Global Warming

Anti

After watching the following youtube video, which is about the concequences of global warming it really got me thinking. Will it really end up like he says? Either the world in depression if we spend the the money to stop global warming, or we ignore it and let it continue which would cause social,economic,political and public health to drop of. Afte ryou watch this you really will sit back and just look around and wonder.

What do you guys think of this video(9mins) Some of the lads in work here have watched it, and we really cant pick his arguement apart at all. He seems to have covered the main vairaibles !

So Glad

Yeah, nobody cares though. People wont act until the water's at their door.

zuutroy

Theres been loads of threads on here over the last few months about GW. I think it's all been said already. I think its mostly hype and mostly natural and we'll all be fine.

homah_7ft

It's pretty much a case of you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. Don't lose any sleep over it. The world has been ending forever

Duggy747

IMO, I find the global warming fiasco to be overly exaggarated. I believe that global warming is occuring but not in the apocalyptic way we're expected to believe. Some scientists claim that sea-levels will drown islands yet other scientists have litteraly demolished such claims by proving in such a case that islands in the Indian Ocean have had their sea-level drop in the past 30 years. The islands and the people have also survived higher sea levels before. Then there was that whole topic about deadly-mosquito-viruses (Malaria, etc) that will spread everywhere cuz of temprature increase though people tend to forget about the malaria outbreak in the Soviet 80 years ago. All this bullshìt and exaggaration is beginning to blur the lines of who's correct and who's incorrect.

Oh, and scientists predicted an Ice Age to occur in the 60's and 70's..........go figure!

AlmightyCushion

I think it's all over exaggerated. Plus there hasn't been conclusive proof that humans are the cause. The scientific community itself is divided on issue contrary to popular believe.

LundiMardi

I for one am in favour of it.

Tar.Aldarion

'over exaggerated'? Exaggerated too much?
No, it is quite clear we have an affect, it is just how much of an effect we have is the question. It is taught in university chemistry that we have an affect.

Duggy747

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

'over exaggerated'? Exaggerated too much?
No, it is quite clear we have an affect, it is just how much of an effect we have is the question. It is taught in university chemistry that we have an affect.

Yeah, obviously we've had an effect especially in the past 100 years with our vehicles, planes, factories, etc, but to say that: "THE WORLD IS FÙCKED!! WE'RE GONNA DIE!!!!" in an apocalyptic manner is getting ridiculous.

I'm also just a sour kraut cuz I have to pay €4 for one tiny recycling bag everytime I want to dump my rubbish outta my flat, bah!!

Celticfire

Anti wrote:

After watching the following youtube video, which is about the concequences of global warming it really got me thinking. Will it really end up like he says? Either the world in depression if we spend the the money to stop global warming, or we ignore it and let it continue which would cause social,economic,political and public health to drop of. Afte ryou watch this you really will sit back and just look around and wonder.

What do you guys think of this video(9mins) Some of the lads in work here have watched it, and we really cant pick his arguement apart at all. He seems to have covered the main vairaibles !

What's to say his worst case scenario is right? An opinion is just that, an opinion.

AlmightyCushion

Duggy747 wrote:

Yeah, obviously we've had an effect especially in the past 100 years with our vehicles, planes, factories, etc, but to say that: "THE WORLD IS FÙCKED!! WE'RE GONNA DIE!!!!" in an apocalyptic manner is getting ridiculous.

I'm also just a sour kraut cuz I have to pay €4 for one tiny recycling bag everytime I want to dump my rubbish outta my flat, bah!!

Is there not some free recycling facilities nearby?

cooperguy

Duggy747 wrote:

Yeah, obviously we've had an effect especially in the past 100 years with our vehicles, planes, factories, etc, but to say that: "THE WORLD IS FÙCKED!! WE'RE GONNA DIE!!!!" in an apocalyptic manner is getting ridiculous.

I'm also just a sour kraut cuz I have to pay €4 for one tiny recycling bag everytime I want to dump my rubbish outta my flat, bah!!

Well either way the recycling bag is a good thing and its an even better idea if the world isnt goin to end in a huge ball of fire because we're still running out of oil to make all the plastic stuff you love so much aswell as power the factories to manufacture all the rest of the recyclables (normally it takes less energy to recycle than to manufacture from scratch).

So if the world doesnt end we'll have nothing to hold our coke in and it will be just as bad.

