The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[Micah 16]

As most of you know, there's been quite a few Global Warming related threads in this forum. Instead of combining these three threads together (which caused a big amount of confusion when we did so with several other threads), the staff has agreed to simply create a brand new thread with a new topic starter and new ground rules.

__________________________________________

The topic:

Say that it's the year 2100. What is the world like? Has global warming happened? Is everything different or is it still the same? Will we be farming coconuts in Antarctica? What are your views on our possible future?

__________________________________________

The suggestion for those that post here:

We had many problems with the three Global Warming threads because they kept going to the same exact topic, though they were actually different. Quite a few posts were archived which, in other words, means forget about what happened earlier with the constant flaming.

Except, these are the most obvious statements you cannot forget about:

Please, keep this civil, of course!

Secondly, Simtropolis is mainly a Sim City 4 site; however, these kind of topics have been allowed. The Current Events forum is an experimental forum to see if our community is ready for topics such as these.

And thirdly, this is a family friendly site, but this is not a kiddie site. Show other members on Simtropolis that you (in general) can handle this type of topic.  Let's have an intelligent discussion.

 

Now that you know (and all of this should be known already), post away!

Full credit goes to simcitystar1167, wagusmaximus, MrFingers, (Sam), and countless others for beginning the discussion of Global Warming these past few months. Sorry that those other three threads were closed, but we felt that we needed to begin with a new thread. Lastly, we also decided to keep the other threads locked, but open to the public if you wish to see the data in those threads.

[Duke87 1,070]

You should have a different poll up. Nobody denies that global warming is actually happening, the question is how much of it is caused by human activity and how much of it is natural.

[Micah 16]

Thanks Duke!

[schm0 27]

In the other forums we had agreed to several ground rules, and I wanted to make sure everyone could agree on a basic set of rules for this thread. Here are some of my proposals. If you have anything to add, please do. (Micah, your input here would be greatly appreciated.)

1) No flaming. You are welcome to disagree, but don't insult someone just because you do. This is a forum for debate and discussion, not for trading verbal punches.

2) No religion. You are welcome to debate ethics and morality, but this is a scientific debate, not a religious one.

3) No conspiracy theories. You are welcome to debate the scientific theory behind the global warming phenomenon, but leave all conspiracies at the door.

What do you think?

[Micah 16]

Sure. Sounds fine to me!

Anyway, here are my thoughts. Based on the data of the scales going up, I would think that eventually there would be so much C02 in the air that the temperatures would start reversing. Instead of global warming, wouldn't it eventually turn into global freezing? Also, in the 1816, Tambora (a volcano) blanketed the Earth. All the CO2 from that volcano created what is known as the Year Without A Summer. If that is so, why didn't the year without a summer remain? Why did we return to normal just a few years later? That's the question I've been asking myself all this time. And I've been thinking, if there was a peak to that year, could there be a peak to this Global Warming? Perhaps by 2050, all this could reserve whether it does it by itself or by human technology.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Micah

Sure. Sounds fine to me!

Anyway, here are my thoughts. Based on the data of the scales going up, I would think that eventually there would be so much C02 in the air that the temperatures would start reversing. Instead of global warming, wouldn't it eventually turn into global freezing? Also, in the 1816, Tambora (a volcano) blanketed the Earth. All the CO2 from that volcano created what is known as the Year Without A Summer. If that is so, why didn't the year without a summer remain? Why did we return to normal just a few years later? That's the question I've been asking myself all this time. And I've been thinking, if there was a peak to that year, could there be a peak to this Global Warming? Perhaps by 2050, all this could reserve whether it does it by itself or by human technology.

quote>

As far as I know, the eruption of that volcano released so much ash into the upper atmosphere, it essentially blocked out a good portion of the sunlight that reached earth. Over time, the ash eventually fell to the Earth in the form of rain and snow. It's relative weight to the surrounding gases was the reason why it "corrected" itself. Carbon dioxide, however, is not ash. It takes a much longer time for the Earth to go through a natural state of "correction" (i.e. ice age -> temperate climate) and is historically on the scale of thousands of years. There are several graphs, as I'm sure you've seen, documenting this phenomenon.

[coolotter88 2]

CO2 doesn't block radiation, it causes a disruption in currents.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 CO2 doesn't block radiation, it causes a disruption in currents.quote>

Ash blocks out the sun. The world gets colder. The ash falls from the upper atmosphere, over the course of several seasons, until the world is warmed again. As to your reply, I'm confused. What currents? Electrical currents? Ocean currents?

