Global Warming

[baystatebill 2]

Show mw the actual evidence that this type of climatic change has never occurred, or never occurred at this frequency before? There isn't any. There isn't accurate weather data going back far enough, only guesses. If you believe we are ready for doomsday and the oceans will flood and the earth will dry up in drought I won't hold it against you and appreciate your concern. I believe pollution is a problem, but I'm not sitting here scared that life as we know it will end. The earth changes naturally. Some say the desersts of Utah and Nevada where once the floor of the ocean, now they are deserts. Who's fault was that?

[spa 968]

Well my point is that who cares one way or the other. One side says it doesn't exist a growing majority says it does. However, again, as I said in my first post, the cost of doing nothing and being wrong versus the cost of acting and being wrong are way, way higher.

[baystatebill 2]

Only a fool would say that anything we put into the enviroment doesn't have an effect. I just don' see any outstanding evidence to show that it is as severe as some make it out to be. Global Warming has become a big rally cry by politicians and media looking for the next big "The World is Ending" story.

[plus01 0]

Sure, scientists can't agree whether the cause is natural or human, but wouldn't it be better to do something about what happens to be a very strong correlation, if not causation, between global warming and human industrial activity.

If in the end Global Warming is caused by nature, then what you said the worst that can happen is that there will be a "nice doomsday clip." What other reasons are there? Yea, one can say that factories would have to put a cap on emissions and destroy the economy, but wouldn't this open up new industries that are economically friendly. Then one would say that we would be wasting billions if not trillions of dollars investing in preventing something that is normal in the first place, which brings me to my original stance, greed. Another point, we can also alleviate dependence on foreign oil (US point of view), and if that's not an incentive enough I don't know what else. Also turning down the factories can also help the current health conditions like asthma (iono, this was randomly at the top of my head), water pollution, etc. AS WELL AS for the future (if Global Warming is true).

But if Global Warming is caused by humans, and we don't do anything about it, then we will continue destroying out planet, raping the land of our resources, etc. What is wrong with being environmentally friendly. We lose our dependence on foreign oil (again with the oil i kno =/), create new jobs, increase our living conditions, while also improving our lives for the future.

What is the worse of the two evils? A doomsday news clip, and loss of money....or continuing to destroy our planet via Global Warming, until we are at a point where money is useless.

And I'm from the SF Bay Area...it definitely felt like an ice age a few weeks ago. My car frosted over, which isn't normal...

[Micah 16]

All of this heating (or, in an opposite scenario, cooling) should take some twenty times slower than it is.quote>

Although I believe in Global Warming, to be moderately fair, no one in this world can predict mother nature. Last week, the Houston weather-watchers were claiming we were suppost to get sleet/ice with a 90% in Tuesday. Did it happen on the day they said it would? No. As I said earlier, in the 60s & 70s, they thought an ice age would occur in the late 70s to early 80s. 

Edit:

then what you said the worst that can happen is that there will be a "nice doomsday clip." quote>

Again, to be fair, the worst that can happen is that governments around the world loose billions to trillions of dollars to absolutely nothing but a joke. That's the worst.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

We know that scientificlly, the things we do heat up the atmopshere.  We can't prove how much or how little, but we do know that what we do makes it hotter.  We also know that the Earth started getting hotter as we did more of the things that we know make the atmosphere hotter.

[spa 968]

Edit:

then what you said the worst that can happen is that there will be a "nice doomsday clip." quote>

Again, to be fair, the worst that can happen is that governments around the world loose billions to trillions of dollars to absolutely nothing but a joke. That's the worst.quote>

 

That assumes that there is no money to be made in a green economy. Generally a green economy means more efficent use of energy which means savings which is an economic winner! We just need to create the right regulatory framework to encourage innovation while punishing the dinosaurs.

[plus01 0]

Again, to be fair, the worst that can happen is that governments around the world loose billions to trillions of dollars to absolutely nothing but a joke. That's the worst.quote>

No, the worst that can happen is that governments around the world loose the ability to sustain life under the extreme weather conditions caused by Global Warming is not a joke.

