Jump to content


Global Warming.


29 replies to this topic

#1 Reaper94

    rawr!!

  • Member
  • 1178 posts
  • Projects: Being more loved and less loathed by community

Posted 18 February 2009 - 20:41

I don't want to drag this into a political discussion, but what is your opinion on "Global Warming". Though I dont want to drag this into a political discussion I really do belive that its all a tax designed to make more money from people, I don't deny SOMETHING is happening to the planets climate but I honestly don't think that we're contributing that much to it.

For example, we have volcano eruptions, how many tonnes, thousands of tonnes perhaps of Co2 and other poluting gasses does ONE volcano eruption pump into the atmosphere.

Another reason for me is "Carbon Offsetting". Paying off your "Carbon Footprint", is that not worse than bribary, as the tabloids and news would have you belive, heating your house in winter or driving several miles to work each day is a criminial offense. Saying you can pay of x amount of Co2 emissions is like saying "Yes I robbed that man officer, but I'm sure you can make it go away? *hands wad of £20 notes*"

Next up is the Ice-Age, and other smaller Ice ages (IIRC i read somewhere the last one was around late 1800's, im sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but either way) were ALL before significant useage of coal and Co2. When the Ice-Age which (Didn't) make most of the dinosaurs extinct, can you honestly blame cars heating up the world and melting all the ice there?

Again I hope I havn't made this too political, I just want to see what peoples opinions on this hot subject. (pun intended)

 RaiDK, on 3 Jun 2009, 10:09, said:

MY BEAK IS ONE WHICH WILL PIERCE THE HEAVENS.

Posted Image

#2 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 18 February 2009 - 20:55

Hmmm Doing a PhD In Environmental Science, I wonder if I'll have an opinion.

The climate is changing, whether or not we blame it on humanity is up for debate we don't have a control planet without humans to compare the Earth to. Now as a fan of Darwin I'd quite like to continue the species, and that would be rather difficult if the planet was on fire.

One Volcano may erupt big once or twice a lifetime spewing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, however in the UK each human generates about 11 tons per year and given how reliant we are on electricity and all that gumpf this number is likely to go up.

I also agree carbon offsetting is a lot of nonsense and should be avoiding since its people spending MY MONEY (since when I buy stuff I pay tax). I don't think we should pay people to plant trees for the purposes of Carbon Offsetting, I think we should plant trees because I like the look of trees. Every motorway should be fully lined, every plaza should have some trees.

We are technically still in an Ice Age since the Poles are permanently covered in ice, the rest of your rant makes little sense and will thus be ignored.

I would sit with the "Greens" saying we should generate our own electricity from solar/wind, not for any political reason I just think people should be self reliant. As for the mass extinction, that was a meteorite.

#3 Reaper94

    rawr!!

  • Member
  • 1178 posts
  • Projects: Being more loved and less loathed by community

Posted 18 February 2009 - 21:11

View PostDauth, on 18 Feb 2009, 20:55, said:

Hmmm Doing a PhD In Environmental Science, I wonder if I'll have an opinion.

The climate is changing, whether or not we blame it on humanity is up for debate we don't have a control planet without humans to compare the Earth to. Now as a fan of Darwin I'd quite like to continue the species, and that would be rather difficult if the planet was on fire.

One Volcano may erupt big once or twice a lifetime spewing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, however in the UK each human generates about 11 tons per year and given how reliant we are on electricity and all that gumpf this number is likely to go up.

I also agree carbon offsetting is a lot of nonsense and should be avoiding since its people spending MY MONEY (since when I buy stuff I pay tax). I don't think we should pay people to plant trees for the purposes of Carbon Offsetting, I think we should plant trees because I like the look of trees. Every motorway should be fully lined, every plaza should have some trees.

We are technically still in an Ice Age since the Poles are permanently covered in ice, the rest of your rant makes little sense and will thus be ignored.

I would sit with the "Greens" saying we should generate our own electricity from solar/wind, not for any political reason I just think people should be self reliant. As for the mass extinction, that was a meteorite.