Also, I was watching a show on PBS entitled "Voyage of the Lonely Turtle" and discovered some other interesting facts concerning global warming:

1) The world is warming, and so are our oceans. Fragile coral reefs are dying due to subtle changes in the temperature of the water, as little as 1 to 2 degrees of warming. Coral reefs are a fundamental part of the ocean's ecosystem and are harbors for scores of thousands of species.

2) The increase of carbon dioxide is affecting the ocean's pH levels, making them more acidic, and less hospitable to their creatures.

3) Increases in temperatures cause more water to be evaporated, which in turns creates more clouds, and thus, more storms and violent weather patterns.

4) Warming of the deepest parts of the oceans, where the bodies of animals slowly decompose, releases methane from the sediment. Methane is also trapped in sediment from inactive volcanic areas.

[Edit: The above are paraphrased from the documentary itself.]

Some related articles and websites.

• Ocean Conservancy -- www.oceanconservancy.org
• NCDC Global Warming -- www.ncdc.noaa.gov
• Climate Change - Tropics, Tropical Rainforests, Rising Oceans -- www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org
• Global Warming & Rising Oceans -- www.actionbioscience.org

Interesting stuff.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: Duke87 You should have a different poll up. Nobody denies that global warming is actually happening, the question is how much of it is caused by human activity and how much of it is natural.quote>

I do. And I have legit reasoning to support my opinion; It's Spring! Things warm up in the spring time! And you think this little warm spell is bad, you'll never survive Summer!

Nah, i'm just messing with you   There ain't no global warming, just another cycle in the Earth that is follow the Sun's unusual past few decades. It just so happens that CO₂ Emissions are present this time around. CO₂ is very much natural, since all pollutants are also given off by things in nature. It's a natural process, so give it a  rest already.

[Poetic 0]

I can't respond to this poll. Global Warming, to me, is caused by both humans and nature. Humans are pushing it at a more rapid rate, but that doesn't mean humans are completely to blame.

[ColinM 11]

To be honest, I think it's false. It's called global warming, yet we just got snow in med april

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Nah, i'm just messing with you   There ain't no global warming, just another cycle in the Earth that is follow the Sun's unusual past few decades. It just so happens that CO₂ Emissions are present this time around. CO₂ is very much natural, since all pollutants are also given off by things in nature. It's a natural process, so give it a  rest already.quote>

Your statement (in bold) is rather ironic, don't you think? Global temperatures have increased in the past several decades. It's not a debate. It's what is causing this warming that is stirring up discussion, and is what you are referring to as "another cycle." (I would abstain from using the word "controversy", but some would call it that.)

Your statement about natural phenomenon putting the same type of pollutants in the air is also a falsehood, as nature could not possibly reproduce (naturally) all of the man-made chemicals we have engineered and subsequently released into the environment. Natural carbon dioxide levels are well below the ratio in which we see them today, which does not account for your explanation.

Originally posted by: Foolilo To be honest, I think it's false. It's called global warming, yet we just got snow in med aprilquote>

Global warming produces more extreme weather patterns, and the changing of the seasons will start to occur at earlier or later dates. Migration patterns of dozens of species have been happening at earlier or later times because they are confused as to when to leave or their instincts are telling them the seasons are arriving earlier/later. Snow in April is not unprecedented, however rare, but it doesn't mean anything on a global scale.

If you would like sources, I will gladly produce them.

[daniel01 0]

i believe that global warming is actually happening. The world has started to have changing in their weather patterns. So snow in april means that could be a change in the weather patterns, stronger and deadlier storms which are occuring.

I heard this morning that the East Coast of the US is on alert on a strong storm front which has killed 5 people already. they said that it was the stongest storm in 15 years.

But there are other signs of Global Warmng actually happening. Australia has gone through the worst El Nino ever.

Australia expected complete drought, and for the first time in history some states declared that the entire state was in drought

many of the dams that give water has gone to less 30% Capacity.

El Nino has finally left the country and now we are waiting for flooding rains from La Nina

daniel01

[coolotter88 2]

of course ocean currents!

[commanderkai 38]

I think it is happening, but absolutely nowhere near the level that the media is advertising. Climatolgists (forgive the spelling) need funding and I think using media hype gives them more funds to do whatever they like with since there is more public outcry to do more. Remember that 30 years ago these same scientists said that Earth was approaching the next Ice Age in the next 30-100 years, it didn't happen.

