Global Warming

[Ivysaur]

I have read it, and I can only see an opinion, not any scientifical proof. If I start asking for signatures so a million of people say tomatoes are orange I wouldn't be proving anything. Meanwhile, Dead Sea is at its lowest point, an the ice in the North of canada is so melted that you can now cross from Alaska to Groenland by ship. According to recents studies, the CO2 level in the athsmosphere is of 379 parts per million, the highest level since it's counted.
I can't understand how rising the CO2 level can be good for the planet, but I think we wouldn't lose anything for reducing the amount of CO2 we throw to the athmosphere, would we?

 

[Sgt. Custard]

Something else very interesting: a 2007 paper by David Archibald on global warming. Now its quite long, but I advise you to read it. Its got lots of graphs and other perfecly qualified information against global warming.

Actually, personally, I disagree with the statement that CO2 and all that goes with it (i.e. pollution)its GOOD for the planet (though on its own it probably is), I mean, other forms of pollution causing smogs and poisonous carbon monoxide are of course not good, but as we get more efficient, we can use cleaner processes and of course eventually, we will need renewables because supplies will run out. I'm all for that. I want to make it quite clear that I'm not saying all this because I don't want to bother to reduce my electricity and car use: I do. But putting loads of taxpayers money into global warming prevention is not worth it: demand for renewables will grow as prices rise and stocks are shorter. Instead, for the moment, we should put more money into education and healthcare, and focus on more pressing environmental issues, such as recycling and landfill, poaching and illegal fishing. These are all in my opinion far more important and the government encourages any exaggeration of the global warming issue, because they feel it justifies them in taking the easy, and vote-grabbing option of giving money to scientists to prove global warming more, rather than using it for more productive, admittedly harder to implement purposes.


Sorry for the rant...

 

[Ivysaur]

Ok. Wonderful. I take my hat off to you. I will keep believing what I believe (because there are still evidence suppoering it)... But I must say that's what I call a proof.

 

[DR.MUNCHLAX]

Stop right there, MysticManyula! You know that global warming is nothing but utter bullcrap science! You See, I have a list of scientists backed by big oil who all state that you're full of doggy donuts! Admit it!

To a serious note though. I do believe global warming is a problem.
I am not too sure if humanity truly cares about it though.
It would seem that most people are happy with how they are living and could care less about the unwanted effects to the earth they are causing.
In short, I think that this problem will only get worse.
And once it is impossible to fix the problem, that is when people will want to do something about it.
But that is only my opinion of course.

 

[Erimgard]

Stop right there, MysticManyula! You know that global warming is nothing but utter bullcrap science! You See, I have a list of scientists backed by big oil who all state that you're full of doggy donuts! Admit it!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're being sarcastic ;)
that said, how is research funded by an oil company any more biased than research funded by, say, an extremist environmentalist group?
fact is, all humans are biased, and we all think we aren't.
in the words of Michael Crichton "Everyone has an agenda. Except me"

I don't exactly see you posting any facts. just opinions and sarcasm. if you're going to support something, at least have a reason to. you may not agree with alex, but at least he's doing his best to look objectively at things and search for facts instead of relying on the media or personal bias

 

[UnitRico]

Ok, I really found an interesting text in one of my schoolbooks, but it is in Dutch. I'll post both texts (Dutch and (Babelfish) English) here:

NOTE: ONLY click the texts you can read...they're very, VERY long. I also removed some parts which contain stories about the Middle Ages where the world was warmer etc. and that in 1300 there was a Small Ice Age that the world is still recovering from. Also, I skipped the ending of the text, which contains nothing new.

Dutch:

Spoiler:

In kranten en tijdschriften staan met de regelmaat van de klok berichten en artikelen over de steeds warmer wordende aarde als gevolg van het broeikaseffect. De waarschuwingen van hele en halve wetenschappers zijn niet van de lucht en iedereen wordt flink bang gemaakt. We moeten snel maatregelen nemen voordat de helft van de wereld onder water verdwijnt en de natuur op ruime schaal het loodje legt. Maar is het wel zo erg als de aarde opwarmt? Onderzoeker Thomas Moore meent van niet. De visie van deze dissident is weliswaar curieus, maar stoelt niet alleen op hypotheses of aannames. Met uitgebreid historisch en contemporain onderzoek ondersteunt hij zijn standpunten.

