Climate Change

The Mullinator

The Mullinator

Newbie
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
5,794
Reaction score
0
I know its not really a political thread but the arguments this can create are certainly worthy of being in here. Plus it can easily be related to politics once you consider the fact that pretty much the only proffesional skeptics of Global warming are either politicians in favour of using fossil fuels and big businesses that don't really have any climatologists.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.500

For anyone who wants a fairly detailed account of the arguments in favour of believing in global warming and those against as well a few statistics and whatnot then read this article. It also describes how their is pretty much a consensus among scientists that global warming is happening and will continue to happen.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18524861.400

Personally I say that it is happening and the effects are not going to be pleasant over the next century.
 
on a sidenote (and also cuz I dont have much time) the Kyoto accord goes nto effect tommorrow ..we have to hit the first target I think between 2008 and 2012
 
Scientists now say we are in a new stage of the Earth's history, the Anthropocene Epoch, when we ourselves have become the globe's principal force.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3686106.stm

We gotta get moving and clean up our act. Kyoto may not be the solution to global warming, there are alot of good arguments against it, but it gets the ball rolling in terms of world wide recognition and state cooperation, and it instigates action.
 
MjM said:
Scientists now say we are in a new stage of the Earth's history, the Anthropocene Epoch, when we ourselves have become the globe's principal force.

We gotta get moving and clean up our act. Kyoto may not be the solution to global warming, there are alot of good arguments against it, but it gets the ball rolling in terms of world wide recognition, and it instigates action.
Click to expand...
Please explain what this Anthropocene Epoch is.
 
It also describes how their is pretty much a consensus among scientists that global warming is happening and will continue to happen.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this is possible when there are many, many, scientists who argue that global cooling is occuring.

Now I don't know who is right. All I do know is that the graph used to justify Kyoto was bogus, and that there have been many centuries much hotter then this one (13th for example).

I know that the eastern hemisphere is rising in tempature slightly, but the western one is cooling. I also know most of the greenhouse gases come from the western hemisphere, which seems incongruent with global warming.

But none of what I have been able to find has anything coming close to being conclusive on global warming. It may be 50 years before scientists can actually determine if it is happening, if it is natural or artificial, or if Global cooling is occuring, and if that is natural or artificial.

I do think pollution is bad regardless of Global warming or not, which is why I don't support Kyoto, which does nothing to curb pollution. I'd rather see a real program enacted to reduce all pollution, whether or not global warming is a reality.
 
GhostFox said:
I don't see how this is possible when there are many, many, scientists who argue that global cooling is occuring.

Now I don't know who is right. All I do know is that the graph used to justify Kyoto was bogus, and that there have been many centuries much hotter then this one (13th for example).

I know that the eastern hemisphere is rising in tempature slightly, but the western one is cooling. I also know most of the greenhouse gases come from the western hemisphere, which seems incongruent with global warming.

But none of what I have been able to find has anything coming close to being conclusive on global warming. It may be 50 years before scientists can actually determine if it is happening, if it is natural or artificial, or if Global cooling is occuring, and if that is natural or artificial.

I do think pollution is bad regardless of Global warming or not, which is why I don't support Kyoto, which does nothing to curb pollution. I'd rather see a real program enacted to reduce all pollution, whether or not global warming is a reality.
Click to expand...
Sersiously read the second article I posted. Alot of what you said is discussed. You have alot of incorrect information I suspect.

Or at least read this quote from it:
Where does this leave us? Actually, with a surprising degree of consensus about the basic science of global warming - at least among scientists. As science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, wrote in Science late last year (vol 306, p 1686): "Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

Her review of all 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 showed the consensus to be real and near universal. Even sceptical scientists now accept that we can expect some warming. They differ from the rest only in that they believe most climate models overestimate the positive feedback and underestimate the negative, and they predict that warming will be at the bottom end of the IPCC's scale
Click to expand...
 
Sersiously read the second article I posted. Alot of what you said is discussed. You have alot of incorrect information I suspect.
Click to expand...

I just finished reading 2 articles in the paper last week by esteemed climatologists supporting Global Cooling. They may have consensus in the "pro-global warming" group of scientists, but there are still a lot who at least admit that there isn't nearly enough information, if not outright disagree with the theories.
 
GhostFox said:
I just finished reading 2 articles in the paper last week by esteemed climatologists supporting Global Cooling. They may have consensus in the "pro-global warming" group of scientists, but there are still a lot who at least admit that there isn't nearly enough information, if not outright disagree with the theories.
Click to expand...


GhostFox, where do you do your reading?

