Global Warming

[Solaris]

Oh my, it seems clear we're ****ed.

The things needed will never be implemented.

 

[dream431ca]

Yay for fear!! The terrorists are controlling global warming!!

By a eco-friendly car or global warming wins.

 

[bbson john]

Wrong.

Source - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html Link - http://www.ipcc.ch/

First, you didn't get my message. I didn't say that global warming effects have nothing to do with greenhouse gases. I said there is a HUGE relation. So don't defy my point of view like that. I am just trying to list out the two perspectives on global warming, let others view the same event with different sight. Hence, you CANNOT say I am wrong.

Second...

Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday January 21, 2007

The news is released right AFTER my reply. I cannot foresee the report, so it is sensible that I input inaccurate data in my reply. Even then, it is good to see this piece of news is released. At least we now clear know what we should do and where are we heading towards.

p.s. fart releases methane gas and sulphate. Greenhouse gases...

 

[Dynasty]

^Which is why cows contribute to 1% of the total gases released into the atmosphere.

Global warming now cant be stopped, only slowed. So thanks to the media, everyone has in their heads we can either stop it or die basically. Technically we cant, thanks to specific countries and their contribution levels...

Oh, and has anyone heard of this forest in the North/South Pole (cant remember which), which contributes to over 50% of the world's gas exchange via photosynthesis (facts are wrong, but its pretty damn high).

 

[SAJ]

^Which is why cows contribute to 1% of the total gases released into the atmosphere. ...

Its worse than that, he's dead Jim!

Cows do not add to the amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

They do not run aground and spill crude oil. But they do ruminate ? which is to say that they give off methane when they chew their cud and belch, and nitrous oxide and ammonia when they leave manure all over the barnyard.

So that pungent odor you smell on a farm? It's bad for the global environment.

Methane, while less prevalent in the air than carbon dioxide, is 23 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas, the FAO report says.

Do some math, the authors say, and you find that livestock is responsible for 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas problem.

What's more, cows take up a lot of space, grazing on land that could feed many more of the world's people if it were used for crops.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2723201&page=1

...Oh, and has anyone heard of this forest in the North/South Pole (cant remember which), which contributes to over 50% of the world's gas exchange via photosynthesis (facts are wrong, but its pretty damn high).

No, not heard of it. Though its highly unlikely that such a forest would be so far north/south. Most likely it would be a northern forest , somewhere around or below the arctic circle (if it hasnt been cut down already).

@bbson jon : I got you loud and clear, I (and pretty much every scientist on the planet) happen to strongly disagree with you. Its not "the other side of the argument" , its a load of flat-earth type bullshit.
If you dont put quotes around an idea you post or quote sources , people are right to assume its your own opinion, rather than that of someone else and react accordingly.
Sorry you were offended.

 

[Dynasty]

Ok facts on that forest were COMPLETELY wrong

Its a Tundra Pine Forest that covers 1/5th of the planet

Cant find a link, but i definitely saw it on the latest something Planet show here in the UK.

 

[SAJ]

Dynast, I think this might be it ....

Taiga (IPA pronunciation: /ˈtaɪgə/ or /taɪˈga/, from Mongolian) is a biome characterized by coniferous forests. Covering most of inland Alaska, Canada, Sweden, Finland, inland Norway, northern Kazakhstan and Russia (especially Siberia), as well as parts of the extreme northern continental United States, the taiga is the world's largest terrestrial biome. In Canada, boreal forest is the term used to refer to the southern part of this biome, while "taiga" is used to describe the more barren northern areas south of the Arctic tree-line

link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga

Sounds a lot like it anyways.

 

[Tyguy]

suprised this hasnt turned into a religous debate, after all, it is GODS EARTH.....

oooooooh boy.

/sarcasm

 

[DaMaN]

suprised this hasnt turned into a religous debate, after all, it is GODS EARTH.....

I don't see his name on it! :cheese:

 

[delusional]

This is all the proof you need for global warming

 

[KagePrototype]

Climatic changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will conclude.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

\o/

 

[baka-raven]

Oh and I just love this one

Scientist Offered cash to dispute climate changes

 

[clarky003]

^ really wouldn't suprise me.

It's too obvious a truth now that humans are having a large accelerating impact on climate change, and simply futile for oil giants to attempt to buy out scientists or brush it off as unfounded.

 

[Steve]

Well, to me, global warming is pretty obviously real.

But I haven't been convinced that it's more than part of the Earth's natural heating and cooling cycle yet.

The reason I haven't been convinced is that everyone I listen to on the radio or watch on television talking about the subject is a massive schmuck.

Either way, I'm for mandatory emissions reductions. No use taking even the slightest chance. I live just across the Mississippi from a huge Exxon refinery, too, so it'd be nice for my lungs.

What really pisses me off is that all the politicians who are against mandatory emissions reductions are always saying "it will hurt U.S. businesses!" Right. It'll be great for business when everybody's DEAD.

 

[pvtbones]

Well, to me, global warming is pretty obviously real.

But I haven't been convinced that it's more than part of the Earth's natural heating and cooling cycle yet.

The reason I haven't been convinced is that everyone I listen to on the radio or watch on television talking about the subject is a massive schmuck.