Sure, I acknowledge that this statement assumes that Global Warming is true, but in order to combat against it in the first place, wouldn't we invest in new environmental technologies and industries.  And in effect, this would benefit ourselves by creating a new green economy, which creates new jobs.  At the same time, we are limiting CO2 emissions in the air while creating a new industry that will definitely produce surplus.  Don't think about it as we are wasting money on a lost cause, we are investing money (with the side effect of cleaning our air). 

What's the worse of the two evils, living in poverty or not living at all. 

Besides, if Global Warming isn't human caused, what is so bad about creating new technologies that benefit our lives at the present.  Sure, we are at risk of losing trillions of money, but aren't we already doing that now with our current deficit.  Creating a new industry is an answer to our deficit problem, and researching and investing in it now would allow us to provide goods and services that no other country has.  If we invest now for the future, we can have the upper hand in the world economy with green economy. 

Also new environmentally friendly power sources lessens our dependence on foreign oil, and oil in general.  Sure, some scientists say the the Middle East still has enough oil to provide for the next 150 years, but why put off something later when you can do it now.  Especially with the rising tensions in the Middle East, this is the best time if anything. 

This is our opportunity to do something about our problems, and acknowledging Global Warming is a problem and must be dealt with, we are "killing two birds with one stone" so to speak.  We are planning for the future. 

[Dixie 0]

Well interesting debate , another possibility with this is , we all suffercate as the air we breath becomes to concentrated in carbon dioxide, then it wouldnt matter about the weather -).CO concentrate has increased in our air some 40% in less than 50 years, at the present rate of deforestation , combined with industrial growth , i wonder what the increase will be over the next 50 years,i also wonder at what year given the present increases in CO ,our air will become unbreathable.

[DOXXP29 5]

Yeah, I know the body is an adaptable thing and we continue to evolve. But you bring up a good point, Dixie. Can we evolve and adapt to the point where we only need a minimal amount of oxygen to survive? Because at the rate we're going, that's about hat's going to happen.

[coolotter88 2]

Carbon dioxide levels are only around 300 ppm, we won't suffocate soon. and you guys are just pulling "facts" out of the air. The Day After Tomorrow isn't going to happen...even in the worst case scenario. Sure the gulf stream will slow down and we have some cooling to offset the warming but nothing REALLY bad will happen. Besides did anyone count how many hurricanes happened in 2006? Your "Global warming is causing stronger and more hurricanes" argument doesn't hold any water.

please cite non-biased sources.

[confused04 14]

Go to the global warming thread a few pages back in this forum... I've said enough on this issue AND provided numerous facts and figures. I'm not doing this again as I'm sick of saying the same things over and over.

On one note, someone above stated "although scientists dont agree if this is natural or human caused" thats actually not true. MOST (above 95%) agree that this is an anthropogenically caused. There was a literature search on all global warming articles and they either blamed humans or didn't assess blame at all (i.e., they just studied the warming, not the cause). Its a consensus, the media likes to play it like theres some huge argument but there isn't. The other thread has more than enough information and I do cite and link in most of my posts.

Besides did anyone count how many hurricanes happened in 2006? Your "Global warming is causing stronger and more hurricanes" argument doesn't hold any water.quote>

One year can neither confirm or deny any statement.  You can't discredit something cause you have one year that works in the non-global warming scheme.  If you look at the past 5 years, things have been MUCH worse than average.  Still can we blame global warming? No, of course not, but its looking more and more likely.  Ironically, it may have been global warming that HINDERED hurricanes this year as El Nino came roaring in a VERY fast manner.  It is possible that increased global temperatures helped heat the Pacific faster and earlier than was orginally predicted which in turn created high shear over the Caribbean and Atlantic. 

