The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[MrCinatit 30]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 OMG It lik snowedz t0day that must mean that gl0bl warm1ng iznt real!!!!!!!11111

lol...seriously people. cold weather happens no matter what. One cold day doesn't prove or disprove any weather theory. in fact, neither does one cold year.quote>

Exactly.

One thing people do not get about global warming is that whole "global" thing. They wonder how it can happen when it is cold for them when they go outside. However, global warming refers not to a temperature increase or decrease in Florida, Baghdad or China - but to an overall temperature. In addition, we are not talking about increases or decreases of tens of degrees, but 10ths of degrees.

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.quote>

As I have said before, there is no reputable scientist who is arguing if global warming exists. Organizations doing research on and concerning global warming include:

NASA

A video of how NASA has done its temperature studies can be found at the bottom of the page here.

the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration

the Union of Concerned Scientists

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

The National Academy of Science (called by the white house the gold medal of scientific research)

The U.S. Global Change Research Information Office

IPCC

The National Council for Science and the Environment

The Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA organization)

The National Snow and Ice Data Center

The National Resources Defense Council

The National Academies Press

German ocean physicist Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

U.S. Global Change Research Program

the Environmental Protection Agency

the U.S. Department<

[coolotter88 2]

so in fact, we should be digging up all the methane in the ground and burning it up, because burning it reduces it to 1 CO2, which is less than 25 CO2s.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Hold onto that thought Coolotter... you might get a nobel prize

Interesting fact... Cows don't Fart Methane... they Burp it. All of a sudden its less disgusting!

Still, Hydrogen for the win...

[coolotter88 2]

well, you get the 2 H2Os but we can always condense that or something, plus, I doubt 2 H2Os are 12 times more effective than CO2

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 so in fact, we should be digging up all the methane in the ground and burning it up, because burning it reduces it to 1 CO2, which is less than 25 CO2s.quote>

Except that methane in the ground doesn't contribute to global warning- only methane in the atmosphere does. So it's more like making 1 CO₂ out of effectively none. Because a greenhouse gas can't contribute to a greenhouse effect if there aren't any of the sun's rays below it for it to trap in.

This is, after all, why sequestering CO₂ in the ground is something people are looking into- and which is already actually being done in a few places. Another thing that's being done is to take CO₂ produced and rather than emitting it to the atmosphere to instead bubble it through tanks of water laced with specially bred algae sitting out in the sun so as to photosynthesize it away and emit oxygen instead.

[patriots_1228 51]

why not rip the carbon from the CO2, make it into somthing else, and use the oxygen to help make h20 and fix our water problems?

move over Coolotter, that prize is mine

[fukuda 351]

the first part of your proposal is already in study, the second is just useless, to make water from oxygen you'll need hydrogen, but oh, there's no free hydrogen in our planet, so we must produce it from water, so you would need to waste more water than the water you're going to produce

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 OMG It lik snowedz t0day that must mean that gl0bl warm1ng iznt real!!!!!!!11111

lol...seriously people. cold weather happens no matter what. One cold day doesn't prove or disprove any weather theory. in fact, neither does one cold year.quote>

Exactly

@ Taylor- Just because Florida has ONE colder winter does not mean that global climate change is not occurring.

'Global Warming' is a false phrase. The planet is heating  up but that does not mean that everywhere is going to become warmer. Many areas will get colder, wetter as well as those areas getting drier and warmer. It's really best if people think a bit more before discrediting aspects of climate change science as well as meteorological  science and then come out with the phrases which was perfectly captured by Patriots..........

[tankmank 853]

Watch these they are eye opening 

[schm0 27]

Can we all stop talking about everyone's local weather? It's nice to know that it gets cold in the winter, or that it gets hot in the summer, or sometimes you have cold summers or warm winters, or your climate is different than my climate... fact is, global temperatures have gone up, and this is evident.

The effects of global warming equate to weather and climate patterns around the world becoming more volatile and extreme.

Good to see the thread alive and well!

[yamaneko 2]

Carbon dioxide looks like this, with double covalent bonds between each atom: 

O=C=O

The formation of CO2 is an exothermic reaction yielding 393 kJ of energy per mole (22.4 L at standard temperature and pressure) of carbon dioxide gas created.  Conversely, its break up would be endothermic, i.e., would require the input of energy.  Compare this to 242 kJ/mol for the formation of water, which makes an entertaining explosion. 

In engines, a little energy is used to break C-C and C-H bonds, which then react readily with oxygen -- the bang of combustion is the bonding of oxygen to carbon and hydrogen.

 

To dissociate CO2 would require the expenditure of 393 kJ/mole.  Burning fossil fuels to dissociate CO2 would lead to a net increase in carbon emissions and yield two substances more easily obtained by other methods. 

[yamaneko 2]

Incidentally...