[jweekle1 1]

As I've read the discussion i have seen post after post from the "we caused global warming" and the "we aren't causing global warming" crowds. The real meat of the whole issue is this: If we are causing global warming how can we stop it? If we can stop it, but at the same time have to destroy our economy to do so what is the solution then? At this moment there is a coal fired power plant sending power to my computer so I can type this. And when I'm done typing this I will play Sim City 4 for several hours. All the while I will have a lightbulb burning at 60 watts. So give me the solution and if that solution still means i can drive to work and back, turn my light on, keep my fridge cold, heat my house and play sim city 4 I'll do it. Because I really don't care if we are causing global warming or not. If it turns out we're not thats great, if it turns out we are bummer. I'll still be burning enough coal at the local power plant to keep my computer running either way.

[defcon pilot 0]

Originally posted by: Foolilo To be honest, I think it's false. It's called global warming, yet we just got snow in med aprilquote>

One of the effects of more CO2 and ozone emissions is more extreme weather around the globe.

'Global warming' is a misnomer, really. Warming is only one of the symptoms. On a whole, it's referred to as 'climate change', because while some places are getting hotter (ex: Europe had its worst heat wave in history last year), other places are getting colder (ex: yours), and while some places are getting wetter, others are becoming drier. Take Lake Chad for instance: Wikipedia.

[crazyyaya 4]

the thing about global warming is that it sells itself, everytime there's a natural diaster, people get talking about it even if it had nothing to do with it.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: jweekle1 As I've read the discussion i have seen post after post from the "we caused global warming" and the "we aren't causing global warming" crowds. The real meat of the whole issue is this: If we are causing global warming how can we stop it? If we can stop it, but at the same time have to destroy our economy to do so what is the solution then?quote>

Why is the only solution to climate change is to destroy the global economy? Japanese automakers have been making more effecient automobiles for several decades, and have continued to take more and more of the American market away from domestic producers because their cars are more effecient, last longer, and cost less. This model is typical of a successful solution to the problem of climate change: create a product that is healthy to the environment and saves the consumer in the long run, and they will make the initial investment in the first place. I'm sure that the oil companies, who have enjoyed record breaking profits during the recent oil crisis, can surely foot the bill for the majority of change required to make their energy source (while it lasts).

 

At this moment there is a coal fired power plant sending power to my computer so I can type this. And when I'm done typing this I will play Sim City 4 for several hours. All the while I will have a lightbulb burning at 60 watts. So give me the solution and if that solution still means i can drive to work and back, turn my light on, keep my fridge cold, heat my house and play sim city 4 I'll do it.quote>

In my opinion, this is a very selfish way to look at a solution to global warming. Do you buy a Big Mac because it's cheaper, even though your doctor warns you that eating them on a regular basis might kill you? No, you plan out a diet and spend the money to eat healthier. You buy organic foods. You eat whole grains. You make changes in your daily lives to live longer and healthier. The same applies to climate change.

Because I really don't care if we are causing global warming or not. If it turns out we're not thats great, if it turns out we are bummer. I'll still be burning enough coal at the local power plant to keep my computer running either way.quote>

Bummer, indeed.

Originally posted by: crazyyaya the thing about global warming is that it sells itself, everytime there's a natural diaster, people get talking about it even if it had nothing to do with it.quote>

The fact is, these weather patterns will continue to worsen with the abrupt climate change we are experiencing. While disasters will always occur on a natural scale, it is their frequency and intensity that are attributed to climate change, not their occurrence itself.

[edd17 1]

It is undeniable that increased levels of carbon dioxide (or any greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere will increase the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere; the electromagnetic radiation reaching the earth from the sun is (pretty much) spread over the entire spectrum, from radio waves to x-rays. The radiation which is not blocked by the atmosphere reaches the surface of the earth and heats up the ground. This heat energy is then given off in the form of infrared radiation (the frequency of the radiation is proportional to the heat of the object) and is then directed back up into space.

Different gasses will always absorb a specific range of radiation (due to the bonds between the atoms and the arrangement of the electrons) the bonds found in carbon dioxide and a number of other gasses are such that they absorb radiation in the infrared range of radiation. This means that they will absorb infrared radiation (in which most of the energy of energy is lost) and heat up... hence global warming.

The exact magnitude of the effect of increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is disputable. It could be calculated from the amount of greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere how much more energy would be held in the atmosphere and how much the average temperature of the atmosphere would be raised but the effect on weather would be much harder to predict.