*lange tekst over de Noormannen en de Middeleuwen*

Er bestaat niet zoiets als een stabiel klimaat. Sinds honderen miljoenen jaren verandert het klimaat op deze planeet voortdurend en de mens heeft daar in 99,999% van de gevallen niets mee te maken. Dat die menselijke invloed nu wel te meten is, zegt vooral iets over de vooruitgang van de meettechniek.
Als iemand in de broeikasdiscussie tegenwerpt dat een warmer klimaat toch ook aangenamer kan zijn, wordt hij meewarig aangekeken en gedaan alsof hij zich met trivialiteiten bezighoudt. Moore maakt echter duidelijk dat meer warmte positief, prettig en heilzaam is. Wie kijkt naar de volksmassa's die zich elke zomer richting Zuid-Europa begeven, wordt duidelijk dat de noordelijke volkeren snakken naar een beetje warmte. Het zou een enorme besparing van kosten betekenen als die verplaatsing niet meer nodig was. Bovendien maakt een uitbreiding van warmere gebieden het leven aangenamer voor mensen die zich zo'n vakantie in het zuiden niet kunnen veroorloven.
De effecten op de gezondheid zijn nog duidelijker. Moore levert daarvoor een historisch bewijs: in eerdere warme perioden leefden de mensen langer dan in vroegere koudere tijden. Maar hoe zit het dan met het fikse aantal sterfgevallen als gevolg van hittegolven zoals in de zomer in 2003 in Frankrijk, zal de scepticus zich afvragen? Moore verwacht dat de opwarming van de aarde niet zozeer warmere of zelfs snikhete zomers zal opleveren, maar zoch vooral in warmere winters zal manifesteren. En de winter is voor de mens een dubbel zo grote killer als de zomer. Per saldo zal een warmere aarde dus gunstig uitpakken voor de gezondheid. Moore calculeert de nettowinst alleen voor de VS al op zo'n 40.000 levens per jaar.
Allerwegen wordt gevreesd dat de opwarming van de aarde gepaard zal gaan met toenamen van ziekten die door insecten worden overgedragen, zoals malaria en denguekoorts. Maar een ziekte als malaria is helemaal niet afhankelijk van warmte. Het is nog maar enkele decennia geleden dat malaria uitgebreid voorkwam in onze eigen contreien en andere gematigde klimaatzones. Dat wij hier geen malaria meer hebben en dat een land als Maleisië de ziekte nog wel kent, heeft veel meer te maken met een goede bestrijding van de malariamug, en die bestrijding is weer afhankelijk van de welvaart. Denguekoorts zou wel met warmte samenhangen, maar Moore laat zien hoe de Mexicaanse stad Reynosa duizenden denguegevallen telde terwijl in de daar vlakbij gelegen Texaanse stad Hidalgo er nauwelijks sprake was van die ziekte. Ergo: dit soort ziekten hangt samen met welvaart en hygiëne, niet met temperatuur.
