Global Warming

[Paranoid Marvin]

I noticed this issue hadn't been raised (or at least recently)

 

So:

 

Global Warming

 

Apple's dictionary says this:

global warming

noun

the gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants. See climate change

Whilst Wikipedia summarises it in a more general:

Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.

There is a very wide opinion on global warming, some saying it's the biggest threat mankind has ever faced, some say it's the biggest government scam we've ever faced. I will be focusing on the former.

 

Let's first look at a simple graph:

This graph clearly indicates a steady rise in global average temperatures. However, there are some criticisms that can be made of this graph. Firstly, note the scale - it shows a rise of only 1˚C (this is significant, but will be mentioned later). The scale is quite stretched, giving in impression of catastrophic changes. Secondly, one may debate the accuracy of instruments used before the 20th century - after all, these are very narrow temperature ranges.

 

Anther significant graph is this:

It shows a steady rise in CO2 levels in one of the world's remotest areas.

 

There is no doubt that global temperatures are rising and that CO2 levels are also rising. Though there could be doubts about our contribution to global warming. The earth has a natural climate cycle, and as you may know, the earth is just coming out of an Ice Age (technically, we are still in the 'grip' of an Ice Age, but it is nearly over). This means that global temperatures are on the rise and have been on the rise before we even discovered coal.

The perma frost of Siberia is an interesting thing. The frost is thousands of years old in some places, and traps plant and animal matter from before the last Ice Age. This matter has been slowly decaying and producing methane. Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas, with an effect 25x that of CO2. As the temperature has increased, the ice has melted releasing this gas. A similar story is happening at the bottom of the ocean through a similar process (one that I am not familiar with, so I will not explain it). As the earth gets warmer, it releases more gases that speed the repetition of this process! Essentially, starting a runaway increase in the greenhouse effect!

So, if the Earth is already releasing tonnes and tonnes of greenhouse gases by natural processes, does that mean that we are not to blame, but more importantly, that we cannot stop it?

Unfortunately, we can be blamed for a increase in the rate of global warming, due to the destruction of the rain-forests, man made CO2, CFCs etc.

However, can we stop it?

Let's consider that we can't. You might say "there's no point in being green if we can't stop global warming". This is true, but only half. We still need to cut our oil dependency, as it is going to run out. However, this is a matter for another thread

 

Anyway, enough of my ramble, what do you think?

[aduffbrew]

Seeing the rather astounding photos of global de-glaciation... the 1 degree quoted is just the average. Some areas are experiencing many times that... I believe global warming to be real and tangible. Am I going to freak out if others have a different opinion? No. Climate fluctuation is a historical certainty. It has always happened and always will. Warmer, colder, life adapts and changes. So will economies. Are we contributing to change? In my opinion, most probably but whether we are causing most of it or none of it doesn't really matter. I am totally on board for going green. To provide stability and continuity, our society requires energy independence and environmental conservation on a scale not yet witnessed. Reducing greenhouse emissions would be the inevitable consequence.

 

Development of technologies that allow for sovereign independent energy production at feasible cost, is crucial for economic development. It's gotten to the point that dirty energy production just can't be justified any longer. Factor in all the costs including health care related expenses and it's a no brainer! CO2 might not kill me but all the other nasties spewed out when burning fossil fuels do. Regardless of what side of the issue you're on, I think we all can agree a cleaner environment is better for our quality of life... and the quality of life for the species on which we depend. It's a win win situation and thanks to viable new technologies our future looks very bright indeed.

[Zealot]

I think we are the main cause of it ,and i want to beliebe that we can stop it ...but then i think again and... being aware of the mass opinion about this issue i beliebe that we are pretty much screwed (im not felling very optimistic today )

[OryHara]

Maybe you should ask yourself why Alex Jone's Endgame is more popular than Al Gore's lie on the Amazon.com's documentary list.

 

They are going to try and "Carbon Tax" you for Al Gore's lie.

[rollcage]

Maybe you should ask yourself why Alex Jone's Endgame is more popular than Al Gore's lie on the Amazon.com's documentary list.

 

Well at least as of right now, "An Inconvenient Truth" is at #13, and "Endgame" is at #33...

 

They are going to try and "Carbon Tax" you for Al Gore's lie.

 

In some ways a tax might be a good thing. If we would take the time, we have the technology to reduce/eliminate emissions; getting people to change their habits is the big problem in a lot of cases. CFLs are a great example of this. People would save hundreds switching from incandescent bulbs, but they don't because of what they are used to buying.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Maybe you should ask yourself why Alex Jone's Endgame is more popular than Al Gore's lie on the Amazon.com's documentary list.

 

They are going to try and "Carbon Tax" you for Al Gore's lie.

