Global Warming.
#1
Posted 18 February 2009 - 20:41
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)
#2
Posted 18 February 2009 - 20:55
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
Posted 18 February 2009 - 21:11
Dauth, on 18 Feb 2009, 20:55, said:
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
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
#4
Posted 18 February 2009 - 21:54
Jörmungandr, on 18 Feb 2009, 21:11, said:
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
Quote
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
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
Posted 18 February 2009 - 22:38
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.
#6
Posted 19 February 2009 - 00:02
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
#7
Posted 19 February 2009 - 09:12
CommanderJB, on 19 Feb 2009, 2:02, said:
CommanderJB, on 19 Feb 2009, 2:02, said:
CommanderJB, on 19 Feb 2009, 2:02, said:
I will continue later.
The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm
#8
Posted 19 February 2009 - 10:10
#10
Posted 19 February 2009 - 11:56
Z_mann, on 19 Feb 2009, 12:20, said:
A very good point indeed.
Dutchygamer, on 19 Feb 2009, 11:10, said:
Of course they make things sound worse than they really are. When people are scared they tend not to think
19681107
#11
Posted 19 February 2009 - 12:27
Chyros, on 19 Feb 2009, 20:12, said:
Chyros, on 19 Feb 2009, 20:12, said:
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
#12
Posted 19 February 2009 - 13:54
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
Posted 19 February 2009 - 14:14
Major Fuckup, on 19 Feb 2009, 13:54, said:
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.
#14
Posted 19 February 2009 - 15:52
Major Fuckup, on 19 Feb 2009, 15:54, said:
Major Fuckup, on 19 Feb 2009, 15:54, said:
Edited by Chyros, 19 February 2009 - 15:53.
The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm
#15
Posted 19 February 2009 - 21:12
Major Fuckup, on 19 Feb 2009, 13:54, said:
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
Major Fuckup, on 19 Feb 2009, 13:54, said:
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.
#17
Posted 22 February 2009 - 12:42
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
Posted 22 February 2009 - 17:56
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
Posted 23 February 2009 - 12:58
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.
#20
Posted 28 February 2009 - 18:11
Dauth, on 18 Feb 2009, 21:55, said:
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.
#21
Posted 28 February 2009 - 21:13
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.
(I'm making RA2YR mod, check Revora Forums for more info)
+ equivalents :p
#22
Posted 01 March 2009 - 02:36
#23
Posted 01 March 2009 - 12:33
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.
#24
Posted 01 March 2009 - 12:39
#25
Posted 01 March 2009 - 12:45
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users