Mellor

I couldn't take him seriously, he sounds exactly like Kermit the Frog

dalk

I love the tone of some the replies to the climate change debate. Basically:

Hi, i'm Joe Soap who isn't an expert on climate but i reckon that the majority of scientists whose jobs it is to study these things are wrong. I base my conclusion on the fact that i can form an opinion and I seem to be under the illusion that all opinions are equal... So my opinion is just as valid as an experts.

zuutroy

dalk wrote:

Hi, i'm Joe Soap who isn't an expert on climate

How do you know those replying aren't very well educated or even experts on the subject?

Duggy747

dalk wrote:

Hi, i'm Joe Soap who isn't an expert on climate but i reckon that the majority of scientists whose jobs it is to study these things are wrong. I base my conclusion on the fact that i can form an opinion and I seem to be under the illusion that all opinions are equal... So my opinion is just as valid as an experts.

Well, if you change one word above you pretty much come to the same conclusion:

Hi, i'm Joe Soap who isn't an expert on climate but i reckon that the majority of scientists whose jobs it is to study these things are right. I base my conclusion on the fact that i can form an opinion and I seem to be under the illusion that all opinions are equal... So my opinion is just as valid as an experts.

Hmmm!

Jesus, chill out or don't bother contributing to the thread.

OctavarIan

He missed out something. If we did take action and the doomsayers turned out to be right we'd still have a depression, not a smily face!

Sam Vimes

Duggy747 wrote:

Well, if you change one word above you pretty much come to the same conclusion:

Hi, i'm Joe Soap who isn't an expert on climate but i reckon that the majority of scientists whose jobs it is to study these things are right. I base my conclusion on the fact that i can form an opinion and I seem to be under the illusion that all opinions are equal... So my opinion is just as valid as an experts.

Hmmm!

Jesus, chill out or don't bother contributing to the thread.

how is that the same thing? one is saying that people who have extensively studied the subject are wrong based on nothing but the person's own prejudices and one is trusting people people who have extensively studied the subject because, well, they've extensively studied the subject

homah_7ft

Commander Vimes wrote:

how is that the same thing? one is saying that people who have extensively studied the subject are wrong based on nothing but the person's own prejudices and one is trusting people people who have extensively studied the subject because, well, they've extensively studied the subject

In the words of meatloaf. You took the word right out of my mouth. You have to give more weight to the opinion of someone who has spent their working life studying these things.

nobodythere

It's fine. This planet won't support 6billion for long (see http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net for reasoning on this).

This problem will work itself out if we focus our energy on getting rid of our dependancy on fossil fuels.

stepbar

Wow, I wasted 10 minutes of my life watching that crap. :rolleyes:

jimmycrackcorm

More Global Warming = lower Natural Gas Bills in the winter. Hence it will all balance out nicely.

zuutroy

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

More Global Warming = lower Natural Gas Bills in the winter. Hence it will all balance out nicely.

Yeah, and all the countries that are already hot will get hotter and all them peeps will die and we won't have to fund them anymore. We'll be rich!

stevejazzx

global warming ha!
gimme a break..i mean just becaue we've pumped incessant amounts of c02 into the sky thereby thinning the earths atmosphere doesn't mean anything except that there is more suinlight getting through to the earth and that the earth is gradually becoming hotter and hotter,so what?
this happened before - there have been extreme climate flucuations and we've been grand becasue the world is only 6 thousand years old and humans have been around since the begining so...
the ice age ha...dinosaurs ha...it's all a conspiracy..yes an elaborate global scientific conspiracy just like the 'thoery of evolution' don't get me started on that..simplistic lifeforms..single celled organisms heated from sun! gradually becoming more and more complex...yeah right. Don't you think an invisible all powerful creator who just popped into existence himself is a more logical explanation? honestly some people...

andrew

I think the existance of the Junior And Leaving cert tests should be factored into climate modals.. they must in some way contribute to summer heatwaves

Anti

stevejazzx wrote:

global warming ha!
gimme a break..i mean just becaue we've pumped incessant amounts of c02 into the sky thereby thinning the earths atmosphere doesn't mean anything except that there is more suinlight getting through to the earth and that the earth is gradually becoming hotter and hotter,so what?
this happened before - there have been extreme climate flucuations and we've been grand becasue the world is only 6 thousand years old and humans have been around since the begining so...
the ice age ha...dinosaurs ha...it's all a conspiracy..yes an elaborate global scientific conspiracy just like the 'thoery of evolution' don't get me started on that..simplistic lifeforms..single celled organisms heated from sun! gradually becoming more and more complex...yeah right. Don't you think an invisible all powerful creator who just popped into existence himself is a more logical explanation? honestly some people...