Ook economsich gaat het in warmere perioden beter volgens Moore. In het verleden zorgden hogere temperaturen voor meer welvaart en voorspoed, voor meer rijkdom en mionder armoede. Maar die relatie is ook aanwijsbaar in recente jaren. Moore geeft als voorbeeld de warme winter van 2001-2002 in de VS. Uit onderzoek blijkt dat die heel goed heeft uitgepakt. De skiresorts en de producenten van winterkleding en sneeuwbestrijdingsapparaten leden wel een verlies van een half miljard dollar, maar daartegenover stond een winst van maar liefst 21 miljard. Die werd gerealiseerd via uitgespaarde verwarminskosten, legere kosten van sneeuwbestrijding en minder verloren dagen in de bouw. Er waren minder zware stormen die schade veroorzaakten, veel minder overstromingen als gevolg van smeltende sneeuw, minder vertrgingen in het vervoer, minder extra onderhoudswerkzaamheden aan de snelwegen. Allemaal winst van de zachte winter.
En de natuur dan? Sterven er geen plantensoorten en diersoorten uit? Waarschijnlijk wel, zegt Moore, maar zo bijzonder is dat niet: 99% van alle soorten die er ooit op aarde zijn geweest zijn uitgestorven. En met het uitsterven zelf zal het ook meevaleen, zegt hij. Want de aarde is als geheel steeds groener aan het worden en zal daarom juist meer ruimte aan allerlei soorten bieden. De biodiversiteit zal dan ook niet verminderen. Overigens vindt Moore dat het belang van biodiversiteit voor de mens wordt overdreven. Zo zouden we van het uitsterven van een dierensoort als de mug waarschijnlijk beter worden. En wat maakt het voor het welzijn van de mens uit als als er wat minder vogels of slangen zijn?
Een wel heel opmerkelijk standpunt van Moore is het volgende: het verstoken van fossiele brandstof heeft een groenere planeet tot gevolg. Het kooldioxide dat daarbij vrijkomt, heeft behalve een (betwist) opwarmingseffect ook een (onbetwist) mesteffect. Meer kooldioxide in de lucht betekent een snellere groei van planten. Diverse, zeer recente studies hebben die vergroening ook waargenomen. Zo is de wereldproducite aan 'groen' sinds 1980 met 6% toegenomen. Vooral het Amazonegebied is er behoorlijk van opgeknapt. Toch is het niet allemaal goud dat blinkt. Er zijn ook negatieve effecten. Het voornaamste is de mondiale stijging van de zeespiegel. Die zal voor laaggelegen gebieden een probleem kunnen vormen, vooral voor derdewereldlanden. Volgens Moore is dit gevaar makkelijk te bezweren door het bouwen of ophogen van de dijken. De kosten daarvan vallen in het niet vergeleken bij de winst die een zachter klimaat oplevert. Bovendien vindt hij dat het effect van de zeespiegelstijging erg overdreven wordt. De prognoses zijn dat de zeespiegel in de komende 1000 jaar 3 meter zal stijgen. Dat lijkt veel, maar in de afgelopen 20.000 jaar steeg de zee 40-50 meter. We zijn technisch sterk genoeg om die 3 meter dus de baas te worden. Het gaat slechts om centimeters in een mensenleven. Overvallen worden we in ieder geval niet. Er is tijd genoeg om maatregelen te nemen. Alarmerende berichten van pseudowetenschappers dat het landijs van Antarctica aan het smelten zou zijn, berusten op onjuiste en achterhaalde onderzoeken. Weliswaar smelt het ijs op een deel van dit continent, maar op andere plekken groeit de ijskap juist aan.

