

The bad guys are halogen hydrocarbons and they act by catalysing the breakdown of ozone in the mechanism above.

Basically the chlorine (Cl) in chlorinated fluorocarbons reacts with 03 in the systems above to produce 02 and ClO.
This means that O3 is being depleted at a far greater rate than it being produced and as the degredation/production cycle is being disrupted (by the addition of the CFCs) the O3 production is hampered.

Vangelis

Yes, psi. That makes more sense. Found excellent information on ozone depletion on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

Still, CO2 could play a minor role in the ozone depletion process, but it isn't certain:

"Global warming from CO2 is expected to cool the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a relative increase in ozone depletion and the frequency of ozone holes."(from Wikipedia)

Are you sure that the O-atom cannot be called unstable? It seems odd.