Either way, I'm for mandatory emissions reductions. No use taking even the slightest chance. I live just across the Mississippi from a huge Exxon refinery, too, so it'd be nice for my lungs.

What really pisses me off is that all the politicians who are against mandatory emissions reductions are always saying "it will hurt U.S. businesses!" Right. It'll be great for business when everybody's DEAD.

I'm in the same boat.

 

[DaMaN]

The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the fourth in a series of reports on climate change. It concludes that global warming is happening, and is very likely caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

The key conclusions were that:

• It is unequivocal that global warming is occurring
  The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%
  The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%

As a result it is predicted that, during the 21st century:

• 
  Surface air warming in the 21st century:
  • 
    Best estimate for a "low scenario"[4] is 1.8 ?C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 ?C (3.2 ?F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 ?F)
    Best estimate for a "high scenario"[5] is 4.0 ?C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 ?C (7.2 ?F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 ?F)
  Based on a model that excludes ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature,[6] it is estimated that sea level rise will be:
  • in a low scenario[4] 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches)
    in a high scenario[5] 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches)
  It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall
  It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.

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

 

[SAJ]

I would just like to add that whilst a change of 1-4C degrees change doesnt sound like much, the average global surface temperature is 15C.

So the projections - based on the best available evidence - suggest an average shift of somewhere between twelve and thirty percent, not something to be laughed at.

 

[Stigmata]

So the projections - based on the best available evidence - suggest an average shift of somewhere between twelve and thirty percent, not something to be laughed at.

Not to nitpick, but that percentage stuff doesn't really make sense - if the average surface temperature right now were to be 1C, the change would be a "massive" 100-400% shift

Anyhow, it's all but completely determined that global warming is caused by human activity.

 

[The Brick]

Yeah if you look at Kelvin (which makes a lot more sense to do), it would only change about 1%.

 

[kirovman]

Yes, you can't say that 20C is twice as hot as 10C. It doesn't make any sense.

You have to look at it in a different light - will a 1C change in temperature have a lot of impact on the climate?
Raising the earth's surface average temperature by 1C takes a hell of a lot of energy. All that energy would likely go into melting polar ice caps and creating chaotic weather.

 

[Aenama]

Not to nitpick, but that percentage stuff doesn't really make sense - if the average surface temperature right now were to be 1C, the change would be a "massive" 100-400% shift

Anyhow, it's all but completely determined that global warming is caused by human activity.

no it isn't.

 

[Beerdude26]

Up to 3?C? Dayum :|

 

[ComradeBadger]

Global Warming has become a means to an end, a politicised issue, that politicians know they can manipulate to their own ends.

I don't yet believe it's anthroprogenic.

 

[Sulkdodds]

no it isn't.

You're very convincing.

 

[DaMaN]

Ok, I'm posting this AGAIN because people still seem to think that we aren't causing global warming:

The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the fourth in a series of reports on climate change. It concludes that global warming is happening, and is very likely caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

The key conclusions were that:

• It is unequivocal that global warming is occurring
  The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%
  The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%

As a result it is predicted that, during the 21st century:

• 
  Surface air warming in the 21st century:
  • 
    Best estimate for a "low scenario"[4] is 1.8 ?C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 ?C (3.2 ?F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 ?F)
    Best estimate for a "high scenario"[5] is 4.0 ?C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 ?C (7.2 ?F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 ?F)
  Based on a model that excludes ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature,[6] it is estimated that sea level rise will be:
  • in a low scenario[4] 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches)
    in a high scenario[5] 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches)
  It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall
  It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.

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

 

[Ennui]

It seems fairly self-evident to me that global warming is caused by humanity, and what's maddening is that no-one's doing shit about it.

 

[pvtbones]

think on the bright side Ennui, global warming with force mankind to develop the technologies for space travel/ colonization faster than any other form of stimuli.

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

 

[SAJ]

Not to nitpick, but that percentage stuff doesn't really make sense - if the average surface temperature right now were to be 1C, the change would be a "massive" 100-400% shift ....

Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about?
Where do you get one degree from? No one said that the average global temperature was one degree.
Really though, WTF?!

Lets start again shall we?

The average global surface temperature is described variously as ranging from 14?C ( thats fourteen or one-four degrees celcius) to 14.52?C .

Global warming is predicted to raise this average global surface temperature by 1.1 to 6.4?C

The end result would be a global average surface temperature of between 15.1?C and 20.92?C
This would be a percentage change of around 8 - 46%

What I hoped when I brought this up, is that it would help put the climate change numbers into their proper context. I mean, no one thinks 1.4?C is a lot if they're sitting on a beach where its 32?C in the shade, but considered in the context of a global average it makes more sense(to some people at least).




Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator8.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Edit: For some reason hl2.net has substituted the symbol for "degree" with a question mark. Can't change it, sorry.

 

[Stigmata]

What I meant was that the conversion to a percentile change was fundamentally flawed. Zero degrees Celsius can't be used as the point of reference for these percentile changes because there is a range of roughly 280 degrees Celsius into the negative which, if any are used as alternate reference points, result in far smaller percentile changes due to global warming. I'm not trying to dispute your claim that a global temperature change of 1-4 degrees is functionally enormous, because it is - but the whole idea of "it's a 30% increase in temperature" is a mathematically flawed concept.