[AnFBoi212 2]

If you examine the global warming model and what it claims (essentially that increased CO2 emissions made by humans creates what is essentially a "blanket" that catches the sun's heat as it reflects back off the surface of the earth), it's already been proven flawed by scientists who have taken temperature readings of the upper atmosphere both using satelite data and weather balloons. For the man-made global warming theory to be true, we should see the upper atmosphere warming at a faster rate than the surface temperature, but we see the opposite happening. The surface is warming more quickly than the atmosphere.

The world is getting warmer, but the cause is the increased solar activity that control's the planet's temperature in the first place. Increased solar radiation results in less cloud formation (increased solar activity = decreased cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere and interacting with water vapor), therefore more sunlight reaches the surface and this causes both land and water to "get hotter." In the case of the sun hitting the ocean, it causes more evaporation thereby increasing both the amount of water vapor in the air (water vapor of course being the principal greenhouse gas and being the main cause of atmospheric warming - NOT CO2), as well as increasing the amount of CO2 in the air (the majority of atmospheric CO2 naturally disolves into the ocean - but an increase in evaporation means that the ocean gives off CO2 rather than absorbing it).

Also if one examines the charts and graphs of historical levels of atmospheric CO2 prior to the industrial revolution and compares them to the estimated temperatures prior to the industrial revolution on any chart/graph other than the "hockey stick" graph drawn by one man which is disputed by basically everyone else who's studied it's data, you find that changes in the levels of atmospheric CO2 generally lags behind the changes in average global temperature by several hundred years, not the other way around. CO2 makes up such a miniscule fraction of the atmosphere it's hardly going to be the cause of global warming. Further, the percentage of man-made CO2 as compared to the amount of CO2 produced naturally by everything from animals breathing and expelling natural gas, to leaves falling from trees and rotting in the fall, makes up only a small fraction of annual greenhouse gas emissions.

What causes global warming and cooling is the sun - the most powerful force in our solar system. More powerful than us humans. If you compare sunspot graphs to temperature graphs from hundreds of years ago to today you find a much closer correlation between temperature and solar activity, than you do between CO2 levels and solar activity. Since nothing the planet does can affect the sun, it must obviously be happening the other way around. Unless you're Al Gore - and then solar activity's probably driven by CO2 levels as well - the sun turns up its thermostat to burn away CO2 maybe lol.

In short, global warming is happening the same way it's happened for billions of years long before humans were around to "destroy the planet!!"  :'(   the sun goes the cycles of more and less activity, and the Earth is caught in the wash. Fairly simple really and neat and tidy too.

I'm all for increased efficiency - it means I spend less $$$ at the gas pump. I'm also all for finding alternative fuel sources, though I prefer we skip ethanol and move towards hydrogen fuel cells since they'll be a cheaper source of fuel. It's less of a stop-gap solution the way the DVD is a stopgap solution on the road to globalized digital media. But I'm not in favor of taxing people for their carbon emissions. That's ridiculous and it will cripple the economy if everyone has to fork out a couple grand to pay for their emissions, and I have a problem with advocates like Al Gore sitting on the boards of companies that will use the "carbon credits" to build "clean solar & wind power plants" and then make a fortune selling their new clean energy. It's the effect of a shakedown and I'm opposed to it strongly until scientists have an open and honest debate on the subject examining the data of everyone studying the climate rather than a few people who agree getting together and promising global chaos in the hopes of raising a few more dollars via research grants to predict how "bad it's gonne be"

[coolotter88 2]

What are you talking about?? increased solar radiation = less cosmic rays interacting with water? what? please explain

[jweekle1 1]

Japanese automakers have been making more effecient automobiles for several decades, and have continued to take more and more of the American market away from domestic producers because their cars are more effecient, last longer, and cost less. This model is typical of a successful solution to the problem of climate change: create a product that is healthy to the environment and saves the consumer in the long run, and they will make the initial investment in the first place.

So these Japanese automakers use what to power their auto plants? These autos that save me money in the long run are where? You mean hybrids? The next time I come up with the money to buy a brand new hybrid who can start reaping there rewards to me (in how many years is it now) I'll do it. I may be selfish, I might just be a realist.

[AnFBoi212 2]

What are you talking about?? increased solar radiation = less cosmic rays interacting with water? what? please explain quote>

Cosmic rays are radiation that come from sources outside of our solar system. The theory behind cosmic rays and cloud formation is fairly involved but basically the rays interact with the atmosphere and produce aerosol particles which brings about cloud formation. I can give you links to articles that explain the process but it's been played around with in laboratories on a small scale under controlled conditions and basically this is the application on a global scale.