The world is 6000 years old? Or do you mean the oldest records of human civilisation?

Tar.Aldarion

He is being a mite sarcarstic.

Mahatma coat

Anti wrote:

The world is 6000 years old? Or do you mean the oldest records of human civilisation?

Praise be Brother, of course he meant the oldest record of Human civilisation, it actualy tells us how the world came about, "In the beginning there was nothing, and the lord said let there be light..................."

Brothers and Sisters, HAAAAAave you seEEEEen the light ?


If you have does it appear to be any brighter or hotter recently??

Unpossible

zuutroy wrote:

Yeah, and all the countries that are already hot will get hotter and all them peeps will die and we won't have to fund them anymore. We'll be rich!

I think we will see more of them trying to get into europe instead of just sitting around in africa waiting to die.

Mahatma coat

if the telly is to be believed thsts all they're doing at the moment anyway

jor el

There was an interesting documentary on C4 a while back, The Great Global Warming Swindle. It made some pretty stark comments, a lot of which have been denied by the proponents of the global warming threat but some of which can't be denied. There is a level of truth in it though, pity some of the facts were miss-represented (or just plain made up).

Parts I did find particularly good were

* Author and economist James Shikwati says in the programme that environmentalists campaign against Africa using its fossil fuels: "there's somebody keen to kill the African dream. And the African dream is to develop." He describes renewable power as "luxurious experimentation" that might work for rich countries but will never work for Africa: "I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry ... We are being told, 'Don't touch your resources. Don't touch your oil. Don't touch your coal.' That is suicide."
* An example is given in the film of a Kenyan health clinic which is powered by solar panels which do not provide enough electricity for both the medical refrigerator and the lights at the same time. The programme describes the idea of restricting the world's poorest people to alternative energy sources as "the most morally repugnant aspect of the Global Warming campaign."

Also, anyone who remembers the 1970s and early 80s will remember that a new Ice Age was on the way and the earth was cooling down. This was a scientific fact at the time. This scientific fact was evidently wrong (for now anyway). In 20 years time, will global warming be proven wrong too?

Although certainly temperatures do seem to be on the up and up, I'm skeptical about the causes. How much impact do we actually have on the global temperature?

Cianos

A lot of people in this thread either didn't watch the video, or did watch it and missed the point completely.

His argument is saying that our only responsible action is to prepare and attempt to combat global warming. If it is a myth, and the greater scientific community have been proven wrong, well that's a good thing - we may have lost out on money, time and effort - but these are trivial when trying to save the world as we know it. The alternative is to not do anything about it, turn a blind eye and before we know it it is too late.

magicbastarder

jor el wrote:

Parts I did find particularly good were

which has absolutely nothing to do with whether global warming is a genuine threat or not, though.
that programme was rubbished from a height, the guy who made it is a chancer.

seamus

I haven't watched the video.

My main problem with it is people's perception of the planet. Human beings are naturally selfish and tend to regard everything in reference to ourselves. We have a good grasp of time and distance, but once you start to talk about great distances, our ability to fathom the proportions becomes diminished. So although people can "imagine" the earth and the universe, what they actually imagine is invariably much, much smaller than the actual scale of these things.

I'm not normally a skeptical person, but I'm skeptical about this, and about our potential impact on the entire planet. There may be *some* cumulative effect, but as a species of living organism we certainly don't have anything close to a monopoly or a majority on generating waste gases.

There's also extensive localisation within the ecosystem. Massive amounts of CO2 pumped into the air in Africa may have some averse effects on Africa and Southern Europe, but may have negligble effects on America.

This ecosystem suits us. The only reason we need to protect it, is so that we can survive. If we end up dying, the earth will carry on. The ecosystem evolves just like everything else. The concentration of gasses changes over time, the organism evolve to suit it, and begin to change the concentration of gasses again. It's also much less fragile or sensitive than you would be lead to believe.

On a whole though, I see no reason why we shouldn't reduce our toxic emissions, and our general waste. Since we tend to group into large collectives of cities, increased emissions and waste will affect the health of the local population more than anything.

magicbastarder

seamus wrote:

as a species of living organism we certainly don't have anything close to a monopoly or a majority on generating waste gases.

