60 replies to this topic

[CommanderJB]

But given that ice cores show it's gone higher before on multiple occasions, what reason have we to assume it's stopped now? And we know that climate change is happening - everything I've seen tells me we've had record amounts of hurricanes, and the higher temperature maximums are being balanced out by lower temperature minimums which is why we are getting flat average temperatures. The article came out before the Panel's decision at any rate, so I would go with the majority decision and not a newspaper article when it comes to the crunch.
The Earth is big, but it's not beyond our capability to effect.

[Chyros]

CommanderJB, on 5 Mar 2008, 11:12, said:

But given that ice cores show it's gone higher before on multiple occasions, what reason have we to assume it's stopped now? And we know that climate change is happening - everything I've seen tells me we've had record amounts of hurricanes

We don't - it's changing as we speak, doubtlessly. We have influence in it - equally doubtless. But everything is very relative. The worst weather moments in the last 2000 years are a sunny beach weather compared to what the earth has experience before, but we call those periods of extreme weather "mass extinction events" .

[CommanderJB]

Which is why I don't understand why people say 'it's not our fault, all the environmentalists are scaremongers, now let's just get on with our day-to-day lives unchanged, shall we?'

[Chyros]

CommanderJB, on 5 Mar 2008, 11:25, said:

Which is why I don't understand why people say 'it's not our fault, all the environmentalists are scaremongers, now let's just get on with our day-to-day lives unchanged, shall we?'

Well some environmentalists are scaremongers and many overstate the problem, but it is partly our fault and we do have a problem. It's just not the apocalypse some people make it out to be.

[Major Fuckup]

they only way to stop global warming is nuclear winter right?
heres somethin that will blow ur mind the current price for a litre of diesel in saudi arabia is 6 cents WTF greedy bastards lol makin us pay $1.50 for diesel makes me wanna move there lol

[Dauth]

You forget export costs, and taxation, in the UK petrol companies get about 40p of every pound spent.

While this isn't a true nerco I would like you to only revive threads where there is something new to add.

[stealth816]

CommanderJB, on 4 Mar 2008, 18:45, said:

I don't supposed you've noticed the dramatic increase in the incidence of violent storms and the global average temperature that has been steadily increasing since records began? It's not a myth, it's happening, and environmentalists are not trying to scare you, it's just that what they've got to say is so frightening few people are willing to accept what they say.
Have a look at this graph and tell that peak at the end is part of the natural cycle:

Sorry for the size - I don't know how to do thumbnails.

There was something incredivbly misleading in that graph but i fail to remember what. My physics teacher criticized this graph in particular....*searches for the answer via In+eRWeB*

Here it is, http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-...4519890db8c228b http://www.youtube.c...h?v=L1_eaZ74Z_A

[Dauth]

Stealth please don't post in old threads, I know you have new content but we have another active thread on global warming.

[Lucid]

sorry if this has been said before, but IMO, global warming is over dramatized. yes, it is getting warmer worldwide, but an average increase of a few degrees a year isn't going to melt the icecaps or what have you. anyways, it is impossible to stop, because even if EVERY car and EVERY powerplant/factory in first-world countries switched to completely non polluting technology, you're still going to have under developed countries in Africa or wherever that use fossil fuels. also, just by breathing you are going to release CO2 into the atmosphere, and we can't all stop breathing can we?

[Chyros]

Viper, on 24 Jun 2008, 13:23, said:

also, just by breathing you are going to release CO2 into the atmosphere, and we can't all stop breathing can we?

On the other hand, there are plenty of organisms that consume CO₂, so it's not necessary that we'd stop breathing. Also CO₂ is not the only concern.

[Shirou]

Viper, on 24 Jun 2008, 13:23, said:

sorry if this has been said before, but IMO, global warming is over dramatized. yes, it is getting warmer worldwide, but an average increase of a few degrees a year isn't going to melt the icecaps

Yes it is...

Don't start shouting gibberish when you obviously don't know what you are talking about...

[CommanderJB]

Even if it is over-dramatised, do you honestly think it's not cause for alarm? Are you willing to take the chance that by doing nothing we might send this planet and our civilisation into a downward spiral that will change life as we know it irrevocably?
You can't deny the possibility of this happening. To do that you'd have to know the future or be a world-class environmental scientist. And on balance, science tells us there is plenty of reason to be worried by everything from ice melting to oceans acidifying to food production falling. So please take it seriously. You can't just fob it off by saying 'it's overhyped'.
Edit - oh, and sorry, but that video just makes my blood boil. That's spin on a level I haven't seen since the federal elections. Anyone who takes that as seriously as the majority of scientists is deluding themselves very seriously indeed.