With respect to what the solar cycle has to do with this is that clouds reflect the sun's heat before it reaches the earth's surface. If we have a cloudy summer - the temperature is colder for example. 

So the way this all relates is that the solar irradiance increases - the earth is basically being continuously bombarded by a steady flow much like a breeze (solar wind). When the sun is more active, we see solar eruptions and essentially what happens is the solar "wind" increases in its intensity and the particles from the sun strike the particles from foreign sources (the cosmic rays) and less reach the earth which means there is less cloud formation. Less cloud formation means more of the sun's energy hits the surface of the planet. The increased energy hitting the surface warms the surface - particularly in urbanized areas with a lot of concrete. It also hits the ocean which increases evaporation which increases water vapor which drives the greenhouse effect upwards so the temperature rises further.

So basically there's nothing we can do to affect a changing climate. CO2 levels have been much higher historically when humans were not here to increase it or decrease it, and our miniscule contribution to the level of greenhouse gasses likely has very little effect on our actual climate. We're witnesses of a system much greater than we are that existed for billions of years before us and will continue whether we're here or not.

So again - should we reduce our emissions of CO2? I don't really think it makes much difference one way or the other. My concern is that the amount of petroleum in the ground is finite. We will need it to manufacture plastics and composite materials long into the future. A world without these types of products would be a nightmare because if you think of how much we have even in our own homes that's plastic or derived from plastic, the loss of this stuff would be crippling to our society - so we need to conserve our planet's limited resources. Whereas using hydrogen which is a renuable resource - it's produced as fuel from water which our planet has plenty of, and when oxidized, it creates water.

With regards to Japanese cars, while they are more efficient than say American SUVs, efficient cars that run on petroleum are sort of like bandaids, and while they can help tithe us over on the way to a better solution, they're still temporary.

Ethanol is also a stop-gap solution as they're not really that clean, and they take more energy to produce than gasoline so they're a poor long-term solution.

[schm0 27]

You know I can't resist posts like this! (And besides, I am absolutely disgusted by the current proportions in the poll of this thread.)

Originally posted by: AnFBoi212

If you examine the global warming model and what it claims (essentially that increased CO2 emissions made by humans creates what is essentially a "blanket" that catches the sun's heat as it reflects back off the surface of the earth), it's already been proven flawed by scientists who have taken temperature readings of the upper atmosphere both using satelite data and weather balloons.quote>

Please cite a source if you say it's "proven flawed." The general consensus is that global climate models need tweaking, which involves more work and study on how the global climate. I haven't read on any major website that they have been patently flawed in their nature. While calculating every single molecule in the atmosphere is nearly impossible to replicate, models can simulate weather patterns with moderate to good accuracy, which is monumental to the understanding of the field. (LINK and LINK)

For the man-made global warming theory to be true, we should see the upper atmosphere warming at a faster rate than the surface temperature, but we see the opposite happening. The surface is warming more quickly than the atmosphere.quote>

Which only provides substance for the further study of the phenomenon of climate change; it does not prove them false.

The world is getting warmer, but the cause is the increased solar activity that control's the planet's temperature in the first place. Increased solar radiation results in less cloud formation (increased solar activity = decreased cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere and interacting with water vapor), therefore more sunlight reaches the surface and this causes both land and water to "get hotter." In the case of the sun hitting the ocean, it causes more evaporation thereby increasing both the amount of water vapor in the air (water vapor of course being the principal greenhouse gas and being the main cause of atmospheric warming - NOT CO2), as well as increasing the amount of CO2 in the air (the majority of atmospheric CO2 naturally disolves into the ocean - but an increase in evaporation means that the ocean gives off CO2 rather than absorbing it).quote>

Nobody disputes that water vapor is the main greenhouse "gas." Water vapor is present in the atmosphere from the natural processes that govern weather patterns and evaporation of water on the earth's surface. Carbon dioxide has reached unprecedented levels from unnatural (human) causes. (We are not polluting the world with water vapor.) Thus, it is the focus of climatologists around the globe. Historical temperatures world-wide have increased in direct proportion to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor is responsible for 90+% of the greenhouse effect, and if you were to remove it from the atmosphere, you would see a proportional (90+%) drop in temperature. The world is not warming from increased water vapor in the atmosphere, but rather, other greenhouse gases. I would love to see sources (I LOVE SOURCES!) for your hypotheses.