[bradleybaggins 0]

Coolotter88:

Sea levels will rise if icebergs melt. They do this because as water heats up it expands. Therefore, it will produce a greater volume of water than there was of ice. And icebergs are pretty big. Besides, Antarctica is also melting. It is not an iceberg. It will add an insurmountable amount of water. People really need to look at the issues and gauge which facts are relevant.

I also am at least marginally fond of Al Gore. But in his movie, he specifically emphasizes the fact that the United States has almost 3 times greater CO2 emissions per capita than China. Per capita means per person Al. The US has 300M people. China has 1,313,973,713 people. (according to the CIA.) 1.3 BILLION!!!! Duh! But i do agree with his position. And I don't know if anyone has ever been to China. I have, for work. It is absolutely disgusting. They burn and unbelievable amount of coal. Everything is coal.

Just think about things. It doesn't matter your position.

[UltraGIR XL 3]

As far as proof---

From a a millenial point:

[the black line shows world averages- © Robert A. Rhode, Global Warming Art]

[ibid]

    That's a comparison of temperature vs. CO₂. I apologize for the gap in time (the thousands of years vs. the one), though, I'm sure you're all capable of interpolation.

    Note that the ice age cycles show increased CO₂ levels--- many of which show sharp increases are not as sharp as they are now.

    Layers of rock from the respected time-periods of ice-ages show the rock's structure to be near-identical to top leayers of limestone in northern Canada and Siberia, suggesting that previos CO₂ spikes caused colder weather [ibid].

    Our spike's temperature increase suggests other gassses combined with CO₂ produce the magic "greenhouse" effect needed to trap sunlight.

[neder 1]

I'm a physisist and I've studied this phenomena quite a bit. The reason greenhouse gases make our planet warmer is because they prohibit heat to leave. I'll make a metaphore that everyone can understand. When you're looking at a piece of glass at 90 degrees angle you'll see strait trought it and you'll only be able to see a very vague image of yourself reflected in the glass. If you tilt this pice of glass the reflections will become stronger (following Shnell's law) until at a certain point (the critical angle) at witch all light will be reflected and the pice of glass wil funtion as a mirror. Heat and light are somewhat similar, they're both a wave phonomena (one is made from traditional waves and the other of electromagnetic waves) and will react the same way when traveling through different kinds of media. The added greenhouse gases in the atmosphere make it harder for these waves to get through and more heat will be reflected back to earth. The opposite can also be said to a certain extent about heat that is added to our planet. These waves will brake more inwards adding more heat then it would otherwise, but this effect is almost negligable compared to the heat that gets trapped. This is how the science work and I'm not gonna try to explain it any further. If you want to know all about this I suggest you take the courses optics, thermal physics and quantum theory at a local collage or university, because it's much too timeconsuming for me to try and teach this at an online forum.

Someone said that we have no proof what temperatures have been on earth in the past, that's not true. We know exactly what temperatures we've had in the past by studying animal and plant phosiles, the quality of the earth at the time, but most importantly the arctic ice. What they do is that they extract cylinders of ice and study the different layers, here they can see very accuratly how temperatures have changed for several 100's of thousands of years back. We can also measure the quantity of greenhouse gases in the air using similar methods. If you want to learn more about this you should probarbly study meteorology at a higher level.

Temperature changes in the past have been very slow compared to what we see today and that have allowed the earth to adjust and counter these changes by emitting more or less greenhouse gases in a natural way. As the earth heats up evergreens will become more rare and leaved trees will spread to a greater extent. This means less CO2 will be produced and more will be transformed into oxygen. This cools the earth and in case it gets too cold evergreens will spread producing more CO2 and thereby heating the earth. This is our planets own defence system for global warming/cooling, but it's a very slow defence. It takes nature several hundred years to do these adjustments and in a much smaller scale then what we're seeing now. Regardless of what humans do earth will overcome it tho. Even if temperatures rise more then 10 degrees at witch point most animal- and a substatial portion of plant-life will be lost temperatures will go back to normal and life will sprawl again eventually. The most common theory as to why the Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago is because it got too cold. Ash (weather it be from a mteor or from a huge volcano or something els is of no interest) rose into the atmosphere to the extent that heat from the sun etc couldn't penetrate to the surface and thereby cooling the whole planet very rapidly. The only animals that could survive this was those that could hide underground or in the seas where the heat from earths core still gave some relief for them. All other animals more or less died out!

