The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[M-SIL 2]

Originally posted by: Liam50 i think hydrogen cars are the way forward! electric cars a going to fail you fill them up with electricity which comes from a coal plant. and no business is going to change from coal to gas or nuclear whilst coal is so cheap and plentiful.quote>

I assume you're a fan of hydrogen powered vehicles, well I have some questions to ask you.

Where can I get hydrogen to fill up for my car if I choose to buy a FCV?

Is hydrogen cheaper than electricity or even gasoline?

How soon can I get a hydrogen powered vehicle?

How much can I get a fuel cell or ICE hydrogen vehicle for?

How reliable is a fuel cell compared to a gas tank?

How safe is hydrogen itself?

Since I'm a do-it-yourself, where can I get a hydrogen conservation kit and for how much?

Please answer these questions asap, thank you.

[sneakeypete 16]

I'd like for someone to point out to me how a 6 degree rise in average planet temperature would wipe out all life on the planet, let alone even cause major change to life as we know it on earth.

[Boggy1 45]

An average of six degree rise would be absolutely catastrophic for the entire biosystem of the Earth.

I don't know where to start. How about the sea level? It would rise be around a metre or more. This would flood vast areas of arable farm land and populated cities. Goodbye most of the United States Eastern Seaboard, and lowlying countries like the Netherlands. You will have massive population migration into already overcrowded cities. In the UK, London would be half under water. Globally, about 300 million people+ would be directly effected by coastal flooding. We arn't talking rivers here. Just seas.

Ice would melt in mountains across all of Europe, Asia, and South America. This would cause unimaginable flooding in areas like India and Bangladesh. The dumping of all this fresh water into the sea would destroy many shallow water ecosystems and wildlife. Plankton population would plummet, causing a huge depletion in the acidity of the oceans and food supply for thousands of species. You've got a huge amount of the ocean ecosystem gone.

The rainforests will vanish, along with their ecosystems. The rainforests contain 50% of the Earths' biomass, so you can imagine what a huge loss that would be.

Fresh water availability would be severely reduced, with some cases up to 60%. Arable land would vanish all over the globe. Food would become sparse. Disease and famine would rise, with tropical infections moving North into North American and Europe.

There would be more violent weather all over the globe, hurricanes would increase...

This is only a small part of the effects. It would be an entirely different global climate. You would have to adapt very rapidly, or you would die.

Barbarossa: I never said I wanted 5 billion people to die. Of course I don't want that, that would be horrific. But by 2100, there may realistically only be a few billion people left on the planet. That's in a hundred years. That isn't killing 5 billion people all at once, it may take the form of a steady decrease in birth rates, and an increase in famine and disease. And, I have removed myself from the genepool; I'm gay, and unless I adopt kids, I'm not having any.

manticorefan: You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

[duack 14]

How safe is hydrogen itself? quote>

Lol. When they tried it on mythbusters the engine burst into flames .

On the topic of the environment, these insane theories are just getting annoying. the earth has gone through several mass extinctions before. The last ice age was started because of a super volcano, which blocked out the sun in less than one year. If life could survive that, than from biological logic, we can conclude that it can sustain life if it were to rise by 6 degrees over a century. 

Plus, when people say "x number of people will be displaced by rising sea levels", okay maybe they will but we wont have 300 million people homeless overnight. Sea levels will rise slowly over the next century so there's plenty of time for infrastructure to be built in other areas. 

Another point, Im going to shoot the next person who mentions overpopulation. Before you say "oooh to many people Im not having children" hears something called demographic change. Just about every country in the world has experienced demographic change. Developed countries in fact have dropping rates of natural growth (why do you think there's so much migration?). In fact, Europe's population is expected to drop by a whopping 90million by 2050. That'll clear up some space for the environmental refugees . The world's population isn't expected to reach 9 billion. In 2050, it'll be 8.9 billion and then it'll start falling slowly. If anything, it'll be less because simply, people in developed countries aren't having enough children. China will regret the day it enforced a one-child policy when it is surpassed by India in terms of population and later, GDP.