Here is the English Babelfish version, so if you have any questions about some words that are translated strangely, ask me ;).
Here it is:

Spoiler:

In newspapers and illustrated magazines stand with the rule half-measure of the bell bulletins and Article concerning the always warmer becoming ground as a result of the greenhouse impact. The warnings of complete and half scientists are not of air and everyone is made considerably frightened. We must rapidly measures take before half of the world disappears under water and nature on wide scale lays the loodje. But is it this way terrible such as the ground warms up? Research worker thomas does not think Moore of. The vision of this dissident is indeed curious, but is not only based on on hypotheses or assumptions. With vast historical and contemporary research supports he are points of view. * long text concerning the noormannen and the Middeleuwen * There something like that does not exist as a stable climate. Since honderen millions years have changed the climate on this planet continuously and people have to in 99.999% of the cases experience nothing there. That which is now, however, human influence to measure, says especially something concerning the progress of the meettechniek. If someone objects in the greenhouse discussion that a warmer can climate be nevertheless also more pleasant, he is looked at pitying and is done as if he occupies himself with commonplaces. Moore make however clear that more warmth is positively, pleasantly and beneficial. He who looks at to the volksmassa's which break down themselves each summer direction zuid-Europa, becomes clear that the northern peoples gasp to a beetje warmth. It an enormous saving of costs would mean if that displacement was no longer necessary. Moreover a extension makes living warmer areas more pleasant for people who cannot permit themselves such a holiday in the south. The impact on health is still more clear. Moore provide for that a historical proof: in earlier warm periods people lived longer than in former colder times. But how does it sit then with the strong number of sterfgevallen as a result of heat golves like in the summer in 2003, in France, will the scepticus wonder itself? Moore expect that the reheating of the ground will produce not particularly warmer or even snikhete summery, but zoch will manifest especially in warmer winters. And the winter is for people twice as large chillier as the summer. By remainder a warmer ground will unpack therefore favourably for health. Moore calculate the nettowinst only for the US already on about 40,000 lives per year. Allerwegen are feared that the reheating of the ground will increase paired go with of sicknesses which are transferred by insecten, such as malaria and denguekoorts. But a sickness as malaria is not at all dependent on warmth. It has been suffered still but some decades that malaria occurred extended in our own regions and other moderate climate areas. That we here no more malaria has and that a country has the sickness as a Malaysia still, has much do more with a good suppression of the malaria mosquito, and that suppression is dependent on prosperity. Denguekoorts would coincide, however, with warmth, but Moore show how the Mexican city Reynosa thousands of denguegevallen counted whereas in there near Texaanse located the city Hidalgo there was hardly talk of that sickness. Ergo: this type sicknesses does not coincide with prosperity and hygiene, with temperature. Also economsich go it in warmer periods improve according to Moore. In the past higher temperatures ensured more prosperity and voorspoed, more wealth and mionder poverty. But that relation is also assignable in recent years. Moore give as an example the warm winter of 2001-2002 in the US. From research becomes clear that those have unpacked complete well. The skiresorts and the producers of winter clothing and snow suppression apparatuss members, however, a loss of a half billion dollar, but on the other hand stood a profit of no less than 21 billion. Those were realised by means of saved verwarminskosten, emptier days in construction cost of snow suppression and less lost. There were less heavy storms which caused damage, much less floods as a result of slush, less vertrgingen in the transport, less extra maintenance activities to the snelwegen. All profit of the gentle winter. And nature then? Do no plant varieties die and at? Probably, however, Moore say, but is this way particular that not: 99% of all types who there have been ever on ground have died out. And with dying out himself also will say, he. Because for this reason the ground is as a whole always greener for becoming and correctly more space to all kinds of types will offer. The bio-diversity will not diminish thus. Moreover Moore find that the importance of bio-diversity for people is excessive. Thus we of dying out an animal type if the mosquito becomes probably better. And what determine does it for the well-being of people if if there are what less birds or snakes? A, however, complete remarkable point of view of Moore is the following: burning fossile fuel results in a greener planet. The carbon dioxide which is released thereby, has (uncontested) a manure impact except (disputed) a reheating impact also. More carbon dioxide in air means a faster increase of plants. Several, very recent studies have also observed that virescence. Thus the wereldproducite to ' green ' since 1980 have increased with 6%. Especially the Amazon area has considerably tidied up of. Toch all gold that is shines. There are also negative impact. Main the global increase of the sea mirror is. Those will order a problem for layer are able be, especially for third world countries. According to Moore this danger is easily implore by building or raising the dikes. The costs of it fall in did not compare at the profit which produces a gentle climate. Moreover he finds that a lot exaggerated the impact of the sea mirror increase becomes. The forecasts are that the sea mirror in the coming 1000 years 3 meters will increase. That seems the sea 40-50 meters to much, but in the past 20,000 years lane. We are technically strong enough that 3 meters therefore the boss become. It concerns only centimetres in a mensenleven. Overvallen do not become we in any case. There is time enough take measures. Alarming reporting pseudowetenschappers that the landijs of Antarctica to melting be, relying on incorrect and out-of-date researches. The ice on a part of this continent indeed melts, but on other spots the ice actually grows.

I read some parts myself, and there are really bad translated, but I hope you can read it :\

~Cya, UnitRico

 

[Lady Nicole]

Global Warming is a load of rubbish. The Earth has been warming up ever since the last Ice Age. It's natural.

Dude, the Earth is supposed to be cooling down. Haven't you noticed the fact that the Earth is the only rocky planet in our Solar system that has life?

And why do you think that is, in terms of heat?

Well let's see...the Earth is the largest of the rocky planets in our Solar system, meaning that it has a smaller surface area in proportion to volume than the other rocky planets. Therefore it is the only one which still has internal heat left since a smaller surface area implies a slower rate of heat-loss. This heat came from the original collisions of its formation and the radioactive heavy elements are a small but significant part of its composition since they help to maintain the internal heat of the Earth. However, although we are supposed to be radiating heat naturally out into space like the other rocky planets, it is being trapped within the atmosphere of the Earth. So we are getting the heat from the Sun trapped in our atmosphere and we are maintaining internal heat. This is most certainly not natural.