There are a few authoritative climate scientists in the sceptic camp. The most notable are Patrick Michaels from the University of Virginia, who is also the chief environmental commentator at the Cato Institute in Washington DC, and meteorologist Richard Lindzen from MIT. Most others are either retired, outside mainstream academia or tied to the fossil fuel industry. In the UK, three of the most prominent are Philip Stott, a retired biogeographer, former TV botanist David Bellamy, and Martin Keeley, a palaeogeologist. Keeley argues on a BBC website that "global warming is a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests". He is an oil exploration consultant.
 
Now I am not saying I nessicarily support global cooling or warming, only that there is not enough information to determine either.

Interesting fact. This past July was the coldest since a volcanic erruption blocked out the sun.
 
GhostFox said:
I just finished reading 2 articles in the paper last week by esteemed climatologists supporting Global Cooling. They may have consensus in the "pro-global warming" group of scientists, but there are still a lot who at least admit that there isn't nearly enough information, if not outright disagree with the theories.
Click to expand...
"Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

The scientists who you are talking about are climatologists, and that quote basically means that almost all climatologists agree with global warming (they disagree with how severe it could be). So no there really aren't many scientists that disagree with its existance.
 
Past july where? Is that a world avergae? Where did you get this fact etc, etc, you need to corroborate your statements GhostFox
 
GhostFox said:
You are right. I read a lot and assume that other people know what I know. Sorry.

I read it in the globe and mail. I'll get you a link to the article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...039316&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

There you go.
Click to expand...


it's called "CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!" not precisely global warming. I can tell you Europe has had some major ****ed up seasons, and they do relate to CLIMATE CHANGE. I'm goanna start typing it in caps so you actually pay attention. CLIMATE CHANGE
 
It's a funny old argument this one.

I'm of the thinking that we should at least show some concern about global warming. At the moment all we're doing is putting a few filters on chimneys and some people biking to work, instead of driving. There is a lot of evidence, albeit not totally conclusive, that we are effecting the Earth's climate. Now you can say that it'll be fine, we'll just be warmer, but put simply it won't be 'fine'. The species on this planet are evolved to suit their specific environment, that's why if you put a tropical fish in a cold water tank it dies (and no I don't do this often :p). If the world starts heating up, or cooling down too fast many animals, and us, may be at risk.

We're animals, and just because we're intelligent enough to be able to muck about with weather patterns does not mean that we'll be able to survive rapid climate change, or that we have the right to try.
 
It is strange. Thing is, even if there is proof, it'll take another x years to get together a strategy, and a shitload of time after that for that strategy to have any effect, providing if it is efficient at all. With China's industrial revolution picking up speed, I see global warming as a problem that's only just getting started.

Meh, even if it does turn out to be farcical, I don't see a problem with capping world CO2 levels, because the high levels in towns and cities kill people. Plus, if global warming does happen, the UK will probably get colder. So I'm for it :D

But I appreciate, yeah, there isn't a complete consistency among scientists, and it's up to the individual to believe who he/she likes at this stage.
 
I spent last year debating this, as well as a method of stopping slowing it, so I've heard lots of arguments for and against it.

That said, I think most people can agree that something needs to be done about pollution in general, regardless of whether you subscribe to global warming or not.
 
It's stupid, but we'll probably only agree that the climate change was our fault when it's too late, irreversable and when we have an atmosphere not too different to that of Venus.
A 1 degree warming is quite bad, but recent simulations have predicted 10 degrees increase in the next century, which is terrible. (I'll try to find the source). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210629.stm

Also it's hilarious to see on the news when they ask uninformed people about Global Warming and they go on to talk about the Ozone Layer- LOL.

BTW Global warming itself isn't bad, without it we wouldn't be alive. However excessive global warming is not too welcome.

Also Global Warming doesn't imply everything gets warmer, it simply means the average global temperature will go up.

North Europe is expected to go into a deep freeze if the globe warms, thanks to disrupted flows of warm water.

My dissertation at university is on a phenomena (Schumann resonances) which could measure the global temperature by looking at resonant frequencies of the earth's electric field, which you could model after studying it over a period of a few years.
 
SidewinderX said:
I spent last year debating this, as well as a method of stopping slowing it, so I've heard lots of arguments for and against it.

That said, I think most people can agree that something needs to be done about pollution in general, regardless of whether you subscribe to global warming or not.
Click to expand...


I would have to agree with Sidewinder on this one, whether Pollution will cause global warming/cooling over the next 100 years to a point of catasphrophic proportions is debatable or not, pollution is still a problem and will continue to be a problem until both the developing nations and developed nations can move to sources of energy that doesn't give off pollutants.