Edited by CommanderJB, 25 June 2008 - 11:32.

[AllStarZ]

Personally I believe the answer lies in using existing technologies in a more efficient way, or at least resorting to more efficient technologies.

Let us consider centralized power production in a coal burning plant. Coal is burned to heat up water in a boiler, convert it into steam to drive a turbine which in turn drives a power generator, which then finally turns the energy into electricity, which is then transfered to a voltage station where it is converted into a level suitable for household usage, and is finally transported over several miles to be used in this laptop. The potential energy that the coal contained is wasted over the period of this transfer. Nuclear isn't much better either.

[amazin]

sorry, im not trying to start a flame war.... but i have to say my opinion

based on days of research... i have to say, i think the whole idea of "global warming" is bullshit...

the climate is so complex that we aren't even close to understanding it, so why should we change the way we live our lives based on 1 little theory? the only reason it has the evidence it does is because we have spent all our time and effort exploring that idea, and no time on any of the possible natural causes (such as JUST coming right out of the little ice age?).

i also believe that people like Al Gore are continuing the movement because of the money involved. do you know how many millions of dollars he has made off his movie alone?

another thing... do you know how little difference changing your lifestyle to be more "energy efficient" makes to CO2 emissions? A whole continent switching to fluorescent lightbulbs will change the global CO2 output by less than IIRC .01%. how about hybrid cars...? NOPE. 3 billion, yes BILLION, big gas-guzzling ford expeditions drivin 10,000 miles a year will put out less CO2 than the increase alone in CO2 that china puts out this year.

i dont have a problem with people going more energy efficient. i dislike bad air quality as much as the next guy, but what really gets me mad is how the big leaders in the environmentalist movements go off and start a big ruckus about how something is happening now and we are all gonna die if we dont change our lifestyles, all based on a theory that hasnt even been proved yet, and quite frankly, i dont believe in.




also... consensus that global warming is happening? Bullshit.




EDIT: and just so you dont think im retarded (though most of you probably will anyways =) )

i do believe that the Earth is getting warmer, but i dont think we are causing it

Edited by umm not dachamp, 23 August 2008 - 04:29.

[CommanderJB]

umm not dachamp, on 23 Aug 2008, 14:27, said:

i do believe that the Earth is getting warmer, but i dont think we are causing it

Then if I might ask, what is your point? I would have to say I under no circumstances agree with you that humans are not to blame, but leaving that aside entirely, what difference does it make to you? The Earth is still getting warmer and resource stocks are still getting smaller and anything to help stop it is worthwhile. Refusing to help simply because China wants the same standard of life we enjoy, and because it requires a small amount of effort and an equally small financial outlay (which will in most cases pay itself back anyway, being beneficial to you in the process) is something I just can't understand.
Also, sorry if this sounds aggravated, but; been in an ice age, have we? Just reverting to normal now, is it? No, we haven't, and no, it isn't. Tell me honestly that you can explain the spike at the end of this graph as just business as usual, please.

And yes, the temperature does go up before the CO2. Obviously, and is most likely a result of solar activity or the Milankovitch Cycles. What's clear however is that it's a self-reinforcing cycle. The higher the temperature, the higher the CO2, and the higher the CO2, the higher the temperature. Just because we don't know everything there is to know about the planet's climate, and I'd be the first to agree that, doesn't mean that nothing the majority (obviously there's never a true consensus) - the principle all science is based on - says is right.

Edited by CommanderJB, 23 August 2008 - 05:42.

[amazin]

of course there is a CO2 spike, but there is nothing even close to a temperature spike...


and i never said there is anything wrong with being energy efficient, i just disagree with how people like al gore are misleading people to believe things that havent been proven yet...

[Crush3r]

Direct answer to the original question: Yes it stopped in 1998. Starting 2000, temperatures have been dropping slightly.

Long answer: That graphic has some false data there and is not detailed enough. The timeline is like this: A hot period in the Medieval period, way hotter than 1998, not that worrying in regards to natural disaster frequency. A mini ice age in the 13th-14th centuries. Temperatures rising from the mid-18th century, peaking in the 40s, dropping during the 50s-70s (right when industrialization happened and CO2 emissions increased), rising again until 1998, then dropping.....

