The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[autoVino 26]

Originally posted by: The Boy

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.quote>

 

that movie was fiction, keep that in mind.  And I don't know where you hear what you speak of, I certainly have never heard that.

0.8C is an average temperature, meening that some places get a larger drop and some places get an increase.  Either way, 0.8C average climate drop can be considered significant because I doubt that there is much variation in climage, on a large average (if you look at a single place's weather for a small period of time, of course you'll se large variation... but variation is decreased over a larger time period and an average of all locations... a variation of 0.8C as a result can in faact be significant enough to be worried about.

But much of this is overreaction, imo.

[krbe 193]

In addition we're talking about long periods (earth cooling by .8C? Overall? From when? To when?) Last month's not going to make it. Indeed, a -.8C drop could be significant some places. How much is required to flood Bangladesh? To turn the Gulfstream? To double the price of the bread you're paying? A lot less than to cover NY in ice.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: The Boy

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.quote>

First of all, Day after Tomorrow is fiction, just like the DaVinci Code and those other movies people keep thinking are supposed to be non-fiction.

Second of all, You should really try...maybe, I dunno... actually read about Global Warming from experts in that field. Last time I checked the majority of people, even people like the Vatican and Evangelical Christian Scientists, agree with the whole "Gorebull" Warming thing.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: krbe No, that's not what people think. That's rather what you would like to think that people think.quote>

That is an awesome line. I gotta remember that one.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Some news... The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Algore for fraud, in an effort to bring more understanding of how the issue has been overblown and exaggerated. Win or lose, it'd be fun to watch.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Some news... The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Algore for fraud, in an effort to bring more understanding of how the issue has been overblown and exaggerated. Win or lose, it'd be fun to watch.quote>

I'd pay money to watch that

He's right though... it has been blow waay out of proportion.

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: El Burro

Originally posted by: manticorefan Some news... The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Algore for fraud, in an effort to bring more understanding of how the issue has been overblown and exaggerated. Win or lose, it'd be fun to watch.quote>

I'd pay money to watch that

He's right though... it has been blow waay out of proportion.quote>

So? That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do something about it.

[krbe 193]

"If the lawyers will take the case [...]"—not exactly how the court system works, but all right. But how is he going to prove that those who sell carbon credits decieve you? The only way it could be illegal must be if it don't offset the amonunt of carbon you've paid for.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: krbe "If the lawyers will take the case [...]"—not exactly how the court system works, but all right. But how is he going to prove that those who sell carbon credits decieve you? The only way it could be illegal must be if it don't offset the amonunt of carbon you've paid for.quote>

 

If one makes false claims that hurt the business of someone else, they are liable to be sued for fraud. If they used telephone or internet to make these claims, it's wire fraud, a separate offense.

A business named Anderson Windows sued a rival over claims their window was just as good. Anderson won, and got the added prize of a court judgement that stated the competitor's windows were not as good as Anderson's. This was prominently featured in their advertising.

There is some value to suing in order to get at a 'vital truth'. I doubt there would be a monetary award, but the court could possibly make him stop making some claims about , ahem, 'Gorebull warming'. (couldn't resist!)

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Originally posted by: El Burro

Originally posted by: manticorefan Some news... The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Algore for fraud, in an effort to bring more understanding of how the issue has been overblown and exaggerated. Win or lose, it'd be fun to watch.quote>

I'd pay money to watch that

He's right though... it has been blow waay out of proportion.quote>

So? That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do something about it.quote>

Global Warming will dissapear along with the natural resources... when all the fossil fuels run out they'll be nothing excessive to burn anymore (except wood and poor people*). Eventually, we'll have taken care of it anyway simply down to lack of things to burn...

* I kid about the poor people

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: El Burro

* I kid about the poor peoplequote>

We'll see.

[Duke87 1,070]

The science behind global warming is completely valid. After all, we know CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and we know that the levels of it seen in the atmosphere in contemporary times are, compared to the past, quite literally "off the charts". We know, therefore, that some degree of warming is to be expected. That's solid and undebatable. The three key questions which aren't quite so clear cut are "how much warming will there be?", "how fast will it happen?", and - most importantly - "will it have a significant negative impact on us and our environment?"