The "blast from the past" that is this month's weather is, as of now, an outlier.  A moderately strong La Nina is in progress in the eastern Pacific, and La Nina has a history of chilling the planet.  Finally, while land temperatures are near normal, temperatures over all Earth's land and water surfaces are still warmer than the norm -- January 2008 was ranked 31st warmest (according to NOAA) out of over 100. 

My unscientific and unfounded guess is that February and March will prove to be relatively cool since La Nina will still be active. 

[wir3d 2]

Originally posted by: tankmank Watch these they are eye opening 

quote>

 

Seriously, a six degree temperature increase is not gonna cause the sea levels to rise 20 feet! These doomsday scenarios seem to assume that Greenlands glaciers COMPLETELY melt away. It'l have to get MUCH MUCH warmer than six degrees for the polar regions to become ice free. Even then, many of the glaciers and ice flows are already in the water, so theyre already having an affect on sea levels just by water displacement.

There is not going to be huge change.  You guys have just been in the American Schools to long.

Haven't you guys noticed the key word.  IF.  If this happens then that will happen.  So what the world is not going into some sort of  DOOMSDAY scenario.   The media is just trying to scare you. 

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: wir3d

Seriously, a six degree temperature increase is not gonna cause the sea levels to rise 20 feet! These doomsday scenarios seem to assume that Greenlands glaciers COMPLETELY melt away. It'l have to get MUCH MUCH warmer than six degrees for the polar regions to become ice free.quote>

Keep in mind that "an increase of 6 degrees" means that the global average of the temperature increase is 6 degrees. It can increase way more or way less depending on the zone.

 An increase of way less than 6 degrees has already melt all the glaciers next to my home, and it's not only a "terror campaign" I've been there several times and seen it IRL.

for instance:

Aneto Glacier in 1982 Vs the same glacier nowadays

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[wir3d 2]

Still that does not mean the whole earth is going into a Huge disater. I mean who would want to fight for something that is actaully bad for the world. I wouldn't.

[crazyyaya 4]

Originally posted by: wir3d I mean who would want to fight for something that is actaully bad for the world. I wouldn't.quote>

 

Explain.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I was just reading about a new study that forecasts a new Ice Age (remember that scare tactic?) as a result of global warming. Paradox? Maybe not. The newest models show a cooling of the oceans in the event of a polar melt. This would change ocean currents in a way that would sharply lower temperatures overall. 

And maybe you haven't heard...the polar caps aren't melting away, it seems. The massive melt-offs that were all over us a few years ago have been quietly rebuilding, to even greater levels than before. They've only been keeping track since '72, so a lot of data is merely extrapolated in all of the 'sky is falling' scenarios. Based on the newest numbers treated the same way, Manhattan won't be under water, it will be under ice.

http://www.iceagenow.com/

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=bdc24964-7f82-4f7a-863c-f0ff43010278

http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover5.html

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455

[wir3d 2]

Originally posted by: crazyyaya

Originally posted by: wir3d I mean who would want to fight for something that is actaully bad for the world. I wouldn't.quote>

 

Explain.quote>

 

From my persective it is all in God's hands.  He controls the world.  He would not let something like this happen to his people.  This is all a scam.

I dont care what you guys think about just because I AM A CHRISTIAN.   

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: wir3d

Originally posted by: crazyyaya

Originally posted by: wir3d I mean who would want to fight for something that is actaully bad for the world. I wouldn't.quote>

 

Explain.quote>

 

From my persective it is all in God's hands.  He controls the world.  He would not let something like this happen to his people.  This is all a scam.

I dont care what you guys think about just because I AM A CHRISTIAN.   quote>

Have you heard about the past 3000 years at all?

[autoVino 26]

Originally posted by: wir3d

Originally posted by: crazyyaya

Originally posted by: wir3d I mean who would want to fight for something that is actaully bad for the world. I wouldn't.quote>

 

Explain.quote>

 

From my persective it is all in God's hands.  He controls the world.  He would not let something like this happen to his people.  This is all a scam.

I dont care what you guys think about just because I AM A CHRISTIAN.   quote>

 

and who created this god?  It was the people.  Without people there would be no perception of God.

This means that people control god (since it is the people's ideas and I would hope that people would be able to control thier own ideas), be it the all angry puritan's god or todays.

Then it's only logical that it's all in the people's hands (or the polotitians if you want to go there).

so in fact, we should be digging up all the methane in the ground and burning it up, because burning it reduces it to 1 CO2, which is less than 25 CO2s. quote>

it's an idea but you would need to burn more methane to get the same results of other chemical that have more carbon and hydrogen.  Burning of these saturated organic compouds (in oxygen) ideally yields water and carbon dioxide.  One can argue though that you can get more energy out of eight methane molecules than out of say octane because you have more water formed as a result (but that requiers more oxygen... which if you don't have you get things you don't want... and this is all ideally)

[Micah 16]

I'm not going to let the God discussion continue. It's off-topic where the origins of God came from. There's a thread called the Simtropolis House of Worship... check there.