Plus another argument, people say we have to conserve the environemtn because humans are the parasites and animals are so great. Now Im pretty sure that everyone here has heard of natural selection, that only the fittest organisms live to reproduce. So, for example, since the average fox has what 10 to 20 puppies in its lifetime, only two can survive (replacing it and the male) meaning 18 die before the age of one through startvation, or injury, or injury followed by an infected leg with then gets occupied by maggots while the 6 weeks old puppy is left in the forest to die slowly and horribly. THAT"S natural selection. Over 90% of the animal population dying before the age of one. And these aren't good deaths either, if an animal gets sick, they slowly die, if it is slow and cant get food, it starves to death, if it sustains injury in a fight, it gets infected and slowly dies. The lucky ones get hunted - painful but quick. Only the really lucky ones live on. With humans, this sort of cruelty is unhearded of. Even war-torn impoverished regions have way better standards than this. So is there really a point in protecting biodiversity, if it i just all about death and pain?

I mentioned that to show people that if there is a point to doing anything about global warming, it should be solely to protect the agricultural industry and nothing else. Especially not saving useless rainforests. I've been to the bush before and there is nothing worth protecting. Its humid, its stuffy, you cant walk because the ground is full of uneven vegetation and wherever you step, you might be stepping on a snake, or enourmous spiders, or a muddy river. Its like trying to walk in a basement thats never beened cleaned, with not a spot of floor showing. Forests are nothing like how they are depicted on TV. Really, they smell like animal urine.

So i wouldn't say people are parasites, consuming the 'precious earth' for their own good. Rather, Id say humans are pretty amazing, making something good out of a world of chaos, death and uselessness. The fact that natural selection amongst humans is nearly non-existent is pretty amazing- everyone has the right to life.

[Boggy1 45]

duack: I...what? You comment was so full of ridiculous opinions that I don't see what to start with. Rainforests are useless? So, what about the 20% of oxygen they create? The vast climatic differences, the enormous benefit to the soil? Do you know anything at all about what they do?

What's next, are you going to cut down the taiga forests in East Russia because very little lives there and it is covered in snow for over half of the year?

[fukuda 351]

Ice would melt in mountains across all of Europe, Asia, and South America. This would cause unimaginable flooding in areas like India and Bangladesh. The dumping of all this fresh water into the sea would destroy many shallow water ecosystems and wildlife. Plankton population would plummet, causing a huge depletion in the acidity of the oceans and food supply for thousands of species. You've got a huge amount of the ocean ecosystem gone.quote>

What? We are talking about a steady rise of temperature over years, not a sudden rise of 6

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: duack

I mentioned that to show people that if there is a point to doing anything about global warming, it should be solely to protect the agricultural industry and nothing else. Especially not saving useless rainforests. I've been to the bush before and there is nothing worth protecting. Its humid, its stuffy, you cant walk because the ground is full of uneven vegetation and wherever you step, you might be stepping on a snake, or enourmous spiders, or a muddy river. Its like trying to walk in a basement thats never beened cleaned, with not a spot of floor showing. Forests are nothing like how they are depicted on TV. Really, they smell like animal urine. quote>

Just because you don't find it very pleasant to be there doesn't mean it's useless and pointless. I bet you don't particularly enjoy the smell or sight of factories either, but you certainly use products that are made in them all the time.

As for forests "smelling like animal urine"... well, no, not really. Forests can be quite pleasant places to be so long as the weather's nice.

I assure you that this:

did not smell at all unpleasant. And that picture simply does not capture the beauty of being there and having it all around you, either.

(Cub Lake, Rocky Mountain National Park)

[duack 14]

I agree with fukuda. For some reason people get the impression that the effects of global warming will be felt overnight, but really it will slowly occur over 100 years. Most species of plants and animals reproduce every spring, and this will allow them to slowly migrate to different areas. 

In the case of food production, people fukuda said that people will migrate to areas where there is lots of arable land and this will keep food production stable, but realistically this is unnecassary. Europe doesn't produce enough food for itself, but the European countries import food from the "colonies", like North and South america and Australia. So really, only farm production would have to shift to these new areas, and agriculture employs very little labour so not that many people will actually be affected. Im just saying, its actually more convenient than "migrating" to the new area. There's no reason for entire cities to move.

Okay duke, sure that picture looks nice. From the looks of it it seems like ur standing on a path. Doesn't quite look like its possible to walk down that hill. Besides,  you dont know how many animals behind that cover of trees are being hunted, or how many injured foxes there are dying from infections. Or more commonly, how many several different species are laying there half-dead because of starvation. My point is, that naturally life for animals is so cruel to the vast majority of them that there really is no point in protecting biodiversity just because you think its pretty. From wildlife documentaries, people dont often see the dark side. You can sometimes see it, like one I watched a while ago tht showed a family of bears that died because no food came their way. But mostly its so sugar-coated that people get the impression that animals all get along happily when really, they're worried about whether they're going to die or not.