I can understand people being skeptical and saying it's way overblown and in a few years no one will care anymore. I remember Y2K, after all. The key difference is that Y2K was way overblown by the general populace panicking and predicting all sorts of doomsday scenarios when the experts' concerns were really just that the dates on computers would get screwed up. ...and given how many Y2K compliance measures were taken, it's not surprising that there wasn't much trouble, since any problem there could have been was largely averted. On the other hand, Al Gore and people in general aren't the ones coming up with the "doomsday scenarios" on global warming. Nay, it is the scientists who are saying "hey, this is a huge problem". We have effectively the opposite situation here- rather than experts predicting a small problem and the public going crazy thinking there's going to be a huge catastrophic problem, we have the experts predicting a huge catastrophic problem and the public refusing to believe it. As to why paranoia prevailed before but denial is prevailing now... I can't say for sure, but it's likely due to the fact that Y2K was sudden and dramatic.

Y2K: the new year will come, and the world as we know it will end in an instant.

Global warming: over many many years, the climate will slowly warm and the world as we know it will slowly slip away.

The fact of the matter is that the worst of the implications of global warming won't come to fruition within the lifetime of anyone walking this Earth today- so it's easy to say "eh, it's a long way off, it's no problem, and even if it is, we won't have to deal with it." There's a lot more perceived urgency when it's instead "holy crap! We've only got a few months to go and then it's over!" The human mind is interesting that way in that we tend to be far more afraid of things that  happen suddenly than of things which are slow, and far more afraid of really nasty things than of not so nasty things- regardless of which is actually more likely. A lot of people are afraid of sharks. Put people aren't around sharks that often, and it's unlikely you'll ever meet one. On the other hand, people are around dogs all the time- and while they're obviously not as inherently violent as sharks, due to them living among us, statistically you're far more likely to get mauled to death by a dog than to get eaten by a shark. But not too many people fear dogs, now do they?

Similarly, a lot of people are afraid to get on an airplane lest it crash, but don't have any real fear of getting cancer- despite the fact that cancer is a very common cause of death while airline accidents are few and far between.

Basically, when something is a long term lingering threat, it's most common to simply avoid thinking about it, or to rationalize it way, or take a dip in that river in Egypt. But if something is a dramatic, imminent threat, we're forced to confront it because defense mechanisms fail us. And that's why long term lingering threats are so dangerous- by the time people get around to admitting there's a problem, oftentimes it's already too late to do anything about it.

[Hamish 1,369]

Was anyones computer / watch (because they keep dates too) put out by the Y2K transformation? and was it easily fixable? I remember Y2K but I've never heard of what happened to the computers afterward.

I know its bad this whole global warming thing, but it just looks like people are more worried about not finishing projects before a deadline, which could get them fired from their job or not get the job, but not worried as much as the end of human civilization.

I live in New Zealand, and last year there was this talk about the countries efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions. (I can't remember if it was held in NZ or overseas) But they came to a decision that we need to reduce our CO₂ drastically. Now, I know this person that works in an environmental company, he said that he did some number crunching, and found out that we (New Zealand) produce, in one year, the same amount of CO₂ as china does in about a day!

I found this ridiculous. Now I'm not pointing fingers, but something must be done in these "bigger" countries before we get some actual results.

Yes I do do my bit, but to get my years efforts destroyed by these "bigger" countries is just appalling.

Thats Just my two cents.

[The Boy 0]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Some news... The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Algore for fraud, in an effort to bring more understanding of how the issue has been overblown and exaggerated. Win or lose, it'd be fun to watch.quote>

Very true.. I'm also mad that NO media covered the International Climate Change Meeting in New York City. I have no clue what they discussed but for what I know, a lot of scientists are starting to Disagree.

Panthersimcity4: did you say that i'm an Evangelist Christian?

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: El Burro

* I kid about the poor peoplequote>

We'll see.quote>

Soylent Green-like future

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: The Boy

Panthersimcity4: did you say that i'm an Evangelist Christian?quote>

No. I said Evangelical Christian Scientists. (I know, at first it was hard for me to believe )

Anywho, I'm sure Global Warming has been blown out of proportion, but it will (and probably is) happening. Besides, I don't think there's much we can do about it, companies will always be crappy and try to get rid of extra waste into the air via smokestacks.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Evangelical Christian Scientists? Oh boy. Another group at the door in need of an explanation of the truth. I haven't read much about Mary Baker Eddy in a while, guess it's time to bone up.