Have you noticed what has happened to Venus?

Although Venus is nearly the same size as the Earth (about 80%) and its core is frozen, it's mean surface temperature is 464 degrees Celcius, which is even hotter than the surface of airless Mercury. It is veiled in a thick, all-enveloping atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. This is why the volcanic activity on Venus is so vicious, even though it doesn't have any tectonic plates which, as I remind myself, is probably one of the reasons why it got that atmosphere in the first place.

But what about Earth?

Earth has tectonic plates, which of course cause earthquakes, volcanic activity and mountain ranges. As the largest terrestrial planet in our Solar system, it has a hot interior and an awful lot of energy to drive the tectonic plates. The hotter the Earth is, the more volcanic activity and earthquakes there are. Tectonic plates and global warming - NOT a good combination, as you can imagine. The way we are going, our atmosphere is gradually getting like that of Venus.

However...

I think (and this is just me thinking now) that nuclear scientists should be trying to form nuclear fission reactions where the fission fragments are oxygen. If we could just get some more oxygen into the air I think that would help a lot. So I do think it's possible to prevent global warming, but I don't think our current technology is quite good enough to do such things yet.

But no. Instead of concentrating on that, the government is more worried about finding a place to bury the exceedingly radioactive (and I cannot possibly express just how radioactive these are) fission fragments formed from uranium as a result of nuclear power.

 

[Erimgard]

venus also happens to be much closer to the sun than earth. we'd be a little toasty if we were that close too.
and once again, provide any reliable proof that global warming has increased as a cause of human waste

 

[Lady Nicole]

venus also happens to be much closer to the sun than earth. we'd be a little toasty if we were that close too.
and once again, provide any reliable proof that global warming has increased as a cause of human waste

Venus is hotter than Mercury, which is closer to the Sun. Did I mention the core of Venus is frozen?

[EDIT: Might I add, Venus is MUCH hotter than Mercury. The average surface temperature of Venus is 464 degrees Celsius, whereas the average surface temperature of Mercury is only 130 degrees Celsius.]

Venus isn't that much closer to the Sun than the Earth. And also, Venus and Earth are the closest planets in the solar system. Where Venus is 107000km from the Sun, Earth is 149000km from the Sun. That makes Venus and Earth only 42000km away from each other. And that is a relatively small distance considering the distances the other terrestrial planets are from each other and the Sun.

And by the way, I don't know any facts about "global warming" as such lol I only know the physics behind it.

 

[wakachamo]

I think (and this is just me thinking now) that nuclear scientists should be trying to form nuclear fission reactions where the fission fragments are oxygen. If we could just get some more oxygen into the air I think that would help a lot. So I do think it's possible to prevent global warming, but I don't think our current technology is quite good enough to do such things yet.

But no. Instead of concentrating on that, the government is more worried about finding a place to bury the exceedingly radioactive (and I cannot possibly express just how radioactive these are) fission fragments formed from uranium as a result of nuclear power.

Beautifully well-phrased post, but I just want to add that with our current technology, if we all made an effort we could reduce the effects of Global Warming by 90%. That's a big difference, believe it or not.

 

[Erimgard]

Venus is hotter than Mercury, which is closer to the Sun. Did I mention the core of Venus is frozen?

[EDIT: Might I add, Venus is MUCH hotter than Mercury. The average surface temperature of Venus is 464 degrees Celsius, whereas the average surface temperature of Mercury is only 130 degrees Celsius.]

Venus isn't that much closer to the Sun than the Earth. And also, Venus and Earth are the closest planets in the solar system. Where Venus is 107000km from the Sun, Earth is 149000km from the Sun. That makes Venus and Earth only 42000km away from each other. And that is a relatively small distance considering the distances the other terrestrial planets are from each other and the Sun.

And by the way, I don't know any facts about "global warming" as such lol I only know the physics behind it.