Hmmm, then was it the result of the meteorite, blocking out the sun which caused the Ice age? Or am i totally mistaking this for something else?

Though I agree we should be as self-reliable as possible, I take the same stance on this subject as I do with God, that being "When its proved to me beyond any reasonable doubt." For me all "evidence" its circumstantial to me, as you say

Quote

"we don't have a control planet without humans to compare the Earth to. "


Also, I'm not denying that we should make as much electric as we can from solar/wind (no mention of nuclear which I belive is a good source of energy) and another renewable sources, but to the point where it rules our lives and dictates how we live to such an extent. Why shouldn't we be allowed to leave our televisions on standy without being made to feel guilty.

On the same subject I totally disagree with cutting down tree's, and I understand that tree's help absorb the CO2, but I belive that the people who chain themselves to trees to stop them being cut down are being too extreme, which also makes me dislike the subject. Another thing is that certain people become Vegitarian or even vegan because they belive they'll "save the earth". Though I dislike the subject, I watch a lot of shows about it, refering to going vegetarian/vegan i saw one show where someone had to be as green as they could for a year; and in order to do this he went vegan for a month, because meat from cows produce a lot of methane. Now for me, if your eating beef, theres going to be less cows on earth, which surely means less methane?

Just my opinion

 RaiDK, on 3 Jun 2009, 10:09, said:

MY BEAK IS ONE WHICH WILL PIERCE THE HEAVENS.

Posted Image

#4 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 18 February 2009 - 21:54

View PostJörmungandr, on 18 Feb 2009, 21:11, said:

Hmmm, then was it the result of the meteorite, blocking out the sun which caused the Ice age? Or am i totally mistaking this for something else?

Meteorite set off volcanic eruptions, they spewed dust and ash which blocked out the sun which in turn cooled the planet. There are other contributing factors within this but that should cover it enough to satisfy you.

Quote

Though I agree we should be as self-reliable as possible, I take the same stance on this subject as I do with God, that being "When its proved to me beyond any reasonable doubt." For me all "evidence" its circumstantial to me, as you say

Quote

"we don't have a control planet without humans to compare the Earth to. "

Your point about circumstantial evidence means you've spent time around the media. Before you make your mind up I suggest you do your own research. Within the UK Met Office there is a huge amount of data available even to members of the public. Analyse it yourself first.

Quote

Also, I'm not denying that we should make as much electric as we can from solar/wind (no mention of nuclear which I belive is a good source of energy) and another renewable sources, but to the point where it rules our lives and dictates how we live to such an extent. Why shouldn't we be allowed to leave our televisions on standy without being made to feel guilty.

On the same subject I totally disagree with cutting down tree's, and I understand that tree's help absorb the CO2, but I belive that the people who chain themselves to trees to stop them being cut down are being too extreme, which also makes me dislike the subject. Another thing is that certain people become Vegitarian or even vegan because they belive they'll "save the earth". Though I dislike the subject, I watch a lot of shows about it, refering to going vegetarian/vegan i saw one show where someone had to be as green as they could for a year; and in order to do this he went vegan for a month, because meat from cows produce a lot of methane. Now for me, if your eating beef, theres going to be less cows on earth, which surely means less methane?

Just my opinion

Turn your TV off to save money then, lets face it leaving it on means there are some active circuits, if you make these circuits inactive you don't draw electricity which means you won't get charged for it. Don't turn it off for a noble cause, turn it off so you can go buy more booze.

Cows emit methane correct, however the number of cows is set by the number of people eating the cows. If we all went veggie then people would stop farming beef. Your beliefs are based on false logic, good approach though.

#5 Ion Cannon!

    Mountain Maniac

  • Gold Member
  • 5812 posts
  • Projects: European Conflict - Particle FX & Coder

Posted 18 February 2009 - 22:38

The earths climate varys anyway over time due to milankovich cycles ( I think thats what they are called ) This creates periods of cold and warmth, and this occurs naturally. Climate change in recent times has sped up dramatically, we know this because we can see from ice cores that temperature change has not been so rapid in the past. Another explanation for natural climate change is the power of the sun, while it may be thought of as a constant the amount of energy it gives out actually fluctuates constantly, a period of high solar energy will mean the planet heats up and vice versa.

