Global warming

orourkeda · 14-10-2009 02:06AM

Its better doing this than suckin' on a pipe

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 14-10-2009 03:14AM

Charco wrote: »

Our thermometer record began about 150 years ago, the coldest part of the little ice age. Therefore our most accurate temperature record starts at the coldest period that the earth has experienced in 10,000 years. Naturally enough the temperature has risen. You are comparing accurate temperature records with records derived by proxy, there are serious risks with assuming you are comparing like with like.

I am not 100% sure how scientists get measurments from 100 thousand years ago... is it an estimate?

Also I don't know where you got 1 degree rise in 25 years, even the most far fetched IPCC figures claim it was less than a 1 degree rise over the last 100 years.

I made up the numbers, and I think it has been over a period 150 years or that the increase took place?

Depends on what you define as excessive CO2 emissions, if you put the cart before the horse and assume that CO2 is the main driver for climate change then fair enough.

In excess of what can be recycled and broken down by the earth.

Like it or not we live in the real world and cost benefit analysis is a pretty good system for deciding whether to do stuff, recycling fails in this regard.

This is true. Yet it shouldn't always be the ultimate deciding factor. Government grants and the likes could help. Or maybe let the government take on all recycling? That would cost more in the long run though

Developing countries are affected by the environmentalist movements attempts at bringing about global change. Africa will never industrialise if it is expected to be reliant on green energy. You will never run steel mills using wind energy and solar panels. If we in the west tell developing countries that they must reduce their pollution we are in effect saying "we have our cake now you can't have yours because it may negatively impact on our comfortable way of life".

Ok this I didn't think of either. It's not obvious to me, but thanks for the clarification. Do wind and water powered turbines not generate enough power for these mills?

thebman wrote: »

There is no conclusive evidence that we are having a massive effect.

Sure we are polluting and effecting the environment in some way but to say sure look at the pollution, there is loads of it isn't evidence that we are effecting anything to any significant degree.

I think many people just want to believe we are on the brink of catastrophe, same as Y2K. Maybe it makes their lifes more exciting or something. I'd rather see evidence before I accept the claim. Oh but I'm for polluting less because I like clean air although we'll probably just find out everyone else is farting a lot in public like with the ban on smoking in pubs

Well it's definately not a good thing to do nothing just in case. You know?

I can't see all the pollution having a positive effect on anything really.

jimmycrackcorm · 14-10-2009 03:26AM

Thanks to global warming we don't live in the Ice Age. But, wait - who caused that big melt down?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 14-10-2009 03:28AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Thanks to global warming we don't live in the Ice Age. But, wait - who caused that big melt down?

Read the thread then come back...

Turtwig · 14-10-2009 03:43AM

Global Climate Change is a relativity young scientific theory, as such, the evidence for both supporting and opposing it has been slow to accumulate and interpret. However, it is now genuinely regarded within the scientific community as a valid theory. So the question really is do you trust the scientists?
Charco (and others like him/her:)), is (are) a skeptic(s), so I've no doubt that in time if he keeps an open mind his position will support the scientists or he will have to proof to convince them of otherwise. There are other posters here who seem to base the earth on their own intuition; it is a beautifully complicated system that deserves more than simple intuitive beliefs.
Science at the moment tells us that Global Warming is happening. It may be wrong (though it most likely isn't

), but saying it is wrong for irrational nonsensical reasons is pointless and misinforming others.

Turtwig · 14-10-2009 04:01AM

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Well at some point we are going to reach critical mass on population..

Population Growth is mainly happening in Africa, Europe and the US are seeing a decrease in the rate of growth with projected decreases in population as the societies age. Bottom line, this critical population that you suppose doesn't seem as black and white as it actually is.
Right Now as it stands world population increase ~80k per hour, most of that increase though is attributable to Africa. The introduction of sex education and hopefully a better standard of living should lower that substantially.:)

Also, Thought I'd add this troubling video

If there is something we can do to stop climate change we really should do it.

Pompey Magnus · 14-10-2009 10:41AM

DigiGal wrote: »

Pollution is there you can see it, yes its a natural cycle but there wasn't any smog or cars or light pollution or nuclear waste etc etc thousands of years ago....