 

Don't worry OryHara, I don't like Polar Bears anyway

[socal swimmer]

hm.... an international panel of the most respected climate scientists in the world says yes. The nobel prize is awarded based on the idea that it is true. Every major scientific society in the United States (except for the national society for petroleum geophysicists) says yes .

 

so, in a word, Yes.

 

Oh by the way the IPCC says that we are responsible for over %50 of global warming is anthropogenic (human-origin). This doesn't really fit in well with either choice, so i voted that we are totally responsible. Which is not necesarily true.

[Colonel]

[postaldave]

the global warming scam was created when leftist high jacked the enviromental movement.

 

every solution they come up will

1.tax the rich

2.redistribute the wealth to the poor

3.further prop up the elitist(algore and company)

 

result

1.countries like china that is REALLY screwing things up are not touched.

2.leftist big shots get even MORE money

3.poor stay poor

 

it has nothing to do with the environment.

 

right now in congress they are wanting to tax ever major oil company but one.

the company is citco(chavaz) why not them? you tell me.

 

 

not believing in the global warming scam does not make me anti-environment.

i love clean air but i will not fall for some communist plot.

[OryHara]

the global warming scam was created when leftist high jacked the enviromental movement.

 

every solution they come up will

1.tax the rich

2.redistribute the wealth to the poor

3.further prop up the elitist(algore and company)

 

result

1.countries like china that is REALLY screwing things up are not touched.

2.leftist big shots get even MORE money

3.poor stay poor

 

it has nothing to do with the environment.

 

right now in congress they are wanting to tax ever major oil company but one.

the company is citco(chavaz) why not them? you tell me.

not believing in the global warming scam does not make me anti-environment.

i love clean air but i will not fall for some communist plot.

 

 

Where is the "clapping hands" emoticon?

 

You are very close to the truth.

Its not the left "per se" but the neo-left, or the statits.

EX: Bush... Is a neo-con. Or ex-liberal statist put another way, but

the same anyway.

 

Statists. Just like some of the kids on this board.

They believe that they should be robbed blind by a ruling body,

and that their governments should do all the work for them, and

enforce their ideas with guns. They hate freedom.

 

On the other side, however, I don't like people telling me I need to do

something, or pay someone an extortion fee. I love my freedom, and liberty.

[OryHara]

Ron Paul on global warming and war.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlpd7-SVJZY

[Paranoid Marvin]

Ron Paul on global warming and war.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlpd7-SVJZY

 

I hope he doesn't win next year.

 

 

America doesn't need another president that doesn't care about global warming - or the world, realistically speaking.

 

 

But hey, at least I understand why you don't beleive in Global Warming, OryHara! It's because your demi-god Ron Paul says it's not true.

That was expected...

[bofors]

Let's first look at a simple graph:

This graph clearly indicates a steady rise in global average temperatures.

 

Sorry, that graph does not indicate a "steady rise" to me. There are clearly several decades long periods of decrease which are significant, for example 1880 to 1910 and 1940 to 1970.

 

Why did temperature decrease from 1940 to 1970? It certainly wasn't from CO2 levels decreasing:

 

Anther significant graph is this:

It shows a steady rise in CO2 levels in one of the world's remotest areas.

 

 

Recent global warming appears much less significant on a geological time scale. It has been much warmer in the past (for example, 125 thousand years ago) and rapid shifts in temperature have been seen before:

 

 

While people are undoubtly having some impact on the climate, the extent of it and the mechanism of climate change (CO2 or otherwise) are hardly clear.

[A Nonny Moose]

There is merely a correlation between Co2 and global temperatures. Correlation does not imply causation, meaning we don't know enough about climate change.

 

It's similar to the amount of ice cream eaten in NYC and the number of deaths in a city in India (I think it's Calcutta, but don't quote me on this). There is a strong correlation between the two, but there is no way in hell New Yorkers eating ice cream causes all these deaths in India.

[OryHara]

I hope he doesn't win next year.

America doesn't need another president that doesn't care about global warming - or the world, realistically speaking.

But hey, at least I understand why you don't beleive in Global Warming, OryHara! It's because your demi-god Ron Paul says it's not true.

That was expected...

 

God damn you are dumb. What is your IQ? 10? No. I wouldn't even dignify you to being smarter than my cat.

 

Its funny how you worship your government so much.

 

Thank God the U.N. is still on neutral soil. That means we here in America can blow it the {censored} up.

I would laugh my ass off if someone did it. The U.N. has Jedi mind tricked you to the point of your idiocy.

 

EDIT: And by the way. The world is against you. How does it feel to be Brown's slave?

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

[Paranoid Marvin]

God damn you are dumb. What is your IQ? 10? No. I wouldn't even dignify you to being smarter than my cat.