[Jezus53 18]

I blame Disney for that.

You have a point, but we still need to help protect it. That's why we moved to tree farms, so we don't have to ruin those areas. See, when you remove more habitat, then there is less room for a species to develop in which results in lowered population. That means an even small amount of that species is left and it will continue to decrease if we destroy their habitats. Think of in like SimCity terms. If you only have so much space, then there is a maximum amount of residents that can live there. The small the area, the less the max is.

And to everyone talking about how the rain forest areas and farm lands will vanish with climate change, think about this. You are only talking about the negative side affects, which are bad, but another side is never brought. With climate change, temperate zones shift to the cooler areas making the equator hotter along with the poles. Well, with the logic I'm getting from you guys, the fertile zones will simple shift North into areas the were once deemed wastelands. So even if today's fertile farm land is gone, new farm land will open. Right? Just something I thought up right now.

[fukuda 351]

In the case of food production, people fukuda said that people will migrate to areas where there is lots of arable land and this will keep food production stable, but realistically this is unnecassary. Europe doesn't produce enough food for itself, but the European countries import food from the "colonies", like North and South america and Australia. So really, only farm production would have to shift to these new areas, and agriculture employs very little labour so not that many people will actually be affected. Im just saying, its actually more convenient than "migrating" to the new area. There's no reason for entire cities to move.quote>

I'm not predicting anything, there's already people migrating due to lack of water or arable land. While people from developed countries could be able to stay where they are, people from developing countries don't have the luxury to import food from the other side of the world

Besides, you dont know how many animals behind that cover of trees are being hunted, or how many injured foxes there are dying from infections. Or more commonly, how many several different species are laying there half-dead because of starvation.quote>

There are probably no foxes dying from infections in that wood, let's see, there is a really small population of carnivores in any ecosystem, as their activity requires heavy energy expense and has a low sucess rate (they need to be in a low number to be able to eat enough food to allow their survibal and reproduction). The odds of finding a fox dying are very low, due to both the sparse population and the small time amount they can survive after being infected.

For animals to be half-dead of starvation, a population peak or a dramatic resource failure is needed. Both require a rather big external impact on the system and that's pretty rare too.

Ecosystems are dynamic systems, but they tend to evolve slowly, they can survive abrupt changes, but the system will be harmed for a time.

My point is, that naturally life for animals is so cruel to the vast majority of them that there really is no point in protecting biodiversity just because you think its pretty.quote>

I still don't get the argument, sorry.

[duack 14]

My main point is that natural selection states that the weakest will die out before reproducing, for most species this comes at the next spring, so they die under the age of 1. Plus, ecosystems are always at their carrying capacity, yet animals tend to have so many children that they greatly exceed the carrying capacity. As a result, the predator-prey populations rise and fall in cycles. First there is a spike in predators during mating season, so a lot of the prey die, and when the food supply becomes scarce, then the predators die on a massive scale, obviously it is a slow painful death caused by starvation. Then when predators become scarce, becaus heaps have died out, the prey population increases, then the predator population increases because the carrying cap[acity is temporarily higher and the cycle begins again. 

My main point is that the life of animals is naturally harsh and cruel, and that mass starvation and slow deaths caused by infected injuries (from fights) or starvation are common in the wild. But the media portrays the wild as a happy place were all animals get along somehow and that it is the humans that come along and wreck everything. Really, thats a total load of crap. Natural environments have always been about 90% of the animal population dying, while only a few make it to the next generation.

I'm not predicting anything, there's already people migrating due to lack of water or arable land. While people from developed countries could be able to stay where they are, people from developing countries don't have the luxury to import food from the other side of the world quote>

Not quite right. China imports food from Australia and the US. Besides, at this rate, "third world countries" will become a thing of the past in the long term. Ever heard of the phrase "make poverty history"? Well yeah thats whats happening fortunately.
Of course, this has negative implications on the environment but seriously, what's better?