Also if one examines the charts and graphs of historical levels of atmospheric CO2 prior to the industrial revolution and compares them to the estimated temperatures prior to the industrial revolution on any chart/graph other than the "hockey stick" graph drawn by one man

 which is disputed by basically everyone else who's studied it's data, you find that changes in the levels of atmospheric CO2 generally lags behind the changes in average global temperature by several hundred years, not the other way around.quote>

Oh here we go again...

The hockey stick graph has NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE IN ANY WAY. There were two studies done to analyze the graph's validity. The NAS study agreed with the basic premises of the graph and it's data. The statistical survey (Wegman) showed that two items, MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be "somewhat obscure." Even taking this into account, the graph's tell-tale pattern didn't change at all. Also, unlike the NAS study, the report was not formally peer-reviewed. There is no dispute. Of course, the earth needs to take time to recover from changes in its atmosphere, but we are talking about the process of climate change BEFORE MAJOR HUMAN IMPACT. The reason the "lag" you describe exists hundreds of thousands of years ago is the pure and simple fact that there were no industrial man-made pollutants being put into the air.

CO2 makes up such a miniscule fraction of the atmosphere it's hardly going to be the cause of global warming.quote>

Scientists around the globe have come to the consensus that it has. How do you dispute this? A miniscule fraction of all the world's gases does not make it insignificant. This is a fallacy of scale. If we were to have carbon dioxide in massive amounts in our atmosphere, the surface of the earth would resemble a slightly cooler version of Venus'.

Further, the percentage of man-made CO2 as compared to the amount of CO2 produced naturally by everything from animals breathing and expelling natural gas, to leaves falling from trees and rotting in the fall, makes up only a small fraction of annual greenhouse gas emissions.quote>

You're telling me that the amount of animals breathing and leaves decomposing produces more gas than the billions of cars, factories and other man-made polluters? To say that a human can fill a balloon with his own breath faster than a car's tailpipe is ludicrous.

What causes global warming and cooling is the sun - the most powerful force in our solar system....quote>

Global warming is one process. Climate change, specifically abrupt climate change, is what we are talking about. "Global warming" is the label assigned out of convenience and convention, not the sum total of all that is changing in the world. Of course the sun gives the planet warmth! Nobody disputes this.

...More powerful than us humans. If you compare sunspot graphs to temperature graphs from hundreds of years ago to today you find a much closer correlation between temperature and solar activity, than you do between CO2 levels and solar activity. Since nothing the planet does can affect the sun, it must obviously be happening the other way around.quote>

This is a fallacy of causation. You argue that we cannot affect the sun, so therefore ONLY the sun can affect us. You omit the factors on the Earth itself. The reason temperatures correlate with sunspots hundreds of years ago, is again, because we didn't have the level of industrialization that we do today. The population in the 1800's were a small proportion of the number of people living on the planet today.

Unless you're Al Gore - and then solar activity's probably driven by CO2 levels as well - the sun turns up its thermostat to burn away CO2 maybe lol.quote>

Couldn't resist, could you? Look, you got what you wanted: he won the majority of votes, you "won" Florida. Enough with the cheap shots at Al Gore. I don't want to get started on Rush Limbaugh.

In short, global warming is happening the same way it's happened for billions of years long before humans were around to "destroy the planet!!"  :'(   the sun goes the cycles of more and less activity, and the Earth is caught in the wash. Fairly simple really and neat and tidy too.quote>

Miraculous isn't it? The cycles you describe on the Earth take thousands of years to have any effect, as has been shown from numerous graphs and studies (you can read all the hundreds of posts in the closed threads for reference.) But somehow, in a few decades, they explain all the abrupt climate change in the world?

I'm all for increased efficiency - it means I spend less $$$ at the gas pump. I'm also all for finding alternative fuel sources, though I prefer we skip ethanol and move towards hydrogen fuel cells since they'll be a cheaper source of fuel. It's less of a stop-gap solution the way the DVD is a stopgap solution on the road to globalized digital media. But I'm not in favor of taxing people for their carbon emissions. That's ridiculous and it will cripple the economy if everyone has to fork out a couple grand to pay for their emissions, and I have a problem with advocates like Al Gore sitting on the boards of companies that will use the "carbon credits" to build "clean solar & wind power plants" and then make a fortune selling their new clean energy.quote>

What's wrong with making clean and renewable energy? It seems if Al Gore is behind it, you automatically assume the opposite stance. There are other solutions than emission taxes, you know.