You are right, the amount of CO2 and other gases we pump into the atmosphere is small compared to whats already there, but little changes can have drastic effects. The atmosphere is only supposed to have a certain amount of CO2, if you increase that the consequences are dire.

There is also the issue of positive feedback, as the earth warms other sources can contribute more greenhouse gases. There are huge stores of CO2 under the sea that could be released if the temperature breaks a certain threshold, there is also the issue of huge quanitities of methane gas trapped in ice sheets, methane having a greenhouse gas effect approximately 20x that of CO2.

However I do agree with you on the carbon offsetting.

Besides, even if it does turn out we are having no effect on the climate *Which is extremely unlikely* maybe this is the kick we need to change society to a more sustainable one. Economists love growth, anything else is bad, but growth is not sustainable, we are using resources faster than ever, chopping down trees faster than ever and still continuing our path of self destruction. If global warming can change this, even if its entirely natural, thats a very very good thing.

Edited by Insomniac!, 18 February 2009 - 22:39.

Posted Image

Posted Image

#6 CommanderJB

    Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner

  • Fallen Brother
  • 3736 posts
  • Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order

Posted 19 February 2009 - 00:02

I think 'global warming' is a totally misleading term. I think that 'climate change' is the only correct description of what's happening. I entirely believe that mankind has ovestepped his bounds in regards to what the planet can support and that this is just one, albeit the most siginficant, result of that.
Natural processes contribute the vast majority of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, there's no denying that, nor has anyone tried. They are the governing factors which determine the climate and weather systems of the entire planet. Pumping a few million tonnes of CO2 into the air which contains a several billion or trillion might not produce drastic effects. If that was all we're doing, perhaps we wouldn't notice any changes. But it's not. Not only are we producing it in vast quantities (millions of tonnes are the base amounts used for measuring planet-wide emissions, and it doesn't take much effort to see why - if a single mine can excavate a few millions of tonnes of coal in a year/a single field produce millions of barrels of oil a year, and we have hundreds of thousands of such resource producing facilities, where does it all end up? In the atmosphere...) all over the Earth from sources where it has been locked away for literally millions of years, we are also producing things far more toxic than the Earth has had to deal with for quite some time. A volcano will produce a very large amount of sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide and gas; a large brown coal power plant, in addition to its colossal CO2 emissions, can choke the land around and downwind of it with nitrous oxide, soot, clinker, slag, sulfur trioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and a whole array of totally nasty chemicals and wastes. All of it contributes to the altering of the natural environment and the climate created by that environment. CO2 is a massive problem, mostly because as Insomiac says it often acts as a catalyst or 'trigger' for other effects but it's not all we're doing to change the environment, and indirectly, the climate.
I will continue later.

Quote

"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark

Posted Image
Posted Image

#7 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 19 February 2009 - 09:12

View PostCommanderJB, on 19 Feb 2009, 2:02, said:

I think 'global warming' is a totally misleading term. I think that 'climate change' is the only correct description of what's happening.
I agree completely. In fact, in the Netherlands, 'global warming' will actually significantly lower the average temperature.


View PostCommanderJB, on 19 Feb 2009, 2:02, said:

Natural processes contribute the vast majority of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, there's no denying that, nor has anyone tried.
Many environmentalists are absolutely convinced of this, though, and you won't ever hear anyone but humanity blamed for the climate change on the news or other public media.