Yes there was none of that thousands of years ago, but don't forget that also thousands of years ago there was no modern civilization. Humans lived a short, diificult and violent life where they were lucky to even survive child birth and making it into your 40s was seen as a great accomplishment.

It has become fashionable now to vilify industrialisation, the ironic thing is that these people who think industry is a bad word have no problem in taking full advantage of all the benefits that this brings whilst at the same time hypocritically getting on their soap box and condemning it for the negatives that result from it.

all the people saying ah we will get a warmer climate sure, no in fact itwill have quite the opposite effect on Irealnd as it will disturb movemnts in the gulf stream and half freeze us to death...if we aren't half under water by then.

There is no evidence to support this claim, in fact there is evidence suggesting the exact opposite. The Florida current is a thermal currentwhich joins the Gulf stream and it has been shown to actually get stronger with warming, being at its strongest during the Medievel Warm Period.

If people read up on how much money not keeping to the Kyoto agreement is costing us they'd be quick enough to moan about it then

I know the facts and figures relating to Kyoto and I certainly wouldn't moan if Kyoto never saw the light of day. Ona global average, for every dollar spent on implementing Kyoto there would be only a positive return of 34 cents. This kind of return would make the Irish government look good in their negotiation of NAMA. Kyoto, fully implemented, would cost $5 trillion. The positive effects would be a 0.3°F lower temperature in 2100 compared to what would happen if no action is taken, however this 0.3°F would be made up by 2105.

So basically Kyoto asks the world to pay $5,000,000,000,000 so that we can have the global temperature of 2100 in 2105 instead.

Pompey Magnus · 14-10-2009 11:02AM

Quinton Ripe Choke wrote: »

In excess of what can be recycled and broken down by the earth.

You underestimate the power of Earth, it is actually very capable of coping with the carbon in the environment, in fact carbon levels today are miniscule with what they had been in the past yet the Earth was well able to handle it, it is estimated that CO2 was 350 times higher during the period of global scale glaciation.

Ok this I didn't think of either. It's not obvious to me, but thanks for the clarification. Do wind and water powered turbines not generate enough power for these mills?

Well certainly not solar or wind power, water perhaps on a localised level but it would not be sufficient to industrialise a whole continent.

I can't see all the pollution having a positive effect on anything really.

Well on that face of it that is fair enough, but maybe you might try and think about it again. We do not have massive factories which are solely designed to spew out as much pollution as possible. Pollution is a by product. The positive effect of the pollution is that we in the west live a comfortable lifestyle, most of us are no longer worried about where our next meal will come from or whether our loved ones will survive what is now very treatable illnesses. We are no longer confined to one small locality for all our lives, we can do what no other period in humanity could do, see the Niagara falls one day and Ayers Rock the next if we wish. We should be proud of how far we have come as a species, not have this negative complex where we feel like we should be ashamed and should apologise for it.

For us to enjoy the vast benefits of modern civilisation and human ingenuity then we must also accept that yes, pollution is a neccesary negative. So can you honestly see no positives to the pollution, because I can.

Min · 14-10-2009 11:21AM

30 years ago carbon was blamed for global cooling.
The cooling then stopped....
Heating started....
People blame carbon....

Just an excuse for something to tax it seems.

We should try and reduce as much as possible all forms of pollution.

Here is an extract from Newsweek 1975 on global cooling:

[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]here are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

goes onto say

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality

When it comes to predictions scientists in this area lack any credibility, it just serves certain purposes like a reason to tax, or increase the role of green technology which gives jobs - no problem whatsoever in that as it should help reduce pollution and provide more sustainable living.

Nolanger · 14-10-2009 11:45AM

Quinton Ripe Choke wrote: »

Co2 can't be good for the environment.

Exactly, what with killing plants and stuff!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 14-10-2009 11:48AM

Nolanger wrote: »

Exactly, what with killing plants and stuff!

What I really dislike is people not reading the thread of posts fully and making stupid posts... really... start reading.