This means that developing nations will need to focus on power generation from things such as wind turbines and solar, whilst the developed nations move from things such as coal, gas, onto things such as nuclear power created by fusion, over the next 50 years, and getting rid of the idea that electric cars are the future and start harnessing technology like the fuel cell to a better degree. I think the biggest problem that a lot of scientists have with global warming is that they have come under the mindset that no matter how many pollutants we put into the atmosphere, we will never compare to the polluting that Mother Nature herself has done over the millenia.

edit: Also, solar power, hydro power, etc, might be good in the short run to help curb pollution, but with the use of electronics and the human population growing at a rapid rate every year, far more exotic technology has to come into play. In the next 50 years, i don't see solar power or other renewable energy sources such as wind and hydro dams playing a big a part in the developed world as they do now, and will most likely be used for out of the way communities where power lines can't get to or for smaller, developing nations like Ethiopia, etc, which wouldn't be able to afford such technology as fusion.
 
Who can say if fuel cell or even solar technology will not affect our environment?

The product of the fuel cell is water vapour...well water vapour is a major greenhouse gas, it absorbs a lot of the sun's energy. If using fuel cells will result in higher proportions of water vapour in the atmosphere, there will be some warming as a result.

Solar panels, I present the following scenario:
The earth is covered in solar panels.

The sun's energy is converted into electricity, instead of heating the ground.

Since the ground is not heated, there will be very little convection of heat, and the atmosphere will cool significantly. Obviously impacting on the climate.

The point is: We can't be sure any kind of energy production will not affect the environment in some way, without a detailed analysis.
And also there's lots of other smaller factors we haven't even considered to make an accurate judgement.

Although I do believe burning coal has the most affect, than anything else. Followed by oil, then gas.
 
kirovman said:
Who can say if fuel cell or even solar technology will not affect our environment?

The product of the fuel cell is water vapour...well water vapour is a major greenhouse gas, it absorbs a lot of the sun's energy. If using fuel cells will result in higher proportions of water vapour in the atmosphere, there will be some warming as a result.

Solar panels, I present the following scenario:
The earth is covered in solar panels.

The sun's energy is converted into electricity, instead of heating the ground.

Since the ground is not heated, there will be very little convection of heat, and the atmosphere will cool significantly. Obviously impacting on the climate.

The point is: We can't be sure any kind of energy production will not affect the environment in some way, without a detailed analysis.
And also there's lots of other smaller factors we haven't even considered to make an accurate judgement.

Although I do believe burning coal has the most affect, than anything else. Followed by oil, then gas.
Click to expand...


Do you know how many solar panels you would need to make even the slightest change to the Earth's temperature?

That would be like saying we should knock down all the sky scrapers as it stops heat hitting the ground.
 
Razor said:
Do you know how many solar panels you would need to make even the slightest change to the Earth's temperature?

That would be like saying we should knock down all the sky scrapers as it stops heat hitting the ground.
Click to expand...

Do you know the answer?

That's not my point, I'm not trying to make out that solar panels are some kind of monster, I am just saying that we don't know all technologies are as 'clean' as they appear on first impressions, this is just one example of many effects that could be considered in the global environment with respect to energy production. Do the calculations first before dismissing the idea, to conclude the effects are negligible.

And also the reflection coefficients of materials making skyscrapers (concrete) are similar to the surface of the earth, so they will produce approximately the same heating effect as the same area of land.
 
Simple answer everyone. Solar Panels on the moon. Problem solved.
 
GhostFox said:
Simple answer everyone. Solar Panels on the moon. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

But how do you propose to transfer the power to earth?

High intensity microwaves(much more powerful than standard radio transmitters)? But these may heat the earth's atmosphere?

Although if we're living on the moon we won't have to worry about climate.
 
kirovman said:
But how do you propose to transfer the power to earth?

High intensity microwaves(much more powerful than standard radio transmitters)? But these may heat the earth's atmosphere?

Although if we're living on the moon we won't have to worry about climate.
Click to expand...
The proposals say high energy lasers beamed to a network of satalites in orbit around earth which then relay it to power stations on the ground.
 
Just for those who are interested, I found something in relation to what I was talking about:

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

on solar power:
the heated air may lead to slight changes in local weather systems
Click to expand...
Ok, well I made a mistake saying the air would cool, got my signs reversed :eek:

on wind power:
the windmills disrupt local low-level winds
Click to expand...

Just trying to say we can't say 100% for sure all energy sources don't affect climate.

As for this laser proposal, can you link me an article please?
I heard about microwaves being proposed for orbital solar power before, probably in the form of laser trasmission.
 
Solar and windenergy are bogus anyway, at least in the near future. You can't power a country on whimpy solar panels.

Kyoto sounds like bullshit to me, usless. A bit of a "hey, we're doing something about it, look at us!".

Hydrogen cars are nice and all, but people seem to forget hydrogen isn't an energy source, but rather a carrier of energy. It still needs to be made, using the same or more energy than it eventually emits. And that still requires a power source like fossil fuels (which are also carriers, but mother nature was kind enough to do the work for us). In the case of Iceland, they have natural powersources that can produce electricity to create hydrogen, could very well be that Iceland becomes the middle-east of the future so to speak.