It's the effect of a shakedown and I'm opposed to it strongly until scientists have an open and honest debate on the subject examining the data of everyone studying the climate rather than a few people who agree getting together and promising global chaos in the hopes of raising a few more dollars via research grants to predict how "bad it's gonne be"quote>

How do the vast majority of the scientists of the world equal just a "few people." And again with global conspiracy theories about "hoaxing" the entire world FOR RESEARCH MONEY!? Tell me how they could dupe almost all of the nations of the world into researching this topic themselves, form international coalitions of treaty signers, and form an international body of research such as the IPCC, all to consolidate research money? You had me until your last sentence.

As to your nickname... did you get an account on Simtropolis just to post in here? Your first post was in this forum. Who are you? Also, could you please cite some sources? That would be great. If you'd like me to post more sources, most of what I'm referring to can be found in my posts in the other two threads. I'll repost them if you like.

Part Deux

Originally posted by: AnFBoi212

What are you talking about?? increased solar radiation = less cosmic rays interacting with water? what? please explain quote>

Cosmic rays are radiation that come from sources outside of our solar system. The theory behind cosmic rays and cloud formation is fairly involved but basically the rays interact with the atmosphere and produce aerosol particles which brings about cloud formation. I can give you links to articles that explain the process but it's been played around with in laboratories on a small scale under controlled conditions and basically this is the application on a global scale.quote>

You know me, I love sources! Link away, my friend!

With respect to what the solar cycle has to do with this is that clouds reflect the sun's heat before it reaches the earth's surface. If we have a cloudy summer - the temperature is colder for example.quote>

That makes sense. So how does it affect abrupt climate change on a global scale? The random amount of clouds over an area during a season is arbitrary.

So the way this all relates is that the solar irradiance increases - the earth is basically being continuously bombarded by a steady flow much like a breeze (solar wind). When the sun is more active, we see solar eruptions and essentially what happens is the solar "wind" increases in its intensity and the particles from the sun strike the particles from foreign sources (the cosmic rays) and less reach the earth which means there is less cloud formation.quote>

The earth has a magnetic field that traps or deflects most cosmic or solar interference. It's why we have the aurora borealis in the northern hemisphere during solar storms. When they do reach past the upper limits of the magnetic field and into the atmosphere, they wreak havoc on electrical systems and cause major brownouts. How does it explain abrupt climate change?

Less cloud formation means more of the sun's energy hits the surface of the planet. The increased energy hitting the surface warms the surface - particularly in urbanized areas with a lot of concrete. It also hits the ocean which increases evaporation which increases water vapor which drives the greenhouse effect upwards so the temperature rises further.quote>

Clouds are water vapor. So what you're talking about would increase the formation of clouds, not decrease them. I'm very confused.

So basically there's nothing we can do to affect a changing climate.quote>

If we do nothing, we affect nothing. If we do something, we affect something. Every action has an opposite and equal reaction.

CO2 levels have been much higher historically when humans were not here to increase it or decrease it...quote>

They have?

and our miniscule contribution to the level of greenhouse gasses likely has very little effect on our actual climate.quote>

Right. Acid rain has been here for millenia and the glaciers have always been melting at an exponential rate, too?

We're witnesses of a system much greater than we are that existed for billions of years before us and will continue whether we're here or not.quote>

I can agree with that. However, we can and are affect(ing) that system by polluting it with chemicals and variables that nature did not develop herself.

So again - should we reduce our emissions of CO2? I don't really think it makes much difference one way or the other.quote>

Move to Venus if you don't think constant exposure of an atmosphere to carbon dioxide has little effect on the global climate.

My concern is that the amount of petroleum in the ground is finite. We will need it to manufacture plastics and composite materials long into the future. A world without these types of products would be a nightmare because if you think of how much we have even in our own homes that's plastic or derived from plastic, the loss of this stuff would be crippling to our society - so we need to conserve our planet's limited resources. Whereas using hydrogen which is a renuable resource - it's produced as fuel from water which our planet has plenty of, and when oxidized, it creates water.quote>

Hydrogen is most certainly our most viable option for energy solutions in the mid-future (20+ years from now.) However, the fields of ceramics and nanotechnology will provide the capability for much more useful and versatile products to be developed. Plastics only became popular because of the world's dependence on the substance from which they are made.

With regards to Japanese cars, while they are more efficient than say American SUVs, efficient cars that run on petroleum are sort of like bandaids, and while they can help tithe us over on the way to a better solution, they're still temporary. Ethanol is also a stop-gap solution as they're not really that clean, and they take more energy to produce than gasoline so they're a poor long-term solution.quote>

Japanese cars are, on average, much more efficient than any car in their class, not just SUV's. I agree that any petroleum-based engines are not a long term solution and other power sources should be researched.