Like other have said in this thread. It's better to act and be wrong and foolish then ignore it and be wrong, foolish and dead.

[coolotter88 2]

okay, and do you have any proof that global warming will kill us? So far, the only "threat" I see is the slowdown of the gulf stream and consequently, the cooling of the northern hemisphere. And not enough cooling to kill anyone.

[UltraGIR XL 3]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 okay, and do you have any proof that global warming will kill us? So far, the only "threat" I see is the slowdown of the gulf stream and consequently, the cooling of the northern hemisphere. And not enough cooling to kill anyone.quote>

Either that "Day After Tomorrow" like consequence, or flooding on a scale that could destroy Miami, London, Toronto, Detroit, LA, San Francisco, New York... all those great places.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

"Even if temperatures rise more then 10 degrees at witch point most animal- and a substatial portion of plant-life will be lost"

The ecosystem that we depend on for food would be out of whack.  Humans would survive, but that would be after mass starvation (almost all poor people would die).

As side effects, there could be social and political tensions as populations shift themselves around (most people would have to move away from their flooded cities).  I don't study weather, but North America could be turned into a desert like most of Africa, and Africa could start getting a ton of rain.  It would starve NA's population and flood Africa's.  The UK would be very cold today if it wasn't for the hot air that comes to it, which could be redirected if the weather changes too much.

Detroit, Chicago, and maybe Toronto are a lot higher than sealevel, and even if the entire ice cap melted, they'd still be above water.  Most cities around the world would have flooding problems.  If the weather changes the right way, the Great Lakes could loose their source of water, and they'd get really shallow.  Or maybe we'd get more rain and they'd flood.

But that's just some conspiracy by scientists and Al Gore.  But really, why would everyone be lying?

[UltraGIR XL 3]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw "Even if temperatures rise more then 10 degrees at witch point most animal- and a substatial portion of plant-life will be lost"

The ecosystem that we depend on for food would be out of whack.  Humans would survive, but that would be after mass starvation (almost all poor people would die).

As side effects, there could be social and political tensions as populations shift themselves around (most people would have to move away from their flooded cities).  I don't study weather, but North America could be turned into a desert like most of Africa, and Africa could start getting a ton of rain.  It would starve NA's population and flood Africa's.  The UK would be very cold today if it wasn't for the hot air that comes to it, which could be redirected if the weather changes too much.

Detroit, Chicago, and maybe Toronto are a lot higher than sealevel, and even if the entire ice cap melted, they'd still be above water.  Most cities around the world would have flooding problems.  If the weather changes the right way, the Great Lakes could loose their source of water, and they'd get really shallow.  Or maybe we'd get more rain and they'd flood.

But that's just some conspiracy by scientists and Al Gore.  But really, why would everyone be lying?quote>

As a denizen of Detroit, I've looked into this.

We'd flood. Ontario'd flow into Erie into St. Clair into Huron into Michigan. Superior's at less of a risk, but, still.

I'd rather not become the Great Lake.

[Palpatine001 57]

Before I go and drop the ball in this thread I have one question

What are the TOP 3 Greenhouse Gases Please

Once I have enough answers I will post a reply

[UltraGIR XL 3]

Originally posted by: Palpatine001 Before I go and drop the ball in this thread I have one question

What are the TOP 3 Greenhouse Gases Please

Once I have enough answers I will post a replyquote>

CO₂, Nitrous Oxide, Methane and Ozone are the top greenhouse gases.