 

Its funny how you worship your government so much.

 

Thank God the U.N. is still on neutral soil. That means we here in America can blow it the {censored} up.

I would laugh my ass off if someone did it. The U.N. has Jedi mind tricked you to the point of your idiocy.

 

EDIT: And by the way. The world is against you. How does it feel to be Brown's slave?

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

 

Perhaps for once you need to concentrate on something that is real and is an issue.

There are other threads for your political rambles, this one is for global warming - let's keep it that way.

 

Sorry, that graph does not indicate a "steady rise" to me. There are clearly several decades long periods of decrease which are significant, for example 1880 to 1910 and 1940 to 1970.

 

Why did temperature decrease from 1940 to 1970? It certainly wasn't from CO2 levels decreasing:

 

Once you take into account other events that can change the climate (eg orbital fluctuations, volcanic eruptions), you can generally filter out a definite trend.

 

Recent global warming appears much less significant on a geological time scale. It has been much warmer in the past (for example, 125 thousand years ago) and rapid shifts in temperature have been seen before:

 

The implication from studies of ice cores etc is that what you said is true. This also means that we are at the beginning of a major climate shift, it would seem.

 

 

One point however Bofors, it's interesting how you seem to be an expert in Geography as well as Engineering - I am surprised!

[gwprod12]

If CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was rising (as it has been for a century) and global temperatures weren't... Scientists would be running around screaming. (because something would be dreadfully wrong, like the sun dying, etc).

 

C02 is an insulator gas. It traps heat. The more there is, the more heat is trapped. To see that there is more C02 and more heat is expected.

 

C02 isn't just correlated to global temperature, as anyone who's ever taken a chemistry class knows, it's been proven to be a causative factor. +Points at Venus+

[A Nonny Moose]

You also forget to take into account for the fact that our sun is slowly (very slowly) changing from our favorite yellow sun to a red giant. This means an insrease in the sun's volume (a slight increase) every year. This would also mean that more heat gets sent to our planet, as the heat source is closer to the planet.

 

In addition, global temperatures have risen with a decline in pirates (the YARRRR kind). So did pirates then keep global warming from happening? It's a pretty good correlation also, so pirates must have been really working to get the CO2 out of the air.

 

This means correlation and causation are two different things. While CO2 is an insulator, there could be a third factor that nobody is detecting.

 

As an aside, it's funny as to what becomes "the new cancer." It was CFC's and that was taken out. Then it was NOx and that was reduced. Now it's CO2, and we're working on reducing that. I'm wondering what the "new cancer" will be if reducing CO2 doesn't result in global cooling.

[socal swimmer]

You also forget to take into account for the fact that our sun is slowly (very slowly) changing from our favorite yellow sun to a red giant. This means an insrease in the sun's volume (a slight increase) every year. This would also mean that more heat gets sent to our planet, as the heat source is closer to the planet.

 

In addition, global temperatures have risen with a decline in pirates (the YARRRR kind). So did pirates then keep global warming from happening? It's a pretty good correlation also, so pirates must have been really working to get the CO2 out of the air.

 

This means correlation and causation are two different things. While CO2 is an insulator, there could be a third factor that nobody is detecting.

 

As an aside, it's funny as to what becomes "the new cancer." It was CFC's and that was taken out. Then it was NOx and that was reduced. Now it's CO2, and we're working on reducing that. I'm wondering what the "new cancer" will be if reducing CO2 doesn't result in global cooling.

 

i agree. CFCs don't do anything. neither does NOx (NO, NO2, etc). Its all a scare tactic. CO2 won't hurt us either. Chemists don't know anything.

 

</sarcasm>

 

NASA (and others) have satellites and observatories pointed at the sun at all times. If the amount of heat being released was increasing, we would know, almost immediately.

 

One of the most important solar missions to date has been the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, jointly built by the European Space Agency and NASA and launched on December 2, 1995. Originally a two-year mission, SOHO has now operated for over ten years (as of 2007). It has proved so useful that a follow-on mission, the Solar Dynamics Observatory, is planned for launch in 2008. Situated at the Lagrangian point between the Earth and the Sun (at which the gravitational pull from both is equal), SOHO has provided a constant view of the Sun at many wavelengths since its launch. In addition to its direct solar observation, SOHO has enabled the discovery of large numbers of comets, mostly very tiny sungrazing comets which incinerate as they pass the Sun.^[50]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Solar_space_missions

 

also, look at solar variation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

 

the sun won't go to a red giant for another 4-5 billion years. its current expansion is negligible, especially considering the distance it is from us.

[Azurael]

You can prove anything you like with statistics.