Coolotter88: One day you will have to write more than one line.

jweekle1: that was the point I was trying to get across: It is possible to create economically viable solutions that are environmentally friendly.

[jweekle1 1]

My point being it is not economically viable. Everyone can state their "facts", but until it is reasonable for me to change the car I drive, I'll still be driving my toyota.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: jweekle1 My point being it is not economically viable. Everyone can state their "facts", but until it is reasonable for me to change the car I drive, I'll still be driving my toyota.quote>

Do you consider efforts to discover viable technologies a waste of time? If a hydrogen car were available for the price of an SUV, would you pay for it?

[MrFingers 0]

I have three main opinions on this;

1) CO2, whilst it certainly has increased this last century, is a minor greenhouse gas.  Through our CO2 production we are responsible for about 0.117% of the greenhouse effect.  Not only that, but the greenhouse effect itself is also minor.  It is a passive force on our climate, what is more important is the sun and cosmic ray flux.

2) CO2 is actually very good for us.  Plants thrive off CO2, directly.  The vitality of plants is linked to our own productivity, the water efficiency of crops, the production of oxygen, and the subsequent reduction of CO2.

3) Global warming is not necessarily a bad thing.  The media and quacks have a bad habit of exaggerating the negatives and ignoring the positives when it comes to global wamring.  Some simply research reveals this.

[Deathtoall 28]

Orginally posted by MrFingers.

[Plants thrive off CO2, directly.  The vitality of plants is linked to our own productivity, the water efficiency of crops, the production of oxygen, and the subsequent reduction of CO2.]

Yes plants survive off CO2 but what about other things hmm? Humans, animals? They need oxygen but if there is to much carbon dioxide their natural cycle(plants) can't keep up with humans ouput and given the deforestation of the Amazon and other great reserves of trees and some plants stand the etreme heat that will be caused by global warming.

We all know that after the industrial revoloution CO2 levels went up right? Well if the pattern conitinues(Industrialisation of China and India) CO2 levels will increase even futher right?

Yes you have some good points and global warming is still techincally a "theory"

[Global warming is not necessarily a bad thing.  The media and quacks have a bad habit of exaggerating the negatives and ignoring the positives when it comes to global wamring.  Some simply research reveals this.]

I don't see how Sydney(localized example) running out of drinking water or having coconuts in Antartica is a good reason for Global warming to be alowed to occur, or for that matter deserfication of more arable land in Africa and more frequent and violent storms(Hurricane season 2-0-5, first time you went into the greek alphabet i believe)

What research proves this?

To concluded, yes their are naturally occuring cycles with raises in temperature and ice ages(Some say we should have had another one but we stopped it, my science teacher) and solar radiation and their is other theories on warmer temperatures.

Personally i think that we will conitinue to have rises in themperature until so much fresh water is released(ice is fresh water) from across the world it will stop the natural flow of hot salty water from the tropics. The fresh water i belive stops the salt sinking and it disrupts the flow of warm weather across Europe(thank the tropics for your mild weather) and stops the other water currents across the globe and so we have a breakdown in natural cycles of weather.

Oh and weather is affected by water currents, El Nino, La Nina, the Amercan Jetstream over the Pacific, your Tornadoes all prime exmaples of water currents affecting weather. Ask your local beauracy of Meterology.

Cars.

If i could drive i would buy Toyota, but not as hybrid as they are too expensive.

I would buy something like a Yaris becuase they don't breakdown as much so i don't have to buy a new car so they don't to make another one and add more pollution and in themselfs they are economical(less petrol, more money for me).

Besides the Suv's in Australia look ugly(BWM M5's etc, Ssanyong Rexton) and to get around in Sydney you need a car as becuase for out of work hour trips the public transport system fails and normaly the distances are quite big.

So feel free to disgree with me and please post a comment, i would really like hear your thoughts.

[MrFingers 0]

CO2 starts to be toxic to animals at around 5%, and at that point the only sympton is increased prespiration.  5% is 100 times higher than our current 0.05%.  Point being, we have plenty of space for more CO2 with no adverse effects on animals.

Vegetation literally experiences a 1:1 link between CO2 and bioproductivity.

fresh water problems is something humans have had to deal with since the beginning of time.  The Sahara desert has shrunk by 300,000 square kilometers in 20 years.  Why?  Because of the increased CO2 in the air.  The hurricane strength relation to global warming is complete BS. 

As for your car, stick to making your own decisions.  Don't let someone else tell you what car to buy, and don't tell anyone else what car to buy.