[CitySim123 0]

Whoever said we don't know the temperature 650,000 years ago....
WE DO. Scientists send people to Atarctica and they dig into the ice layers by taking a large metal pole and bringing up all the ice. When the ice freezes it traps little bubbles of atmosphere, and they can tell you exactly what the temperature was when that ice froze. With that said, they information showed that there is a natural change from temperatures like 50 years ago, to ice age temperatures, BUT the temperature average has never gone as high as it is today. So, in the last 650,000 years carbon dioxide and temperature has never gone above what it is today.


P.S. If you don't have a planet, well...

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Originally posted by: UltraGIR XLquote>

As a denizen of Detroit, I've looked into this.

We'd flood. Ontario'd flow into Erie into St. Clair into Huron into Michigan. Superior's at less of a risk, but, still.

I'd rather not become the Great Lake.

quote>

[nofunk 1,933]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw

Originally posted by: UltraGIR XL

As a denizen of Detroit, I've looked into this.

We'd flood. Ontario'd flow into Erie into St. Clair into Huron into Michigan. Superior's at less of a risk, but, still.

I'd rather not become the Great Lake.quote>

Yikes!  I live right by the water too!  I'd flood for sure.  Nice to run into another Detroiter. quote>

 

Lake Ontario is 245 ft. above sea level. Erie is 570 ft. above, St. Clair 573 ft. above. And both Huron and Michigan are 579 ft. above sea level. If all the ice caps were to melt, the sea level would rise by only about 20-30 ft. It would not flood into the Great Lakes and Detroit will not be going under water.

That said, I think global warming is a grave concern. This pretty much says it all:

(Hint: Look at the relationship between temperatures and the level of CO₂.)

[UltraGIR XL 3]

Originally posted by: nofunk

Originally posted by: Jasoncw

Originally posted by: UltraGIR XL

As a denizen of Detroit, I've looked into this.

We'd flood. Ontario'd flow into Erie into St. Clair into Huron into Michigan. Superior's at less of a risk, but, still.

I'd rather not become the Great Lake.quote>

Yikes!  I live right by the water too!  I'd flood for sure.  Nice to run into another Detroiter. quote>

 

Lake Ontario is 245 feet above sea level. Lake Erie is 570 ft. above, Lake St. Clair 573 ft. above. And both Huron and Michigan are 579 ft above sea level. If all the ice caps were to melt, the sea level would rise by only about 20-30 feet. It would not flood into the Great Lakes and Detroit will not be going under water.

That said, I think global warming is a grave concern. This pretty much says it all:quote>

Nuh-uh. Superior.

Superior's still fed by glaciers.

I was wrog with Ontario I realize, though, the bays and Glaciers in Canada could cause a cascading effect throughout the Great Lakes.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: CitySim123

Whoever said we don't know the temperature 650,000 years ago....

WE DO. Scientists send people to Atarctica and they dig into the ice layers by taking a large metal pole and bringing up all the ice. When the ice freezes it traps little bubbles of atmosphere, and they can tell you exactly what the temperature was when that ice froze. With that said, they information showed that there is a natural change from temperatures like 50 years ago, to ice age temperatures, BUT the temperature average has never gone as high as it is today. So, in the last 650,000 years carbon dioxide and temperature has never gone above what it is today.

P.S. If you don't have a planet, well...

quote>

However, 650 000 years is peanuts compared to the billions of years Earth has been around. There may be larger cycles that can't be seen by looking at the Antarctic ice. Or there could be new factors (NOT pollution) that scientists haven't found yet.

I won't deny that global warming is happening; I dispute the cause of it.

[nofunk 1,933]

Originally posted by: UltraGIR XL

Nuh-uh. Superior.

Superior's still fed by glaciers.

I was wrog with Ontario I realize, though, the bays and Glaciers in Canada could cause a cascading effect throughout the Great Lakes.quote>

 

I really do not intend to be rude or start an argument here, but that is also wrong. Lake Superior, and indeed all of the Great Lakes, were originally formed by glaciers, but they are in no way fed by glaciers now:

Lake Superior is fed by over 200 rivers. The largest include the Nipigon River, the St. Louis River, the Pigeon River, the Pic River, the White River, the Michipicoten River, the Brule River and the Kaministiquia River. Lake Superior drains into Lake Huron by the St. Marys River.