There's also extensive localisation within the ecosystem. Massive amounts of CO2 pumped into the air in Africa may have some averse effects on Africa and Southern Europe, but may have negligble effects on America.

do you think the CO2 stays over the land where it was generated?
we have added vast quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere, which wasn't being added before. what's absorbing it all? we disturbed a system in equilibrium.

seamus

magicbastarder wrote:

do you think the CO2 stays over the land where it was generated?

It's certainly not static, but it's not an even spread either. We're all at the mercy of air currents. What I said, I should have clarified was just an example. An increase in CO2 emissions over Africa, for example, doesn't necessarily lead to a uniform rise in global levels.

we have added vast quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere, which wasn't being added before. what's absorbing it all? we disturbed a system in equilibrium.

You'd be arguing long and hard to prove that it was a system in equilibrium. A system in equilibrium would be static and stable. The ecosystem is far from that. It's constantly fighting to attain equilibirum, but it will never get there. All we can do is add to the chaos.

magicbastarder

even if it didn't lead to a uniform level, how does that mollify the effects?
granted, it wasn't in perfect equilibrium. but it's currently at its highest level in (i believe) about half a million years. and the rise started with the industrial revolution, or thereabouts.

Plissken1

People are now also blaming the increase in outdoor heaters, due to the smoking ban as contributor to this so called Warming thingy.

zuutroy

CO2 makes up 1% of greenhouses gases....Human activity contributes 1% of that => we are responsible for 1/10000 of greenhouse gases. Even if that doubled, its still almost nothing.

magicbastarder

zuutroy wrote:

CO2 makes up 1% of greenhouses gases.

source?

stevejazzx

seamus wrote:

I haven't watched the video.

My main problem with it is people's perception of the planet. Human beings are naturally selfish and tend to regard everything in reference to ourselves. We have a good grasp of time and distance, but once you start to talk about great distances, our ability to fathom the proportions becomes diminished. So although people can "imagine" the earth and the universe, what they actually imagine is invariably much, much smaller than the actual scale of these things.

What has interstellar space got to do with the question at hand there young man?

seamus wrote:

I'm not normally a skeptical person, but I'm skeptical about this, and about our potential impact on the entire planet. There may be *some* cumulative effect, but as a species of living organism we certainly don't have anything close to a monopoly or a majority on generating waste gases.

Well bovine flatulence aside, human are responsible for this planets current state of affairs. How much of greenland do peole want to melt before they accept that?
and *some* cumulative effect
what are you on about? We are making massive changes to the landscape of the world becasue of the way we live...

seamus wrote:

There's also extensive localisation within the ecosystem. Massive amounts of CO2 pumped into the air in Africa may have some averse effects on Africa and Southern Europe, but may have negligble effects on America.

Man I don't know where you get your information but I'd love to see it.
Localised effects within areas is possible on short term samll scale evels but ultimately the thinning atmosphere will affeect everyone.

seamus wrote:

This ecosystem suits us. The only reason we need to protect it, is so that we can survive. If we end up dying, the earth will carry on. The ecosystem evolves just like everything else. The concentration of gasses changes over time, the organism evolve to suit it, and begin to change the concentration of gasses again. It's also much less fragile or sensitive than you would be lead to believe.

Again, crazy in scientific terms the earth exists becasue of the Goldilock effect. We have just the right balance. In astronomological terms the earth is easily destrucible, by a comet for example. Also the sun is a dying star so either way earth eventually will be unable to sustain life.

stevejazzx

zuutroy wrote:

CO2 makes up 1% of greenhouses gases....Human activity contributes 1% of that => we are responsible for 1/10000 of greenhouse gases. Even if that doubled, its still almost nothing.

Okay your figures are highly dubious, anywyas the point is that the other greenhouse gases are also a result of human behaviour..very few harmful gases are naturally occuring.

unkel

Of course global warming is happening. I mean the proof is the weather we've had over the last few days. Very hot followed by torrential rains. I reckon Ireland will have a tropical climate within 5 years

seamus

stevejazzx wrote:

What has interstellar space got to do with the question at hand there young man?