[Salbador 0]

Lol , The earths core is molten larva , just think if a few degree s raise in atmospheric tempratures was enough to tip the balance and the whole planet explodes ..

[spacemanspiff 0]

Duke87:  Actually, CO2 isn't a very good 'greenhouse' gas.  The greenhouse properties of water vapor are higher than CO2.  As I've stated in one of my Educational Thesis', it's plain to see that the increase in temperature corresponds to the agricultural revolution of the 18th century, and subsequent increases in water usage.  Without digging through my old research, my research showed that every year we burn something like 1/3rd of a cubic mile of petroleum, but we pump and use something like 5000 cubic miles of water.  Just think of all that evaporation.

So, basically, it's all the farmers fault, but it's easier to blame SUVs.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: spacemanspiff Actually, CO2 isn't a very good 'greenhouse' gas.  The greenhouse properties of water vapor are higher than CO2.  As I've stated in one of my Educational Thesis', it's plain to see that the increase in temperature corresponds to the agricultural revolution of the 18th century, and subsequent increases in water usage.  Without digging through my old research, my research showed that every year we burn something like 1/3rd of a cubic mile of petroleum, but we pump and use something like 5000 cubic miles of water.  Just think of all that evaporation.

So, basically, it's all the farmers fault, but it's easier to blame SUVs.quote>

The key flaw in that argument is that water follows a natural cycle of evaporation and precipitation. The amount of it in the atmosphere varies a lot, but ultimately there's only so much it can hold, and once it becomes saturated you start getting clouds and, subsequently, rain.  So it's a very stable equilibrium. The ultimate point is that the amount of water on the planet has not changed. All you're doing there is moving things from one state in the cycle to another. Nothing is being added to or removed from the system.

On the other hand, burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide out of carbon that's been locked in the ground for millions of years. You're adding something to the system that wasn't there before. And CO₂ doesn't precipitate out, the atmosphere can hold a lot more of it. So the equilibrium is far more easily disturbed. So no matter than CO₂ doesn't get you all that much greenhouse effect per mole. We're putting so much more of it into the atmosphere that it becomes the biggest contributor. Water may be more of a greenhouse gas, but we're not putting any more there that isn't already there.

Besides, a correlation to the agricultural revolution of the 18th century also means a correlation to the industrial revolution of the 18th century.

[krbe 193]

But agriculture (livestock) releases methane which is not converted to CO². At least the oil industry do that.

[spacemanspiff 0]

Actually, Duke87, the water vapor cycle isn't stable at all. Warmer air has a higher dew point, so it holds more water vapor. The more water vapor, the greater the greenhouse effect, the higher the temperature, the more water vapor the atmosphere can hold. And yes, we are increasing the quantity of water vapor. Water tables are falling in many regions of the world because of excessive deep-well pumping. Vast amounts of water that should be in the ground are being subjected to evaporation. More water vapor increases precipitation, which alters ocean salinity levels, which impacts ocean currents, which changes the way thermal energy is redistributed. Frigid zones grow colder, the torrid zone widens and gets hotter, and the temperate zones shrink. It is a theory of possible ice age formation. Given that ocean levels are near their all time high (they have a few feet to go), we are near the top of the 'hot' portion of the cycle. At the bottom of the 'cold' cycle, the oceans will retreat to the edge of the continental shelf. Just 18,000 years ago, the ocean was over 400 feet lower than it's present level. Britain, Ireland, and Cuba were not islands.

Eventually, the amount of fresh water is locked up in a solid state coupled with higher salinity levels and reduced oceanic surface area cannot sustain the higher levels of atmospheric moisture, which begins to reverse the process.

I think that chasing carbon as the culprit is going down the wrong path.

[krbe 193]

CO² accounts for half of the green house gases. It's wrong to chase carbon as the only culprit.

[doodlea21 31]

The trouble we face is that no one really accepts the responsibility of fighting global warming. There are three 'culprits': the government, the private sector, and the general public.

The actions of individuals cannot do anything on a large scale unless everyone joins in (which clearly they are not). They'd probably blame the private sector and the government. Meanwhile the private sector just blames the customer. They can't change their business model unless there is a market for it. Even if there were more people buying green products, they're useless anyway; they'd just turn it into a scam.