BraziliaNZ · 14-10-2009 12:40PM

regardless of whether the earth is warming or not, we are destroying the planet purely by our ever increasing populations. Ireland used to be mostly thick forest, now there aren't any wild forests that i know of. The Earth can't live with everything being destroyed for consumerism.

dr.bollocko · 14-10-2009 12:41PM

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

regardless of whether the earth is warming or not, we are destroying the planet purely by our ever increasing populations. Ireland used to be mostly thick forest, now there aren't any wild forests that i know of. The Earth can't live with everything being destroyed for consumerism.

Really?
Prove it.

BraziliaNZ · 14-10-2009 12:43PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Population Growth is mainly happening in Africa, Europe and the US are seeing a decrease in the rate of growth with projected decreases in population as the societies age

The thing is, Europeans and Americans probably consume about 1000 times as much as your average African, with all the materials and energy we use.

BraziliaNZ · 14-10-2009 12:43PM

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Really?
Prove it.

just wait and see

ScumLord · 14-10-2009 12:51PM

Global warming is a smoke screen. It's something that governments and industry can tackle with taxes and look like they do care about the environment while they pollute and pillage the planet.

We are having little to no effect on the planet when it comes to the climate, we're no competition to the sun. It's nothing compared to the real pollution that comes from all the other pollutants but it's much more profitable to target car users.

All you have to do is look at who's promoting the climate change argument to know it's all popular bunkum.

Turtwig · 14-10-2009 03:21PM

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

The thing is, Europeans and Americans probably consume about 1000 times as much as your average African, with all the materials and energy we use.

Yes, good point, if population was decided on who consumes the most per capita then the US is largely over populated...quite simply that country is the one exerting the most pressure on earth's life systems.

Turtwig · 14-10-2009 03:31PM

Charco wrote: »

You underestimate the power of Earth, it is actually very capable of coping with the carbon in the environment, in fact carbon levels today are miniscule with what they had been in the past yet the Earth was well able to handle it, it is estimated that CO2 was 350 times higher during the period of global scale glaciation.

You overestimate it greatly, yes is true that carbon levels were higher than there are now. The thing to note is that now the planet has its own complex eco system that deals with carbon levels. This process is very very slow, occurring over thousands of years the fear is that the lifeforms that do this important job may not be able to adapt fast enough to the rapid increase in C02 levels. If that happens, these lifeforms will die and this will most likely cause a feedback mechanism releasing their stored C02 into the atmosphere and thus a nasty cycle will ensue until the planet recovers itself - a very slow process going on how long it took the earth to recover from the last C02 overload.
I've gone worse case there, but the point is the earth is capable of handling C02, the question is can it adapt to the cope with the rapid increase in CO2 levels; if it doesn't then we could be in trouble:(
It's a question though that we shouldn't really have to ask..

ScumLord · 14-10-2009 03:35PM

Malty_T wrote: »

You overestimate it greatly, yes is true that carbon levels were higher than there are now. The thing to note is that now the planet has its own complex eco system that deals with carbon levels. This process is very very slow, occurring over thousands of years the fear is that the lifeforms that do this important job may not be able to adapt fast enough to the rapid increase in C02 levels. If that happens, these lifeforms will die and this will most likely cause a feedback mechanism releasing their stored C02 into the atmosphere and thus a nasty cycle will ensue until the planet recovers itself - a very slow process going on how long it took the earth to recover from the last C02 overload.
I've gone worse case there, but the point is the earth is capable of handling C02, the question is can it adapt to the cope with the rapid increase in CO2 levels; if it doesn't then we could be in trouble:(

Life and earth is not under any threat. Life on this planet was around when earth was boiling rivers of lava and later when it was completely covered in 100s of feet of ice from north to south. The only thing we can really do is destroy the comfortable environment that suits us. Human life will go on as long as theirs other life on the planet we're possibly one of the best survivors life on this planet has come up with.

Turtwig · 14-10-2009 03:43PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Life and earth is not under any threat. Life on this planet was around when earth was boiling rivers of lava and later when it was completely covered in 100s of feet of ice from north to south. The only thing we can really do is destroy the comfortable environment that suits us. Human life will go on as long as theirs other life on the planet we're possibly one of the best survivors life on this planet has come up with.

You have gotten to be kidding me!!??