CO2 levels followed temperature, not exactly, but approximately. This means that temperature is the main factor in CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere (~ 90%). The reason is simple: CO2 is dissolved in the Oceans (think of fizzy drinks), and it dissolves better at lower temperatures, so at higher temperatures, there will be more of it in the Ocean. The rest of the influence is biological activities at about 10%, and human industrial activity at 0.x% (varies).

As the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.038%, it can't affect temperature back in any significant way. If this was the case, early on in the Earth's life we would have become Venus-like, due to the closed heating loop. CO2 isn't even a particularly efficient greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the best in any significant quantity on Earth (and is found at ~1%), then comes Methane, at 4x the efficiency of CO2. (it would be worse if the pockets of methane on the ocean floor were to suddenly burst).

That way the main theory of man-made global worming is busted into a million pieces.

Now the cause: The Sun. When solar activity and temperature is correlated, you get a perfect match, starting with the first solar observation. And this time the cause does actually precede the effect. While I do expect to Sun to continue a general worming pattern for the next few decades, it won't have man as a cause. And this will be beneficial for plant-life. (for the record, I like colder temperatures, but you can't change the Sun yet)

Why the scaremongering? There are 2 possible reasons: 1. Tax CO2 production, as almost any burning produces CO2. 2. Keep poor areas poor, as they need oil or coal produced electricity to get out of this state (clean energy, while not introducing toxic element into the environment is too expensive). The current state allows for ruthless exploitation, and these fake environmentalists that forbid African nations to exploit more oil/coal reserves, via UN sanctioning, are anti-human.

The American Physical Society has recently published a paper on this endorsed by it's 46000 members. You can also watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" for a more graphical approach on the subject.

Edited by Crush3r, 27 August 2008 - 13:23.

[Dauth]

Since I'm about to start a PhD on Global Warming and how to deal with it I'm going to go with.

[Citation Needed]

[CommanderJB]

@Crush3r: Or you can choose to do something that will genuinely increase mankind's chances of prosperity and perhaps survival by increasing efficiency, lowering resource consumption, and maybe, just possibly, assuming that the majority of the world's scientists are in fact right, stop a series of related disasters that are of undeniable significance. Your choice.
Also;

Quote

A hot period in the Medieval period, way hotter than 1998, not that worrying in regards to natural disaster frequency.

And we all know just how effective and comprehensive a record the weather bureaus kept in those years, now don't we? Oh, hang on, yeah - there were no weather bureaus and no effective comprehensive records. Hmm. Now I remember.

Quote

CO2 is dissolved in the Oceans (think of fizzy drinks), and it dissolves better at lower temperatures, so at higher temperatures, there will be more of it in the Ocean.

Oh good! Say goodbye to all the coral reefs as it creates an acidic tendency! Never mind the fact that at higher ocean temperatures you get the 'clathrate gun' going off.

Quote

2. Keep poor areas poor, as they need oil or coal produced electricity to get out of this state (clean energy, while not introducing toxic element into the environment is too expensive). The current state allows for ruthless exploitation, and these fake environmentalists that forbid African nations to exploit more oil/coal reserves, via UN sanctioning, are anti-human.

A few things here, first off, renewable technology is a hell of a lot more viable than shoving in hundreds of coal and oil plants - Hubbert's Peak anyone? - and will only get more so as it becomes more developed. Second off, environmentalists are not exactly trying to deny developing countries resources, in part because they don't tend to exist in such countries, and where they do they're often ruthlessly repressed by oil corporations, and virtually nothing from their operations goes back to the country the resource was extracted in; nothing that is save the ridiculously destructive, carcinogenic and toxic wastes they produce by the thousands of tons each year. And the United Nations is 'anti-human'? Have you even heard of a couple of documents called the U.N. Charter or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If so, have you bothered to look at them, or the fact that the U.N. actually protects human rights and is about the only body in the world which gives an equal voice to every single nation?
Lastly:

Quote

The American Physical Society has recently published a paper on this endorsed by it's 46000 members.