Furthermore the government can't put a foot out of line to try and benefit us in the long term by making a small sacrifice now, because the voters would just pounce on them like a pack of hyenas. I suppose it's inevitable that politics is dragged into this sort of issue. A wise man once said that democracy is a terrible system, but is the best one we've got. This is where I really feel democracy lets itself down, because as far as I can tell, the people don't know what they need.

Thinking about what Duke said, the people just don't see it as much, yet their cooperation is vital. World War 2 was a similar threat, but this turned out to be a success story because people recognized its importance. As a result people in the UK were willing to live on rations and black out their windows at night. I'm sure we're glad that they made those sacrifices; we won the war, and I don't think we regret that.

[spacemanspiff 0]

The reason Carbon has become the villain is because it fits three key purposes; Idealogical, Political, and Financial.

Ideologically, carbon emissions is linked with industrialization and progress. There will always be people who view this as wrong. Furthermore, it's easy for it to fall on social lines because the 'haves' are perceived as the chief emitters of carbon, while the 'have-nots' become the victims of corporate greed.

Politically, this has helped solidify power gained from the growing idealogical base. There are growing numbers of influential 'activists' with serious financial support, popular backing, and political clout by bashing carbon emissions.

The final phase is Financial. In addition to the direct expense of curbing or eliminating emissions, a portion of the taxes and levies the emitters must pay is going to supporting a bureaucracy for the sole purpose of carbon regulation. Worse yet are the outright scams like carbon offset schemes.

Water and water vapor won't fit these purposes. When people see water vapor, they think 'pretty cloud', not 'greenhouse gas'. Since there is no idealogical base against water vapor, there is no political power to be had. It's hard to attach a price to water vapor management since it's everywhere. No money to be made by proposing we build giant de-humidifiers.

I'm a conservationist, and believe that pollution should be reduced or eliminated where possible, but the industry and ignorance of carbon emissions dose not sit well with me.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: doodlea21  A wise man once said that democracy is a terrible system, but is the best one we've got.quote>

I do believe that was Winston Churchill.

Originally posted by: spacemanspiff Warmer air has a higher dew point, so it holds more water vapor. The more water vapor, the greater the greenhouse effect, the higher the temperature, the more water vapor the atmosphere can hold.quote>

True, but we've got a "chicken or egg" question begged here. Does that start by more water being put in the air, or by the air being made warmer? Given that there are other greenhouse gases at play, I'd say it's the latter. Water is thus more of a "pozzolanic" greenhouse gas, if you will. It won't cause global warming itself, but it will intensify the effect once something else starts causing it.

And yes, we are increasing the quantity of water vapor. Water tables are falling in many regions of the world because of excessive deep-well pumping. quote>

So? What about all the water sitting in artificial tanks, in pipes, etc.? It's not safe to assume that just because the water table goes down that atmospheric water automatically goes up. There are plenty of other places it can go. You've got an interesting hypothesis, but unless you can show me some data that demonstrates that there is more water in the atmosphere now than there used to be, that's all it is- a hypothesis.

We know for a fact from having taken measurements that there's more CO₂ in the atmosphere now than there used to be.

Vast amounts of water that should be in the ground are being subjected to evaporation. More water vapor increases precipitation, which alters ocean salinity levels, which impacts ocean currents, which changes the way thermal energy is redistributed. quote>

Hold on a sec. Ocean salinity levels change if the amount of salt in the ocean or the amount of water in the ocean changes. Pretty much all of the water being used in the world is already freshwater. I daresay any effect we're having on the salinity likely comes more from creating urban/suburban developments with artificial drainage and lots of impervious surfaces that cause water to runoff a lot faster than it naturally would. Destruction of wetlands and straightening of rivers would also contribute significantly.

Frigid zones grow colder, the torrid zone widens and gets hotter, and the temperate zones shrink. It is a theory of possible ice age formation. Given that ocean levels are near their all time high (they have a few feet to go), we are near the top of the 'hot' portion of the cycle. At the bottom of the 'cold' cycle, the oceans will retreat to the edge of the continental shelf. Just 18,000 years ago, the ocean was over 400 feet lower than it's present level. Britain, Ireland, and Cuba were not islands. quote>

You're contradicting yourself now. You went from global warming to ice age formation. Is all that water going to heat things up or cool them down?