Humans are so new to this planet that our survival rate isn't really the thing to boast about yet. Yes life on earth will continue, indeed mostly likely long after humans are extinct( or have left the planet-optimist:)). The point is it could get very uncomfortable for a lot of people. Not only that because of the way we consumed the resources the first time around we'd have to discover ingenious methods to use new resources to maintain the same technology and infrastructure : If life on earth were reset then the chances of us attaining the advancement we are currently at today is significantly lower with little resources left to exploit.

thebman · 14-10-2009 03:49PM

Malty_T wrote: »

You have gotten to be kidding me!!??

Humans are so new to this planet that our survival rate isn't really the thing to boast about yet. Yes life on earth will continue, indeed mostly likely long after humans are extinct( or have left the planet-optimist:)). The point is it could get very uncomfortable for a lot of people. Not only that because of the way we consumed the resources the first time around we'd have to discover ingenious methods to use new resources to maintain the same technology and infrastructure : If life on earth were reset then the chances of us attaining the advancement we are currently at today is significantly lower with little resources left to exploit.

The difference between us and every other species before is our ability to use our environment to protect ourselves and problem solve.

Other species before have not had these skills to the same level. We have a much better chance of survival even if we fook up the planet altogether albeit not the most pleasant existence I'm sure.

Celticfire · 14-10-2009 03:50PM

DigiGal wrote: »

No point even arguing about this...

People would rather pretend something bad isn't happening and go about their own little existences

Anyone who feels empathy or is worried about the planet etc will be seen as an idiot or a "hippy"
I mean how dare we think about anything but our own lives. There will
But no its all lies, the ice shrinking in the artic, the massive tsunamis, hurricanes etc, acid rain, deforestation, the bizzare weather patterns...all the people saying ah we will get a warmer climate sure, no in fact itwill have quite the opposite effect on Irealnd as it will disturb movemnts in the gulf stream and half freeze us to death...if we aren't half under water by then.

Could you please explain how global warming creates Tsunamis?

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, Thought I'd add this troubling video

If there is something we can do to stop climate change we really should do it.

Just what exactly is troubling about a bear falling through "new" ice ? Are we to believe that an animal that can easily swim 60 miles or cover hundreds of miles floating on isolated icebergs was in great danger? Also I thought Polar Bear number were increasing.

Turtwig · 14-10-2009 04:00PM

Celticfire wrote: »

Could you please explain how global warming creates Tsunamis?

Global Warming is predicted to cause the density of sea levels to change, this is only part of it but this factor alone will cause increased pressure on seismic faults leaving it easier for earthquakes and volcanic eruptions to occur.
There are other more subtle factors that actually add to increase these likelihoods.

Turtwig · 14-10-2009 04:05PM

Celticfire wrote: »

Just what exactly is troubling about a bear falling through "new" ice ? Are we to believe that an animal that can easily swim 60 miles or cover hundreds of miles floating on isolated icebergs was in great danger? Also I thought Polar Bear number were increasing.

Far from it. Most of the species of polar bear are diminishing mainly because the lack of sea ice is reducing their hunting range. Also this has an unwanted knock on effect to humans in that polar bears have been increasingly 'stalking' human settlement areas for food.

The video above show's the struggle that they are facing on a routine basis and the sad fact is that some do not make it out of the ice in time or fail to find food

Turtwig · 14-10-2009 04:13PM

thebman wrote: »

The difference between us and every other species before is our ability to use our environment to protect ourselves and problem solve.

Other species before have not had these skills to the same level. We have a much better chance of survival even if we fook up the planet altogether albeit not the most pleasant existence I'm sure.

This is debatable at best, we do have superior problem solving and memory abilities. However what we do NOT have that some living organisms do have is the ability to survive in extremes : The threshold for our existence is very tight and no matter how good our problem solving skills are if the environment doesn't support human life then we will inevitably die.
Probably an illustrative picture of this is the mere idea of humans only able to reside in about 3% of the earths volume.. The Oceans are a no go, the high mountains a no go etc etc What if the contents of our atmosphere were to change so much that our biological systems simply could not tolerate it?