View PostCommanderJB, on 19 Feb 2009, 2:02, said:

They are the governing factors which determine the climate and weather systems of the entire planet. Pumping a few million tonnes of CO2 into the air which contains a several billion or trillion might not produce drastic effects. If that was all we're doing, perhaps we wouldn't notice any changes. But it's not. Not only are we producing it in vast quantities (millions of tonnes are the base amounts used for measuring planet-wide emissions, and it doesn't take much effort to see why - if a single mine can excavate a few millions of tonnes of coal in a year/a single field produce millions of barrels of oil a year, and we have hundreds of thousands of such resource producing facilities, where does it all end up? In the atmosphere...) all over the Earth from sources where it has been locked away for literally millions of years, we are also producing things far more toxic than the Earth has had to deal with for quite some time. A volcano will produce a very large amount of sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide and gas; a large brown coal power plant, in addition to its colossal CO2 emissions, can choke the land around and downwind of it with nitrous oxide, soot, clinker, slag, sulfur trioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and a whole array of totally nasty chemicals and wastes. All of it contributes to the altering of the natural environment and the climate created by that environment. CO2 is a massive problem, mostly because as Insomiac says it often acts as a catalyst or 'trigger' for other effects but it's not all we're doing to change the environment, and indirectly, the climate.
I will continue later.
None of these things are really great contributors to CO2 emissions, though. The greatest contributor is plankton, responsible for about 80% of worldwide CO2 emission.
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#8 Dutchygamer

    Shyborg Commander

  • Member Test
  • 1899 posts
  • Projects: Frontline Chaos creator and leader, Invasion Confirmed co-leader

Posted 19 February 2009 - 10:10

I think both Global Warming and the Credit Crunch are made much worse then they are. The ppl believe this, and they make it much worse by doing stuff they normally don't do. You don't have to agree with me, but this is my view on it...
Posted Image

#9 Z_mann

    Professional

  • Member
  • 327 posts
  • Projects: Zero Hour Unleashed

Posted 19 February 2009 - 11:20

Here's a thought: if emission of CO2 is causing the climate change, then I'd like it to be human responsibility. Why? Cause then we might somehow have some effect on it's reduction.
Posted Image

Posted Image


Science is magic, only complicated.

#10 Dr. Strangelove

    Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else

  • Member Test
  • 2197 posts
  • Projects: Where parallels meet.

Posted 19 February 2009 - 11:56

View PostZ_mann, on 19 Feb 2009, 12:20, said:

Here's a thought: if emission of CO2 is causing the climate change, then I'd like it to be human responsibility. Why? Cause then we might somehow have some effect on it's reduction.


A very good point indeed.

View PostDutchygamer, on 19 Feb 2009, 11:10, said:

I think both Global Warming and the Credit Crunch are made much worse then they are. The ppl believe this, and they make it much worse by doing stuff they normally don't do. You don't have to agree with me, but this is my view on it...


Of course they make things sound worse than they really are. When people are scared they tend not to think
Spoiler

Posted Image
Posted Image19681107

#11 CommanderJB

    Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner

  • Fallen Brother
  • 3736 posts
  • Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order

Posted 19 February 2009 - 12:27

View PostChyros, on 19 Feb 2009, 20:12, said:

Many environmentalists are absolutely convinced of this, though, and you won't ever hear anyone but humanity blamed for the climate change on the news or other public media.
I don't know I've heard even the most ardent environmentalist insist that Humans are the primary source of global CO2 (so that's how you do the notation properly, thanks Chyros) emissions, just that we are producing truly massive amounts, and that by doing so we are directly influencing the climate by pushing it over the line, so to speak.

View PostChyros, on 19 Feb 2009, 20:12, said:

None of these things are really great contributors to CO2 emissions, though. The greatest contributor is plankton, responsible for about 80% of worldwide CO2 emission.
As I already said, yes. Unfortunately I had to go mid-spiel so I will now do my best to correct that.
The primary gist of what I said above is that we are responsible for doing a lot more to the climate than simply putting CO2 into the air (which there is no denying that we do an awful lot of). The most compelling reason for switching to renewables is that particularly coal, but also gas and oil plants in particular can utterly devastate their surroundings, and emit things far more damaging than simple carbon dioxide. Not only does this have a horrifying impact on public health (estimated in the billions in the US alone), it also triggers other and more serious environmental effects. Sulphur dioxide and other particulates, for example, can sit in the upper atmosphere and absorb or reflect incoming sunlight before it ever reaches the ground (hence why miniature ice ages happen after supervolcanic eruptions despite all the CO2 they pump out), meaning there is a chance air pollution may be disguising the effect of other climate change contributions. Just as with CFCs and the Ozone Hole (and there are very few places that felt that more keenly than Tasmania by the way; we really did have to dramatically increase our sun protection for a considerable while, after which it has thankfully shrunk again, though it is still melting giant sheets of ice off Antarctica), we can trigger changes in a climate system we barely understand with even a 'tiny' amount of emissions. As Insomniac has already mentioned, there are vast quantities of methane, kept in an ice form called clathrate by depth and pressure, on the floor of the oceans of the world; if the carbon dioxide is absorbed into the oceans (which by the way also acidifies them and kills coral) and temperatures rise by even a few degrees, the ice melts and potentially billions of tonnes of methane bubble free. Methane is orders of magnitude worse than CO2 in terms of climate change effects. This is a tipping point of sudden runaway heating where one effect triggers another called the 'clathrate gun' and the last time it 'went off' the Earth underwent a mass extinction event where the land boiled and the seas became carbonic acid. Now I'm not saying we're all doomed and it's the end of the world if we don't close down all our coal plants tomorrow, but do you see why we don't need to make majority, or even 'significant', emissions to effect gigantic changes on a climate we have only begun to fathom?
If you cannot believe the world is changing, look at the glaciers, which have existed for thousands upon thousands of years, long before man ever thought intelligently or even thought about how cool it would be to use that bone to hit someone with. They're disappearing at a shocking rate. In seventy years, ice formations that have stood for seventy thousand have nigh vanished in places. Greenland is losing large percentages of its mass every year. The North Pole will cease to permanently exist by the end of the century. The Earth is not static and whether or not the changes have been wrought by humans, and it is my personal belief that we have at least accelerated a natural cycle to dangerous rates, you cannot deny the fact that you will have to accept a shifting environment which shifts resources, people and geopolitics along with it, in your life time.

Edited by CommanderJB, 19 February 2009 - 23:44.

Quote

"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark

Posted Image
Posted Image

#12 Major Fuckup

    The riot act

  • Member Test
  • 1681 posts
  • Projects: So like when is my warn level coming down?

Posted 19 February 2009 - 13:54

i haven t read what all of what every ones said about Co2 and Bush im to tired too read it right now but all i care for so far is that we find a new oil field that can make billions of barrels of oil each day so the price of fuel can come down to about 50 cents like it was for my parents when they where kids and i will be fine. As for global warming im one man and i can't do squat about making a difference if i stop and go the way of the greenies more people will just take my place and unless something dramatic happens like the atmosphere almost catching fire or little metal bugs killing humanity then humanity wont change and it will forever be the same. back to oil i don't care if its going to run out as long as im long dead before that happens and as for the next generation i say fuck em let them sort out our and our fore fathers mistakes and while where are still here lets just keep on killin each other because reducing the world population could be the key to reducing green house gasses :)

edit: grammar

Edited by Major Fuckup, 19 February 2009 - 13:55.


I question the general assumption that i am inherently deficient in the area of grammar and sentence structure

#13 Ion Cannon!

    Mountain Maniac

  • Gold Member
  • 5812 posts
  • Projects: European Conflict - Particle FX & Coder

Posted 19 February 2009 - 14:14

View PostMajor Fuckup, on 19 Feb 2009, 13:54, said:

i haven t read what all of what every ones said about Co2 and Bush im to tired too read it right now but all i care for so far is that we find a new oil field that can make billions of barrels of oil each day so the price of fuel can come down to about 50 cents like it was for my parents when they where kids and i will be fine. As for global warming im one man and i can't do squat about making a difference if i stop and go the way of the greenies more people will just take my place and unless something dramatic happens like the atmosphere almost catching fire or little metal bugs killing humanity then humanity wont change and it will forever be the same. back to oil i don't care if its going to run out as long as im long dead before that happens and as for the next generation i say fuck em let them sort out our and our fore fathers mistakes and while where are still here lets just keep on killin each other because reducing the world population could be the key to reducing green house gasses :)

edit: grammar


You *Blankety Blank* ..