I think we need to rely on nuclear power some more, it's actually a great powersource, cheap, clean, and is actually really safe.
But it's no permanent solution, Uranium deposits aren't limitless either, and will run out just like oil in the near future.

Hopefully we have mastered nuclear fusion by then :)
 
PvtRyan said:
Solar and windenergy are bogus anyway, at least in the near future. You can't power a country on whimpy solar panels.

Kyoto sounds like bullshit to me, usless. A bit of a "hey, we're doing something about it, look at us!".

Hydrogen cars are nice and all, but people seem to forget hydrogen isn't an energy source, but rather a carrier of energy. It still needs to be made, using the same or more energy than it eventually emits. And that still requires a power source like fossil fuels (which are also carriers, but mother nature was kind enough to do the work for us). In the case of Iceland, they have natural powersources that can produce electricity to create hydrogen, could very well be that Iceland becomes the middle-east of the future so to speak.

I think we need to rely on nuclear power some more, it's actually a great powersource, cheap, clean, and is actually really safe.
But it's no permanent solution, Uranium deposits aren't limitless either, and will run out just like oil in the near future.

Hopefully we have mastered nuclear fusion by then :)
Click to expand...

The main reason nuclear power isn't popular with governments is that it is not good for them economically speaking:
you can't just turn the reactor on and off to meet demand, it takes a long time to wind up and a long time to power down (unless you release cobalt into the core, destroying the reactor's ability to ever produce energy again :p)
 
random guy said:
"Society feels no remorse for ensuring the world's youth are left to clean up our mess"
Click to expand...

what a good quote that is.

as always, yes everything is left to the youth to clean and tidy up. :/.
 
CptStern said:
hey Iceland's moving to an oil-free economy ..it can work
Click to expand...

i suggest america do this, especially if all the oil-rich countrys like venezuela are planning on isolating it. im glad theres an option for energy without oil.

big factors in this world at the moment are Oil/Media/human evilness.

i really hope this will change in the future decades. :cheers:
 
KoreBolteR said:
i suggest america do this, especially if all the oil-rich countrys like venezuela are planning on isolating it. im glad theres an option for energy without oil.

big factors in this world at the moment are Oil/Media/human evilness.

i really hope this will change in the future decades. :cheers:
Click to expand...

If it wasn't oil, they'd find another way to screw everyone over, maybe not through energy.

Media is annoying BUT the reason is: it sells so well.

It's just like people who buy into junk mail make it profitable, people buy into the media.

We need less biased media, like The Sun.
But apparently people don't feel good unless they know someone else somewhere is suffering.

As for changing humanity, well we could try to focus on all the positives, rather than the negatives, as people tend to do, and trying to solve problems constructively rather than find people to blame.
But change is unlikely to come without evolution of ourselves.
 
I'm so glad they have the Kyoto treaty, since it's so worthless, it barely affects anything and I'm damn glad the US won;lt agree to it, it gives countries like China and Russia a free pass, while it would limit the US growth, Kyoto, in my opinion, for all the progressivism it shows it's also just a step backwards, we need a step forwards
 
If pullution keeps up,in the future,everyone would be wearing combine air masks and protective suits,that would be damn awsome :rolling: .
 
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5548239
His team used U.S. government models of solar warming and volcanic warming, just to see if they could account for
the measurements they made. "Not a chance," he said.

And the effects will be felt far and wide. "Anywhere that the major water source is fed by snow ... or glacial melt," he
said. "The debate is what are we going to do about it."
Click to expand...
It is sounding to me at least that there really isn't any debate anymore among scientists as to whether we are causing global warming.
 
Icarusintel said:
I'm so glad they have the Kyoto treaty, since it's so worthless, it barely affects anything and I'm damn glad the US won;lt agree to it, it gives countries like China and Russia a free pass, while it would limit the US growth, Kyoto, in my opinion, for all the progressivism it shows it's also just a step backwards, we need a step forwards
Click to expand...


:upstare:

something is better than nothing

you cause 36% of global greenhouse gases, what are you doing to try to decrease it?
 
CptStern said:
:upstare:

something is better than nothing

you cause 36% of global greenhouse gases, what are you doing to try to decrease it?
Click to expand...

intresting. who is least to blame in global warming? :O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
CptStern
Major Climate Change skeptic admits to being paid by Oil companies
Replies
2
Views
920
No Limit
No Limit
CptStern
Climate Gate case closed: no evidence research was falsified
Replies
37
Views
5K
GreatEmperor
GreatEmperor
CptStern
Republican and Enviroment Committee candidate: God will save us from Climate Change
Replies
38
Views
2K
Laivasse
Laivasse
Warped
Greenhouse Gases
Replies
3
Views
382
Stormy
Stormy
Back
Top