Long Onion · 14-10-2009 04:15PM

I do not know enough to either agree or disagree with the assertion that the human population is causing Global warming to accelerate. What I do know, however is that we have a very, very, sketchy reference point.

We have no clear data on any of the previous ice ages, our scientific data stretches back only a microsecond in terms of the age of the planet. We cannot say with any definate proof that the earth has not witness climactic shifts of this nature ever before - it is no more than an aducated guess.

That in mind, it is, no doubt prudent to be preventative but the scale of the action taken has to be relative to the degree of the actual threat - as there is no certainty, I feel uncomfortable with taking radical levels of action.

ScumLord · 14-10-2009 04:23PM

Malty_T wrote: »

You have gotten to be kidding me!!??

Humans are so new to this planet that our survival rate isn't really the thing to boast about yet. Yes life on earth will continue, indeed mostly likely long after humans are extinct( or have left the planet-optimist:)). The point is it could get very uncomfortable for a lot of people. Not only that because of the way we consumed the resources the first time around we'd have to discover ingenious methods to use new resources to maintain the same technology and infrastructure : If life on earth were reset then the chances of us attaining the advancement we are currently at today is significantly lower with little resources left to exploit.

Name one other animal that lives across the entire planet like we do. We're everywhere from inside the Arctic circle, to rainforests, to plains, to deserts, on water, below water, on mountain tops and underground, even outer space now. Sure one bare naked human may not be as hardy as a bare naked mountain lion but humans always have to be looked at as a group like you would with ants.

We've survived extinction on more than one occasion (I think it was more than once, at least once is a definite) when our environment turned against us. We're at a stage now, technologically where we could survive just about any thing because it's possible for us to create false environments. Millions may die that's true but it would take something out of this world to kill off the human species.

Turtwig · 14-10-2009 04:29PM

Long Onion wrote: »

I do not know enough to either agree or disagree with the assertion that the human population is causing Global warming to accelerate. What I do know, however is that we have a very, very, sketchy reference point.

We have no clear data on any of the previous ice ages, our scientific data stretches back only a microsecond in terms of the age of the planet. We cannot say with any definate proof that the earth has not witness climactic shifts of this nature ever before - it is no more than an aducated guess.

That in mind, it is, no doubt prudent to be preventative but the scale of the action taken has to be relative to the degree of the actual threat - as there is no certainty, I feel uncomfortable with taking radical levels of action.

We can go back almost half a billion years and look at trends, that is hardly a micro second. In all likelihood though we didn't even need to go back that far as the earths eco systems was way different back then than it is over the last million or so years.. which is where we really need to look for a trend.

Turtwig · 14-10-2009 04:36PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Name one other animal that lives across the entire planet like we do. We're everywhere from inside the Arctic circle, to rainforests, to plains, to deserts, on water, below water, on mountain tops and underground, even outer space now. Sure one bare naked human may not be as hardy as a bare naked mountain lion but humans always have to be looked at as a group like you would with ants.

We've survived extinction on more than one occasion (I think it was more than once, at least once is a definite) when our environment turned against us. We're at a stage now, technologically where we could survive just about any thing because it's possible for us to create false environments. Millions may die that's true but it would take something out of this world to kill off the human species.

I'm not arguing against our extinction, I'm saying that the comfort levels and population levels will most likely decline. Technologically we cannot survive a gamma ray burst, asteroids and comets would be pretty tricky too.
Most ocean dwelling creatures occupy far more habitats and varied environments than we can possibly even hope to achieve.
We cannot afford yet to live in some of the places you mentioned, space would kill us if we were to stay there long term

ScumLord · 14-10-2009 04:46PM

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm not arguing against our extinction, I'm saying that the comfort levels and population levels will most likely decline. Technologically we cannot survive a gamma ray burst, asteroids and comets would be pretty tricky too.
Most ocean dwelling creatures occupy far more habitats and varied environments than we can possibly even hope to achieve.

Like mountains and desserts? :pac:

The most interesting underwater creatures have to be the ones that survive completely independently of the suns energy instead getting their power source from underwater fissures. Those can truly survive most cataclysmic events easier than we could. Although they could easily die out if they can't find a new fissure when their current one dies out.

Global warming

Comments