This is the point, you can change things, our generation can change things, we can make sure we can continue to inhabit the earth and that its around for future generations. Instead of being a selfish bastard who only sees the short term, think of the long term effects. At the rate we are going, climate change will have major effects even in your lifetime, there is no point in passing the buck, its to late for that already. We have to act, or there will be nothing to act on left.

I'm also going to repeat my earlier statement, if you are going to make posts like that, just don't bother posting and while you may have dyslexia or something I don't care, use punctuation. It doesn't take long and makes it look like you have an older mental age than 8.

Oh yes, and before I forget, the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions, pollution (Land + Sea + Air) is done by a minority of the population.

Edited by Insomniac!, 19 February 2009 - 15:58.

Posted Image

Posted Image

#14 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 19 February 2009 - 15:52

View PostMajor Fuckup, on 19 Feb 2009, 15:54, said:

all i care for so far is that we find a new oil field that can make billions of barrels of oil each day so the price of fuel can come down to about 50 cents like it was for my parents when they where kids and i will be fine.
I'm seriously wondering here if the above statement is a joke or not, because my eyes read it but I don't believe them. You don't just "find" a new oil field, let alone one that will drive down the price of oil instantly to 1/4th, and the US government's department of foreign affairs knows it. The political ramifications of oil go infinitely further than just what you have to pay to get your tank filled.


View PostMajor Fuckup, on 19 Feb 2009, 15:54, said:

As for global warming im one man and i can't do squat about making a difference if i stop and go the way of the greenies more people will just take my place and unless something dramatic happens like the atmosphere almost catching fire or little metal bugs killing humanity then humanity wont change and it will forever be the same. back to oil i don't care if its going to run out as long as im long dead before that happens and as for the next generation i say fuck em let them sort out our and our fore fathers mistakes and while where are still here lets just keep on killin each other because reducing the world population could be the key to reducing green house gasses :)
Excuse me, but that is quite selfish. When you'd have kids, wouldn't you want them to grow up in a world worth living in, instead of selfishly consuming everything you can and leaving them with the problems? And one man not being able to do about it is pure bullshite; single men have decided the fates of whole countries on their own, so why not you?

Edited by Chyros, 19 February 2009 - 15:53.

TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#15 Nid

    Human Being number 80446219302

  • Project Team
  • 2501 posts

Posted 19 February 2009 - 21:12

View PostMajor Fuckup, on 19 Feb 2009, 13:54, said:

if i stop and go the way of the greenies more people will just take my place

If you can lead by example, others that look up to you will surely follow.
Unfortunately, the way you act around here I doubt you actually have anyone that looks up to you

View PostMajor Fuckup, on 19 Feb 2009, 13:54, said:

edit: grammar

I'f you're going to edit your post for grammar, then stop wasting your time on the half assed job you did, and please, at least attempt something of higher level. Your posts burn my eyes.

Edited by L22, 19 February 2009 - 21:13.

Posted Image

#16 Dr. Strangelove

    Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else

  • Member Test
  • 2197 posts
  • Projects: Where parallels meet.

Posted 19 February 2009 - 23:50

View PostInsomniac!, on 19 Feb 2009, 15:14, said:

*snip*


'Selfish Bastards' like that are the disgrace to us REAL selfish bastards who think in the long term.
Posted Image
Posted Image19681107

#17 Major Fuckup

    The riot act

  • Member Test
  • 1681 posts
  • Projects: So like when is my warn level coming down?

Posted 22 February 2009 - 12:42

Insomniac!: your a feeble attempt to insult me by saying i mite have a mental disability made me lol because you are stooping to a level lower that me i would never directly insult a forum member

Chyros: the new oil field bit was meant to be a joke and i don't want kids i hate kids but im not a completely selfish cunt i do recycle cans,plastic bags and bottles but honestly thats the most i do.