[crazyyaya 4]

Originally posted by: wir3d

Originally posted by: crazyyaya

Originally posted by: wir3d I mean who would want to fight for something that is actaully bad for the world. I wouldn't.quote>

 

Explain.quote>

 

From my persective it is all in God's hands.  He controls the world.  He would not let something like this happen to his people.  This is all a scam.

I dont care what you guys think about just because I AM A CHRISTIAN.   quote>

 

I'm not here to dicuss the existence of god, Micah has already gone throught this. 

But I have a problem with your response. It is completely irrelavent to the topic. I'd like you to actually explain why you said your original comment. Your response only seemed to be a distraction from the first comment. Why did you say, "I mean who would want to fight for something that is actaully bad for the world. I wouldn't."?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I would argue that environmentalism is becoming a religion all its own, but I digress.

wir3d: relax, have a Coke and a smile! There's a lot of philosophical differences here, but we try to keep the caps only at the beginning of sentences and for proper names. It's just a fansite, don't get too worked up about what others believe. This isn't the forum to get bent out of shape over things; I oughta know!

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: crazyyaya But I have a problem with your response. It is completely irrelavent to the topic. I'd like you to actually explain why you said your original comment. Your response only seemed to be a distraction from the first comment. Why did you say, "I mean who would want to fight for something that is actaully bad for the world. I wouldn't."?quote>

It seems to me his comment about it being in gods hands was his answer to that question.

In other words, that trying to do something about global warming would be bad for the world because it would be going against god's will and you don't wanna mess with him.

...still, that argument doesn't do it for me, whether you believe in god or not. Because really, god doesn't directly control everything, no matter how you look at it. When you get in your car, you don't wait for god to make it move, you turn the key and drive it yourself. The whole "if god wants it to happen, it will happen" argument simply doesn't work. For one thing, it seems to me to largely be a rationalization for continuing on our path of harming the environment. "Oh well, it's in god's hands. We have no control over it, so it's not our fault if something bad happens, and nothing we try and do will change anything". Honestly, if everyone took that approach we'd still be banging rocks together to try and start a fire. No progress ever comes from sitting back and doing nothing.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: manticorefan I would argue that environmentalism is becoming a religion all its own, but I digress. quote>

It seems like both sides are pretty religious; each sides have their priests and missionaries, they both have a scenario for the end time/doomsday, and dissent is not allowed. On the one side, you have those who dismiss any evidence of the Sun's effect on the global temperature, while those on the other side still believe that we'll retain status quo by doing nothing (since it's all to blame on the Sun).

Originally posted by: Duke87 "Oh well, it's in god's hands. We have no control over it, so it's not our fault if something bad happens, and nothing we try and do will change anything".quote>

To me it looks like he's been quite quiet the last years, after Jesus returned to the family firm. According to the Bible, he was appaled by humanity's actions from early on; and we haven't been any better since, so I don't think he can be credited for our history here.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I think Duke understands the line between religion and common sense. The old saying goes, 'Trust the Lord but lock your car'. 

---

IMO the 'religious' aspects of environmentalism are growing in influence, and could well evolve into the next perpetrator of 'persecution' upon 'infidels'. It has been said that Algore is to the Antichrist what John the Baptist was to Christ. Whether that's true or not, I make no prognostications. Yet.

In order to not stray too far off-topic into another thread's space, I'll just say that it involves a social phenomenon called 'syncretism', and involves lining up most mainstream religions under one umbrella. A religion in the classical sense could not possibly accomplish this (obviously I'm no 'Christian Reconstructionist'), but a secular quasi-religion just might. We 'evangelicals' recognize this as an alarming development, but it is one that most people worldwide will likely be on board with. 

---

So, what about those tricky questions involving Global Warming causing the next Ice Age?  or, "What will I do with all those beach chairs I bought for the flooding of the coastlines?"

[The Boy 0]

I think its hilarious, everyone thinks that we're gonna have the whole polar ice caps melt and its gonna be a smiliar situation to what happens in the day after tomorrow, thats what so many people think, nothing has happened. From what I've seen and heard, the only thing that has happened is that the earth has cool like -.8 celcius.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: The Boy I think its hilarious, everyone thinks that we're gonna have the whole polar ice caps melt and its gonna be a smiliar situation to what happens in the day after tomorrow, thats what so many people think, nothing has happened. From what I've seen and heard, the only thing that has happened is that the earth has cool like -.8 celcius.quote>

No, that's not what people think. That's rather what you would like to think that people think.

[The Boy 0]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: The Boy I think its hilarious, everyone thinks that we're gonna have the whole polar ice caps melt and its gonna be a smiliar situation to what happens in the day after tomorrow, thats what so many people think, nothing has happened. From what I've seen and heard, the only thing that has happened is that the earth has cool like -.8 celcius.quote>

No, that's not what people think. That's rather what you would like to think that people think.quote>

Wait, what? From all this stuff I've heard about gorebull warming is what is gonna happen in the day after tomorrow one of the stupidest movies I've ever been forced to watch. If it isn't like that, it sure is exaggerated enough to be like that.