Given that we know the temperature is, in fact, rising, I daresay that's a big problem with your theory.

I think that chasing carbon as the culprit is going down the wrong path.quote>

and

Originally posted by: krbe CO² accounts for half of the green house gases. It's wrong to chase carbon as the only culprit.quote>

are both good points. Carbon is not the only culprit. It is, however, both the largest and the most controllable culprit. Hence the focus on it.

<

[MrCinatit 30]

Originally posted by: The Boy

Originally posted by: manticorefan Some news... The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Algore for fraud, in an effort to bring more understanding of how the issue has been overblown and exaggerated. Win or lose, it'd be fun to watch.quote>

Very true.. I'm also mad that NO media covered the International Climate Change Meeting in New York City. I have no clue what they discussed but for what I know, a lot of scientists are starting to Disagree.

Panthersimcity4: did you say that i'm an Evangelist Christian?quote>

Do you mean the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by Heartland Institute, which gets funding from tobacco's Phillip Morris and Exxon? Yeah, golly gee, I wonder why no one decided to cover that.

I took a quick look at some of their meeting notes. Fortunately, they didn't soil it up with dumb stuff like facts, figures and statistics. However, they did throw enough spin into their speeches that all of the laundry in the room should be nice and clean.

Wake me when an accredited scientific manuscript with long-term statistical analysis is presented with proof that there has not been an increase in global temperatures since such temperatures have been tracked (which would be interesting, since every study has shown that there has indeed been a global temperature increase). Bonus points if you find such a paper which has not been written by someone receiving funding from an oil or energy company (Hint: such a paper does not exist).

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Frigid zones grow colder, the torrid zone widens and gets hotter, and the temperate zones shrink. It is a theory of possible ice age formation. Given that ocean levels are near their all time high (they have a few feet to go), we are near the top of the 'hot' portion of the cycle. At the bottom of the 'cold' cycle, the oceans will retreat to the edge of the continental shelf. Just 18,000 years ago, the ocean was over 400 feet lower than it's present level. Britain, Ireland, and Cuba were not islands. quote>

You're contradicting yourself now. You went from global warming to ice age formation. Is all that water going to heat things up or cool them down?

Given that we know the temperature is, in fact, rising, I daresay that's a big problem with your theory.

quote>

He s not contradicting himself, a higher temperature causes a higher concentration of vapour in the atmosphere that turns into clouds, clouds have a superhigh albedo and reflect the light from the sun, which is unable to warm the earth and then it cools down.

Originally posted by: Duke87

I think that chasing carbon as the culprit is going down the wrong path.quote>

and

Originally posted by: krbe CO² accounts for half of the green house gases. It's wrong to chase carbon as the only culprit.quote>

are both good points. Carbon is not the only culprit. It is, however, both the largest and the most controllable culprit. Hence the focus on it.

And, well, that's a good point- and a problem. We can cut fossil fuels (and thus carbon) since there are substitutes. There is no substitute for water. We need it to survive.

Again- focus on changing the things that we practically can change. Suggesting that everyone stop taking showers, doing laundry, and flushing toilets isn't going to fly. But nevertheless water conservation methods are practical and useful anyway. quote>

totally agreed

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: Duke87

Frigid zones grow colder, the torrid zone widens and gets hotter, and the temperate zones shrink. It is a theory of possible ice age formation. Given that ocean levels are near their all time high (they have a few feet to go), we are near the top of the 'hot' portion of the cycle. At the bottom of the 'cold' cycle, the oceans will retreat to the edge of the continental shelf. Just 18,000 years ago, the ocean was over 400 feet lower than it's present level. Britain, Ireland, and Cuba were not islands. quote>

You're contradicting yourself now. You went from global warming to ice age formation. Is all that water going to heat things up or cool them down?

Given that we know the temperature is, in fact, rising, I daresay that's a big problem with your theory.

quote>

He s not contradicting himself, a higher temperature causes a higher concentration of vapour in the atmosphere that turns into clouds, clouds have a superhigh albedo and reflect the light from the sun, which is unable to warm the earth and then it cools down.

quote>

And the winter snow won't melt fast enough before next winter, thus helping to reflect more sun rays—at least that's how I've heard the story, correct?

[fukuda 351]

Indeed, it's a problem of cold summers and not strong winters.