Nidmeister: if there are people who look up to be they would have to be even dumber than i am and i only human i make mistakes when i type and spell check.

and guys that my opinion and what i think about this global warming we stuffed the earth only we can slow the inevitable
and Nidmeister and Insomiac! if you two guys can't see my view of it because it is different to yours and the only thing you can do is pick me apart by saying i have mental disability's and insults for it well you two are more childish that i thought you where

I question the general assumption that i am inherently deficient in the area of grammar and sentence structure

#18 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 22 February 2009 - 17:56

Off topic moderator stuff that I don't want to have to do in the Philosopher's Corner again:

Ion and Niddy there are more constructive ways to help improve a member's posting style.

Major Fuckup, while your posting lacking in proper spelling punctuation and grammar are acceptable in other areas of the forum this is the Philosopher's Corner where deeper matters are discussed and without proper sentence structure this is rendered impossible. Ion and Niddy are not the only people your posting style annoys, in all honesty I have given up reading your posts in this section because its too much effort and they are so poorly constructed that no interesting points are raised anyway. So Major Fuckup, if you want us to read and respond to your posts you will have to post clearly and in proper English.

Strangelove, putting political content in spoiler tags does not mean it dodges the rules, be mindful of this.

#19 Rai

    Forum Volcanologist at your service!

  • Member Test
  • 859 posts
  • Projects: Volcano researcher and geological services.

Posted 23 February 2009 - 12:58

Climate change has changed the world by .8 degrees celsius and it will not be surprising if it increased to 1 degree celsius where in rice and meat production would or might eventually fail and if it reaches 2 degrees celsius most of the Greenland icesheet would melt and eventually flood up coastal areas. On 3 degrees celsius Cyclones, Typhoons, and Hurricanes are more frequent than ever, wildfires, droughts, heatwaves are common in Australia, Europe and no doubt Africa and especially in the US, The Amazon Forests would all wither down to the ground. And 4-6 degrees celsius we all now the result and that is MASS EXTINCTION. Solutions that I may suggest are well...don't turn off electrical appliances unplug it when not in used this would reduce the use of coal power plants. Windmills as power source or Hydroelectric dams and Hydroelectric power stations anyone? Well this might stop carbon emissions right?
EDIT: Volcanic eruptions cause 60% distribution to carbon emissions and there is a total of 500 eruptions per year, so what happens? But still there are beneficial use of volcanoes like, Hot Springs, Medical application, fertilizes agricultural soil, Useful volcanic materials, scientific research, and other stuff.

Edited by Papaya Master Rai, 24 February 2009 - 03:51.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#20 Shirou

    Humble darkspawn

  • Member
  • 3328 posts

Posted 28 February 2009 - 18:11

View PostDauth, on 18 Feb 2009, 21:55, said:

We are technically still in an Ice Age since the Poles are permanently covered in ice, the rest of your rant makes little sense and will thus be ignored.

Depends on where you'd put the border between Ice Age and interglacial period. I have always been taught that we're in an interglacial now, though.

This is however my only contribution to the topic, since it has derailed and isn't much use to discuss it anyway, as the opening post does not give enough arguments to back up the statement, and I don't feel like bringing some up myself to counter what is not there.
Posted Image

#21 partyzanpaulzy

    Professional

  • Member
  • 316 posts

Posted 28 February 2009 - 21:13

From short view we aren't in Ice Age, from long view we are in Ice Age. The long view clasification means there are long periods of smaller periods of Ice Ages and interglacial periods (2 of them ended with SNOWBALL Earth and dead of almost all life, I am not sure, but I think I heard there were 4 these Ice Ages), from this view we live in Ice Age.