[Jezus53 18]

You know, the reason animals have so many babies is for that reason. You think they just happen to have that many at the start? The ones that had more off-spring were able to carry on their species while the ones that had few were either greatly limited or became extinct. A species would not waste the energy (not energy like running energy) to make more than needed. The death of so many is expected. Right now the Ecosystem is balanced. It becomes unbalanced when humans feel they need to some how protect a species by eliminating it's predator. This makes a huge uncontainable population of that species since there is no one to kill it off. Just like humans. We have advanced to where we no longer have a predator so we have reproduced uncontrollably (except for China) and it's getting out of hand. This is basic Biology. Maybe Global Climate Change is good. The Earth is our natural predator now, since there is no other creature that can stop us.

[Duke87 1,070]

Yes, nature is cruel, animals dies in horible ways, etc. etc.... but there is a distinct difference between it happening naturally and it happening at an accelerated rate due to human influence.

Protecting biodiversity isn't about it being pretty, it's about the health and well-being of the environment. Wearing a seatbelt in a a car isn't about it looking fashionable on you, it's about protecting yourself. Same idea, sort of.

And, not that it's entirely important, but the primary predators in the Rocky Mountains would be bears, not foxes.

[fukuda 351]

Plus, ecosystems are always at their carrying capacity, yet animals tend to have so many children that they greatly exceed the carrying capacity. As a result, the predator-prey populations rise and fall in cycles. First there is a spike in predators during mating season, so a lot of the prey die, and when the food supply becomes scarce, then the predators die on a massive scale, obviously it is a slow painful death caused by starvation.quote>

Only predators have loads of offspring (1:8 proportion in predators against 1:1 or 1:2 in herbivores). That's because only 1 or 2 of these 8 will survive the first months and grow older. There is no visible net population growth all over year, and that's because almost all predator's children die before being able to hunt anything. Yes, because that's the point, puppies can't hunt and won't deplete the prey population. Almost all these deaths are violent and most are caused by predation of other animals, resulting in more or less the same number of hunting able adults than the previous year (yes, because the older ones also die) and no starvation at all.

Starvation is a rare process in wild life, you rchances of dying by any other causes are waay much higher

[hym 358]

The following posts are being moved from the American Education thread to here because they pertain more towards global warming than they do towards education.

The following text was originally posted by Ntq$310 in the American Education thread:

And on a diffrent note, There is no global warming, just like there isnt any global cooling.quote>

[fukuda 351]

And on a diffrent note, There is no global warming, just like there isnt any global cooling.quote>

I'll go warn the guys at the metorological center about their broken thermometers

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

And on a diffrent note, There is no global warming, just like there isnt any global cooling.quote>

I reiterate: Egypt called. They want their river back.

[Chptrk 86]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

And on a diffrent note, There is no global warming, just like there isnt any global cooling.quote>

Further proof of problems in the school system

[Ntq€310 1]

I see the last 3 post have shown us the true reasons we need education reform, and the type of reform we need, while at the same time showing us the faults in my statement! Thank you posters and ill like to give a big shout out to the last poster, now I know how my education system has failed to give me a pre-set opinion and belief on this important matter How dare they not tell me what to think

[fukuda 351]

now I know how my education system has failed to give me a pre-set opinion and belief on this important matterquote>

No, that's not the job of education, that's propaganda's job.. Mainly mass media

But anyway, I guess all our biogeochemical cycles teachers and the research papers were lying to us (I don't know why though)

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: fukuda

But anyway, I guess all our biogeochemical cycles teachers and the research papers were lying to us (I don't know why though)quote>

It's called agenda pushing, and it is a recognized problem in the "soft sciences."

I'm not saying that that is what's going on here, but it should be remembered that there is almost always incentive to lie.

[Ntq€310 1]

Originally posted by: fukuda

now I know how my education system has failed to give me a pre-set opinion and belief on this important matterquote>

No, that's not the job of education, that's propaganda's job.. Mainly mass media

But anyway, I guess all our biogeochemical cycles teachers and the research papers were lying to us (I don't know why though)quote>

And I guess all the other scientific papers, facts, and other research is right.

[fukuda 351]

And I guess all the other scientific papers, facts, and other research is right.quote>

Denying the existence of a climate change is well, preposterous. Climate has never been stable in the last 10 million years, always cycling through cooler and warmer periods mostly because of astronomical cycles (Milankovitch) and other unknown causes. The fact of a climate change is not being discussed, it's the causes and consequences of it that are being discussed: (and it's here at this level where the agendas are pushing by the way) it's linkage to carbon emissions, H2S, CH4, sun spots, the real effects on ice caps....