 

 

Now on a more serious note:

 

Global warming is happening, and it's at a stage now where there's probably nowt we can do about it other than prepare for the flooding/freezing/drought/near-apocalypse (delete as appropriate depending upon location)

 

However, it's probably worth pointing out that the earth is nowhere near the hottest it's even been, even in AD times. The Earth's temperature fluctuates hugely, and we still haven't reached the same temperatures the Earth was at during the most part of the Medieval period. I think it's probably very hard to judge to what extent human influence is responsible for the trend for rising temperatures and to say for certain that humans are completely responsible or can change it is just as much junk science as suggesting pigs can fly.

 

On the other hand, we need to reduce our fossil fuel usage (because it seems to be A - running out and B - used as an excuse for war), so if becoming all 'environmentally conscious' is the way for this message to finally filter down into humanity's thick skulls, then good.

[A Nonny Moose]

i agree. CFCs don't do anything. neither does NOx (NO, NO2, etc). Its all a scare tactic. CO2 won't hurt us either. Chemists don't know anything.

 

</sarcasm>

 

NASA (and others) have satellites and observatories pointed at the sun at all times. If the amount of heat being released was increasing, we would know, almost immediately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Solar_space_missions

 

also, look at solar variation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

 

the sun won't go to a red giant for another 4-5 billion years. its current expansion is negligible, especially considering the distance it is from us.

 

I never said they didn't do anything, so thanks for putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that we have a lot of other pieces of information that might be another factor in the planet heating up. So let me ask this again: What will happen if the "new cancer" CO2 is reduced and global temperatures still rise? What will be the next cancer on the environment?

 

In addition to this, there couldn't have been as much human involvement in releasing CO2 during the medieval period. It's improbable. So either we had an event that released a massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere or CO2 really isn't "the new cancer."

[socal swimmer]

I never said they didn't do anything, so thanks for putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that we have a lot of other pieces of information that might be another factor in the planet heating up. So let me ask this again: What will happen if the "new cancer" CO2 is reduced and global temperatures still rise? What will be the next cancer on the environment?

 

In addition to this, there couldn't have been as much human involvement in releasing CO2 during the medieval period. It's improbable. So either we had an event that released a massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere or CO2 really isn't "the new cancer."

 

Well then, IF nothing happened even after the global CO2 level came down, then the scientists would have to reevaluate their hypotheses. However, at this point, the data (and the top scientists) say that global warming is mostly anthropogenic (caused by human action) and due to CO2.

 

But then again, I could say "What if someone starts eating arsenic, and they don't die? will something else become "the new poison?""

 

What is your point with this whole "cancer of the environment" tangent? are you saying that the CFC issue is just hype? Cause thats what it sounds like to me. If not, then why did you bring it up?

 

 

The point is that there are many things that can cause global warming, including natural cycles. However, adding CO2 WILL raise the temperature. It is not the only way to do it, but adding CO2 will raise it, which is bad. We don't want that.

[chris2k]

It might be us, it might be something else. We just don't know, even if a few scientists say they do.

I'm not worrying about us humans. We will survive a few degrees more or tornados or floods. I'm more worried about insects and flowers needed for the stability of our planet. Bee's for example, who knows how many plants will disappear without them.

 

I also want to add (some might not know yet) that temperature is increasing on other planets in our solar system as well. At least thats what the scientists say.

 

I don't know really...It could be all a great story made by lobbyists or it could be real. I try to save energy as good as I can.

[A Nonny Moose]

Well then, IF nothing happened even after the global CO2 level came down, then the scientists would have to reevaluate their hypotheses. However, at this point, the data (and the top scientists) say that global warming is mostly anthropogenic (caused by human action) and due to CO2.

 

What is your point with this whole "cancer of the environment" tangent? are you saying that the CFC issue is just hype? Cause thats what it sounds like to me. If not, then why did you bring it up?

The point is that there are many things that can cause global warming, including natural cycles. However, adding CO2 WILL raise the temperature. It is not the only way to do it, but adding CO2 will raise it, which is bad. We don't want that.

 

Nice round about answer, which basically says there will be a "new cancer" to get rid of.

 

The whole point is that there is always something new that we have to reduce in order to save the planet. You'd think that after doing this for at least a decade, we'd have things reduced to where they need to be. Of course we don't and thus have "new cancers" that we need to get rid of to save the environment.

 

While I agree that we don't want the global temperature to rise, where I disagree is with this "reduce X" thinking, because there is always a new X, even after a decade of reducing X. Give us all the information we know about global climate change and do a whole approach instead of just poking around one item at a time.

[apowerr]

Bee's for example, who knows how many plants will disappear without them.

Something should be done to research and stop Colony Collapse Disorder. I think CO2 emissions are a 'threat' to the environment; however declining bee populations put is in a much worse situation than some gas floating around in the air.