All of the bays in Canada are at sea level; Lake Superior is 600 ft above sea level. And I am almost certain there are no glaciers anywhere in the eastern half of N. America anymore, unless there are some on Canada's northernmost islands.

Melting ice caps due to global warming will submerge a significant portion of the US -- including some very large cities (i.e., New York). However, the areas that will be directly affected by rising sea levels are along the Eastern Seaboard and much of the Gulf Coast. The Great Lakes will not be affected.

[UltraGIR XL 3]

Originally posted by: nofunk

Originally posted by: UltraGIR XL

Nuh-uh. Superior.

Superior's still fed by glaciers.

I was wrog with Ontario I realize, though, the bays and Glaciers in Canada could cause a cascading effect throughout the Great Lakes.quote>

 

I really do not intend to be rude or start an argument here, but that is also wrong. Lake Superior, and indeed all of the Great Lakes, were originally formed by glaciers, but they are in no way fed by glaciers now:

Lake Superior is fed by over 200 rivers. The largest include the Nipigon River, the St. Louis River, the Pigeon River, the Pic River, the White River, the Michipicoten River, the Brule River and the Kaministiquia River. Lake Superior drains into Lake Huron by the St. Marys River.

All of the bays in Canada are at sea level; Lake Superior is 600 ft above sea level. And I am almost certain there are no glaciers anywhere in the eastern half of N. America anymore, unless there are some on Canada's northernmost islands.

Melting ice caps due to global warming will submerge a significant portion of the US -- including some very large cities (i.e., New York). However, the areas that will be directly affected by rising sea levels are along the Eastern Seaboard and much of the Gulf Coast. The Great Lakes will not be affected.quote>

Seriously? Wowzas.

Sorry then. I was at a symposium in Taylor and there was this guy talking about glacial tributaries in Canada that could overflow if melted.

[kibblewitbit 0]

i dont think human actions could make global warming bad enough to kill us all, i dont think i can believe anybody anymore there is so much bias on this, the other day i was cleaning out my basement and found a national geographic magazine from 1976 and one of the articles mentioned on the cover said "what's happening to our climate" i immediatley assumed it had something to do with global warming, so i flipped to the article and began to read it, i was shocked to find out that it was about a disturbing new trend in the earths temperature- cooling, it talked about rapid warming in the prewar period and more recently up until time of publishing (1976) rapid cooling, there was even a quotation of the national science board, from 1974 "during the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade." the article did mention the theory that rising amounts of greenhouse gases can lead to the warming of the global temperature, which wouldnt make much sense back then, but what surprised me the most was that 30 years ago people were saying the exact opposite of what we are saying now, i say dont worry about it, i wouldnt mind using greener energy sources, etc, but global warming isnt that much of a big deal, i wouldnt be surpised if in a few decades the temerature will go down again. someone please explain to me how 800 years ago, with no suvs or aresol cans in sight, the vikings had dairy farms on greenland!

ps. i took that last one from an editorial letter in the globe and mail or national post sometime around christmas ( i dont know but i still remember that sentence)

[coolotter88 2]

The Day After Tomorrow is only a movie, it's been elaborated on and the director has taken poetic licence...or whatever it's called. if you did some research on the real life phenomenon, you'd find out that it would not cause a giant chunk of ice to crush the northern hemisphere. we'd get colder, drier weather but that's about it.

Besides, tell me why I should care about rising sea levels? The complete meltdown of the antarctic and greenland ice would raise sea levels by nearly 70 meters as predicted by scientists...How long do you think it would take to do that? it's a lot of ice to melt. This would probably take the next 1000 years to melt everything. In fact, in my lifetime, Nothing really bad will happen so why should I care? After I die, it's another generation's problem.

and I'd like to correct UltraGIR XL, the top greenhouse gas is water vapor, then carbon dioxide, then Methane.