What an odd organisation (which is, I would note, of physicists, not environmental scientists at any rate). From their own website:

Quote

Much of the public debate over climate change has confused the issue of detection of climate change with the inevitability of climate change. The consensus of the scientific community is clear: increasing emissions of greenhouse gases will inevitably cause the levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere to rise, which will change the Earth's climate. While the inevitability of climate change is generally accepted, the magnitude and nature of these changes are still uncertain.
While anthropogenic climate change has not been unambiguously detected, the evidence for a human effect on climate is mounting. The surface temperature of the earth has risen by about half a degree centigrade over the last century. This rate of change is similar in magnitude to natural climate changes but also well within the range of the possible effects of the historical rise in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Unambiguously detecting climate change through the record of global mean temperature is not possible at this point since, while we may detect warming we cannot uniquely attribute a general warming to anthropogenic influence. Fingerprint detection is a more promising technique. This scheme involves using GCMs to identify distinctive spatial patterns caused by anthropogenic influence. A number of studies using this technique have recently found evidence of human influence on climate. These studies, plus other changes in weather and temperature patterns, lead working group I of the IPCC to conclude that, while there still many uncertainties, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.
The degree to which the climate will change in the future is still uncertain. However climate change may lead to significant damage to both human and natural systems. Estimates of the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are also uncertain and a definitive cost-benefit calculation which compares climate change damages to mitigation costs is not possible at this time.
Stripped of the baggage associated with political and economic interests, much of the debate over climate change boils down to differences in values. Technological change and a general increase in wealth through economic growth will leave the world better able to deal with this issue in the future. However, some, perhaps small, amount of damage will accrue in the interim. A risk-averse viewpoint argues for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible to avoid the possibility of harm. An opposite view advocates waiting until we are more certain about climate change effects (and more able to effect changes). This part of the debate will be better informed, but not solved, by improved science.

Doesn't seem to indicate they think the whole think is a swindle to me...

Edited by CommanderJB, 27 August 2008 - 13:49.

[amazin]

Quote

And we all know just how effective and comprehensive a record the weather bureaus kept in those years, now don't we? Oh, hang on, yeah - there were no weather bureaus and no effective comprehensive records. Hmm. Now I remember.

then how do you know it was cooler then than it is now?



they do have ways to tell, to an extent, the temperature hundreds of years ago (for example tree ring data).

[CommanderJB]

umm not dachamp, on 28 Aug 2008, 9:25, said:

Quote

And we all know just how effective and comprehensive a record the weather bureaus kept in those years, now don't we? Oh, hang on, yeah - there were no weather bureaus and no effective comprehensive records. Hmm. Now I remember.

then how do you know it was cooler then than it is now?



they do have ways to tell, to an extent, the temperature hundreds of years ago (for example tree ring data).

...I never said it was cooler, as we know for a fact it has been warmer, thanks to ice cores, plant samples, etc. What I saw contesting is that there was no corresponding increase in storm activity & severity or other extreme weather events, because no samples will tell you that.

[Dauth]

The Romans grew grape vines at Hadrian's Wall, it was warmer, but there are more aspects than temperature to climate change.

[Shirou]

We have more to fear of the consequences that of the temperature itself. Humanity could perhaps cope with five degrees more temperature (even though the entire area around the equator would become barren deserts probably), the planet itself cannot. Problem is that it is just going too fast, and on macro levels, it is equal with our industrial revolution.

The planet could perhaps cope with a little change of CO2 levels but not so fast, not at all.

Saying that because there is only 0.038% CO2 in the atmosphere, it cannot influence the temperature is just letting your own ungrounded logic speak because you see a small number. You must now that all the world plants, even in the time that the world was one entire big jungle, live off that 0.0xx% CO2? That must sound equally not logical mustn't it?

[amazin]

either way we are making key assumptions about how the planet will respond.

we dont know how fast the temperature cycle is supposed to go... so why are we assuming that it is a problem.

Quote

...I never said it was cooler, as we know for a fact it has been warmer

by the way, this is one fact that people like Al Gore like to leave out in their presentations


EDIT: and they have not yet proven that the "more powerful" hurricanes like katrina are caused by CO2 output.

i think the reason katrina was so devastating wasnt because it was more powerful than any other category 5 Hurricane, i think it much of it could be attributed to a REALLY bad decision.

New Orleans was pretty much built in a giant bowl, so once the levees broke, everyone inside was screwed. plus some people did not take the evacuation warnings seriously, and the ones who did couldnt make it out in time

Edited by umm not dachamp, 28 August 2008 - 14:37.

[Shirou]

'100% proof or it didn't happen' doesn't work in this case. To get the proof bad things must have happened already, which is what people like Al Gore are trying to prevent.