We have the temperatures and other results that show a climate change, but we don't exactly know why, which is really what it's being discussed. Temperatures are not subjective constructs, they are something we can directly measure, that's why I was talking about "broken thermometers"

[Ntq€310 1]

Who said I was denying Climate Change, all I said was Global Warming. Saying that our Climate does not change would be simple denying fact, as evidence has shown that the Earth has, like you said, gone through natural warming and cooling periods. Now don't get me wrong, I am in many ways a environmentalist, but not because Al Gore is shouting that it's already to late, but for air quality, quality of life, and saving our environment, as either way we are destroying way to many trees, rain forest, natural habitats, and are killing species.

[lilshortjordan 0]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

And on a diffrent note, There is no global warming, just like there isnt any global cooling.quote>

Thank god!!!! I republican!!!!!!!! It's about time!!!!!!

I'll go warn the guys at the meteorological center about their broken thermometersquote>

The thermometers aren't broken, and they aren't showing higher temptress. The liberal media and politicians tell you they are, but they aren't. I have toured multiple NWS labs and meteorological labs at news studios, and they all tell me they are getting the same yearly temptress that they have for years. Don't belive everything you see on TV, especially CNN.

I reiterate: Egypt called. They want their river back.quote>

The river went nowhere. They have fact-checked those reports, they are baloney! Do your research, REAL research.

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

I see the last 3 post have shown us the true reasons we need education reform, and the type of reform we need, while at the same time showing us the faults in my statement! Thank you posters and ill like to give a big shout out to the last poster, now I know how my education system has failed to give me a pre-set opinion and belief on this important matter How dare they not tell me what to think

quote>

Very funny! Im not being sarcastic, that really was funny! 

But I will tell you, most schools will give you a pre-set opinion on everything! And it is usually a liberal, communist, and anti-christian opinion. They will tell you abortion is okay, evolution is true and creations is not, Wealthy people are always bad people, etc. The list goes on and on.

I have combined your double post from the American Education thread and moved the first post here.  In the future, please use the Edit button if you would like to include more comments but no one has posted after you.  Thank you.--hym

 

[Ntq€310 1]

Im not a republican.... but more or so a independent.

[Aro0w 1]

I'm going to say this:

there is no global warming....

Earth regularly goes through periods of rising temperatures and lowering...

[fukuda 351]

Now don't get me wrongquote>

My apologies

The thermometers aren't broken, and they aren't showing higher temptress. The liberal media and politicians tell you they are, but they aren't. I have toured multiple NWS labs and meteorological labs at news studios, and they all tell me they are getting the same yearly temptress that they have for years. Don't belive everything you see on TV, especially CNN.quote>

I have other sources than "liberal media and politicians"...

The river went nowhere. They have fact-checked those reports, they are baloney! Do your research, REAL research.quote>

Who? How? Link? So Milankovitch's Cycles stopped just for our sake? How kind of them

evolution is true and creations is notquote>

shock/horror

[hamsterTK 93]

Regardless of the causes or politics, I do have concerns. Mainly questions on this have always been existing infrastructure that's immovable and would have to be rebuilt in the event of even minor changes. Even if there is to the common person an insignificant rise in sea level, perhaps 2 to 5 feet, would problems occur?

-What happens to old sewers in coastal cities like NYC?

-what about salinity invading fresh groundwater or for that matter busted and porous water mains?

-In the case of storm surge does this change disaster zones and redlined insurance areas?

-How about beaches getting thinner and jetties that prevent silting and/or erosion being topped by swells at high tide?

-I don't know about port facilities and ships, I would imagine they are designed for some tolerance if all wharves aren't at the same height and what crane clearances are safe...but still its something to keep in mind, right?

there is no global warming....Earth regularly goes through periods of rising temperatures and lowering...quote>

you just contradicted yourself?

[sneakeypete 16]

Yeah, global warming/climiate change, regarless if its man made or natural, is going to cause a lot of problems in the future. Infrastructure seems to be the big one, as well as worsened natural disasters. It is not, however, going to wipe out all life on the planet or cause some gaint cataclysim destroing all life on earth as some people claim.