Well, interestingly enough, you go off talking about interstellar space at the end of your post...
My point was that people have difficulty fathoming the scale of "big things". The earth is simply much more massive than we have the capacity to imagine in our heads. This can cause an inflated sense of self-importance in a system, or can cause people to have trouble relating one proportion to another.
A good example is the outdoor heaters thing - "The smoking ban is causing more outdoor heaters to be used, which is contributing to global warming". The volume of pollution from these heaters, and the scale of the atmosphere are in proportions which can't be compared without using really tiny numbers.

and *some* cumulative effect
what are you on about? We are making massive changes to the landscape of the world becasue of the way we live...

Massive changes, such as? Let's not forget that a lot (if not most) land creatures alter their environment to suit themselves. They dig holes for shelter, tear branches off of trees, dam up rivers...
Sure, we seem to do it on a much larger scale and with much more wastage. As it is, only 12.5% of the total surface of the earth is suitable for human habitation, of which, only 1.5% is urban. So in terms of making "Massive changes", you'd have a tough time proving that humans have drastically altered more than half of one percent of the earth's surface. In fact, the figure would be considerably less than that.

Man I don't know where you get your information but I'd love to see it.
Localised effects within areas is possible on short term samll scale evels but ultimately the thinning atmosphere will affeect everyone.

What are you referring to when you talk about "thinning" of the atmosphere? Loss of oxygen? Increase in carbon dioxide? It's a closed system. The atmosphere can't get any "thinner" (except through natural means). All we can do is change its composition.

For the record, I'm not denying that this could be happening. I'm just skeptical, as I've said, and pointing out possible counters to the usual arguments.

bonkey

unkel wrote:

Of course global warming is happening. I mean the proof is the weather we've had over the last few days. Very hot followed by torrential rains.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Consider the following list :

- local weather change
- local climactic change
- global weather change
- global climactic change

Of the first three of these four, none is a reliable indicator of the items which come below it on the list. You are taking the furthest removed of these effects and suggesting it acts as proof. It doesn't.

Even if you beef up yout comment and point out that there are global shifts in weather over the last few years, leading to all sorts of weather-related records being broken everywhere, you still are a long cry away from establishing that there is cimactic change. And even if you did establish that, you'd still be some way short of proving that the climactic change which was driving the global weather change which was driving the localised weather change was caused by global warming.

Don't get me wrong. I accept the reality of global warming. I side with those who say that man's activities are a significant factor.

What I don't accept is that this position is helped by people believing the wrong stuff, even if they agree with the conclusion.

magicbastarder

seamus wrote:

As it is, only 12.5% of the total surface of the earth is suitable for human habitation, of which, only 1.5% is urban. So in terms of making "Massive changes", you'd have a tough time proving that humans have drastically altered more than half of one percent of the earth's surface. In fact, the figure would be considerably less than that.

you're saying we can only affect what we can inhabit?

seamus

magicbastarder wrote:

you're saying we can only affect what we can inhabit?

I was referring to his comment on making massive changes to our landscape. I was searching quickly, and I couldn't find any figures for exactly how much land was "occupied" as farms, habitation, or otherwise in use (such as roads).

unkel

bonkey wrote:

You couldn't be more wrong

I was being a wee bit sarcastic

homah_7ft

I didn't think this thread would go down this route. Compare this thread to someone asking about an issue with their computer. Would people get away with posting completely ignorant replies (yes I know it's AH)? Is science really that alien?

stevejazzx

seamus wrote:

Massive changes, such as? Let's not forget that a lot (if not most) land creatures alter their environment to suit themselves. They dig holes for shelter, tear branches off of trees, dam up rivers...
Sure, we seem to do it on a much larger scale and with much more wastage. As it is, only 12.5% of the total surface of the earth is suitable for human habitation, of which, only 1.5% is urban. So in terms of making "Massive changes", you'd have a tough time proving that humans have drastically altered more than half of one percent of the earth's surface. In fact, the figure would be considerably less than that.

Have you see the movie an 'Inconvenient truth? Compare photographs taken over the course of the century. greenland has almost dissapeared!
Thats major i would say! Parts of antartica melting here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4228411.stm
it's all very major.

seamus wrote:

What are you referring to when you talk about "thinning" of the atmosphere? Loss of oxygen? Increase in carbon dioxide? It's a closed system. The atmosphere can't get any "thinner" (except through natural means). All we can do is change its composition.

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/EarthObservatory/ThinningUpperAtmosphere.htm

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/04atmosphere/

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/04atmosphere/

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4650

http://astronomyonline.org/SolarSystem/EarthWeather.asp

zuutroy

If its such an immediate effect and a direct result of our industry, why did global temps fall for 30 years in the middle of last century?