...I believer your measurements are off. Earth is way more than 149,000 kilometers away from the sun o.0

I see the point you are trying to make with venus, but as I've been saying this whole thread...you can make arguments for why global warming COULD happen, but statistically..it's not happening at an unnatural rate

 

[Lady Nicole]

...I believer your measurements are off. Earth is way more than 149,000 kilometers away from the sun o.0

I see the point you are trying to make with venus, but as I've been saying this whole thread...you can make arguments for why global warming COULD happen, but statistically..it's not happening at an unnatural rate

Jesus, I meant MILLION KM! Everything is measure like that in tables when you're talking large scale. Like when you talk about the price of a house. No-one says 800000 dollars, they say 800.
And Venus's atmosphere is like that for natural reasons. I'm only stating the physics here, I don't want to start an argument.

 

[Merzbau]

Hm, can we slow it? Yes.

Can we stop it? Hell no.

We're eventually just gonna die off thanks to it.

Anybody who thinks it can be stopped completely is a fool.

Besides, we've got enough social/moral/religious/personal/political/biological problems. Don't you think we should solve them first?

For more info on global warming, look up some videos by George Carlin on YouTube. (NSFW, but whatevs)

 

[Erimgard]

Jesus, I meant MILLION KM! Everything is measure like that in tables when you're talking large scale. Like when you talk about the price of a house. No-one says 800000 dollars, they say 800.
And Venus's atmosphere is like that for natural reasons. I'm only stating the physics here, I don't want to start an argument.

I figured it was something like that. sorry for the confusion

 

[Lady Nicole]

Dude, Erimgard, I'm so sorry if I was being really moody and everything. Don't take it the wrong way, I don't mean to be negative towards anyone. I just assumed everyone knew I means million km cos that's what I mean in my own head and I got angry with myself for being so stupid :P

 

[Erimgard]

not a problem.
we all have our moments, no harm done :)

 

[Lady Nicole]

Woah, I can't believe how calm you are. I feel so embarrassed with myself.
And yes, I think it was one of those moments :laugh:

 

[Richard Lynch]

The science of Global Warming isn't exactly needed... because the jury is out. Among even mildly educated people, Global Warming is a fact. Any attempts to prove otherwise means twisting numbers.

What we really should be fighting for is the politics of the issue. The only reason scientists haven't been able to research more into preventing it, or ways to do it, is because of these overweight, overfed, overpaid Capitalist pigs that run monopoly companies (mainly gas companies) and have politicians in their front pocket. And that leads to budgets being cut, or not even given, and stops any real try to fund research into these things. Their motive for destroying the Earth? More money. That's all this is about. Money.

I, personally, have very little hope for this country when it comes to Global Warming, because we can't really do anything. Any attempt at free speech is stifled by the Government, as is any attempt at autonomy. This isn't a free country, people, we have owners. And these owners are called the Elites, a term Noam Chomsky coined. It's roughly 2% of the population, and they own everything.

So while there is a chance to stop Global Warming, don't expect it to happen any time soon. The only way to reverse how things are in this world is to actually stand up and fight against these businessmen who sell us stuff we don't need for money we don't have.

Want to end Global Warming? You've gotta start by ending our ownership by Capitalist slobs. Because once we actually make the decisions in this country (instead of the business monopolies), then will we be free to decide what's really best for us.

 

[Waffle-San]

Well, I'm not in a mood for reading, but in response to the poll and what I did read.

it's true a global warming period through the ages has came and gone, but the increases have all been much much less than this. What's happening right now is so unnatural you'd have to be a from Venus to not notice. Global Warming is real and you better get used to it.
Why? Because as I know we can come back against Global Warming we won't. People won't actually get serious enough until it becomes too late. maybe I'm wrong but not enough people are dedicated and that's the sad truth right now.

not that I'm saying to give, up the smaller efforts could make the differance when other people wake up.

Of course in theory, global warming should cause a short period in the winter that's colder than normal for that time of year, becuase with less atmosphere, heat isn't retained as long, while the sun doesn't hit the earth for very long. (of course it's jsut a 14 year old kids theory)
Of course, two weeks of freezing temperatures won't stop 11 months of melting in the antartic.

Edit: woops i read the first page and thought it was the last.XD

 

[Myoko-chan]

Personally, I don't believe in the end of the world kinda thing, but I do believe that if theres more and more population, life would be pretty bad.

I'm not very sure what to say, I don't create alot of polution and stuff, but I'm not like an enviro-freak or w/e, so I'm kinda in the middle with this saving the future of our world thing.