Something like this:
Ice Age = IA, Snowball=SN, interglacial period= _
time -> .....................................................................-2 000 000 000.........................................-800 000 000...-445 000 000...............-70 000 000..-10 000
_____________________________________________IASN_______________________________
_IASN_________IA_IA_IA____________IA_IA_IA_IA_

Also there is clasification where Ice Age means Earth with glaciers, Snowball theory contains that during several ten thousands years was Earth freezing till glaciers reached tropical area then it was just decades and it was caused by absence of the Greenhouse Gases. During this era was Earth cold with average temperatures at -80°C.
This is main reason why is Mars so cold, it has little amount of Greenhouse Gases, it has tenuos atmosphere, because of low gravity, no known or low vulcanic activity (also Mars has no magnetism).

Also it's possible that Global Warming will end with Ice Age, starting on the northern hemisphere around 2300-2400 (the southern hemisphere will continue in warming even after that for some time ) or even earlier (it can be matter of decades, it can be matter of centuries). Problem is that this will slowly start with no Gulf Stream created by lower salinity caused by melted glaciers. People are responsible for Global Warming. Many animal kinds can extinct although they survived several periods with no ice (like Ice Bear) because people built obstacles in their escape routes. Worse is that Africa and Arabs would attack Europe fighting for better living space, etc.

Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 28 February 2009 - 21:14.

Posted Image
(I'm making RA2YR mod, check Revora Forums for more info)
Posted Image
Posted Image
+ equivalents :p

#22 Rai

    Forum Volcanologist at your service!

  • Member Test
  • 859 posts
  • Projects: Volcano researcher and geological services.

Posted 01 March 2009 - 02:36

On 3 degrees celsius instead of common storms...imagine a Hypercane if the see temperature reached 120 degrees farenheit or celsius, the boiling point where Hypercanes may form. Too explain what a Hypercane can do just imagine 500-800 mph kinds of winds and 10 times bigger than a hurricane a height, which can reach the stratosphere and might cause mass extinction and mass destruction on wherever may it goes and plus it destroys the ozone layer.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#23 Ion Cannon!

    Mountain Maniac

  • Gold Member
  • 5812 posts
  • Projects: European Conflict - Particle FX & Coder

Posted 01 March 2009 - 12:33

Snowball earth only occured once, and its still highly disputed if it even happened. Snowball earth is also more than just glaciers reaching tropical areas. Snowball earth means the entire planet freezes over. The way the earth broke the snowball cycle is supposedly from volcanic activity. Volcanoes erupted releasing greenhouse gases, over time these build up and form an atmosphere. This causes the greenhouse gas effect, and heat becomes trapped under the ozone layer, over time the earth warms up and the ice melts. Ice volcanoes are currently being studied significantly on other planets such as neptune.

I think Dauth was referring to *When the scientists use temperature graphs* they always show a large increase in temperature above the average earth temperature for the last 1000-10000 years. This is exaggerated because the average temperature is low.

You also have to consider global dimming. The amount of particulates in the atmosphere is actually reflecting some of the suns energy and so masking the effect of the global warming.

On the topic of hypercanes if the sea reaches 50C hypercanes will be the least of our worries if they even occur at all, they are afterall theoretical. The oceans - being huge - take a long time to respond to temperature changes. Before they had even reached 50C the ocean currents would be disrupted resulting in mass extinction.
Posted Image

Posted Image

#24 Rai

    Forum Volcanologist at your service!

  • Member Test
  • 859 posts
  • Projects: Volcano researcher and geological services.

Posted 01 March 2009 - 12:39

Regarding to the snowballing effect it happened 500 million years ago, when continents formed very wrong on that time which disrupted the temperatures, right?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#25 Ion Cannon!

    Mountain Maniac

  • Gold Member
  • 5812 posts
  • Projects: European Conflict - Particle FX & Coder

Posted 01 March 2009 - 12:45

Between 600-800 million years ago IIRC. And no, that isn't the reason. It was discovered that if ice sheets advanced past a certain point so much heat was reflected that the earths temperature dropped, this created a postitive feedback mechanism leading to more ice being formed, this would continue until the entire earth was covered. This theory was created to explain glacial deposits in tropical areas, or what would have been tropical areas then.
Posted Image

Posted Image



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users