Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Brighton Lounge General off-topic discussions. Political or religious topics may only be posted in The Basement forum.

View Poll Results: Does Global Warming Exist?
Yes GW exists, and is a problem. 43 64.18%
Yes GW exists, and is not a problem 13 19.40%
No GW does not exist. 11 16.42%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-20-2008, 02:01 AM   #106
tblaxland
Webmaster
 
tblaxland's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 I don't have any numbers, but I think that only a very few percent of the overall Earth's surface (meaning everything, including the areas of water) is inhabited.
Inhabited perhaps, but man's touch goes well beyond inhabited areas. You mentioned the uninhabited areas of Australia. Consider the decimation (not implying it is good or bad, since that is a separate argument) of native flora and fauna in vast tracts of Australia due to feral rabbits and grazing cattle. Most of these areas don't need a human within a bull's roar of them to feel the direct impact of mans' actions. The point is that you cannot dismiss humans as insignificant in terms of their impact on the global environment, whether the topic at hand is global climate, erosion, ecosystems, etc.

Another example of man's reach:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_..._Garbage_Patch

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 But predictions of the future Earth's climate and possible impacts of global warming still is guesswork (might, could, likely,...).
And your predictions for the future are that human actions will have no (or insignificant, if so quanitfy) impact on the climate? What confidence level would you ascribe to said prediction?

BTW, the terms "likely", "very likely", etc have well defined probability boundaries when used in IPCC reports, eg, "very likely" = ">90%", so don't let the apparent ambiguity of the language fool you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwalker View Post
 Don't take climate science too much conclusively.
Above all else, I am a skeptic
tblaxland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 02:13 AM   #107
Moonwalker
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tblaxland View Post
 And your predictions for the future are that human actions will have no (or insignificant, if so quanitfy) impact on the climate? What confidence level would you ascribe to said prediction?
I don't have any predictions or beliefs of the future climate and the causes of climate changes. Nobody can predict it, not even the IPCC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tblaxland View Post
 BTW, the terms "likely", "very likely", etc have well defined probability boundaries when used in IPCC reports, eg, "very likely" = ">90%", so don't let the apparent ambiguity of the language fool you.
Of course not, since such nice defined terms do not prevent significant changes of predicted temperature and sea level rise, which has happened, cause by protests of some scientists.
Moonwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 02:59 AM   #108
Omhra
Orbinaut
 
Omhra's Avatar
Default

On a debate (or you, since you asked) I expect constructive understanding of what is actually happening.
Instead what we get from the political think-tank of our oil entrepreneurs and their adepts is a persistent asking, from us, to not continue improving our technologies; because we are not hurting anything.
Meanwhile our planet is in the hot leg of the climate cycle and we have all this data which correlates with CO2... Be reasonable is what we ask... or be experimental...

--ice in water... ice in salt water... permutations of those... jars... scales... thermometers... sunlight... freezer......
or dry ice... 2 big jars... one with D.I. one without... thermometers... sunlight (tip: the thermometers go inside the jars)
It is urgency what you detect not personal.
Omhra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 04:34 AM   #109
Melocoton
Orbinaut
Default

Three letters - l o l.

I figured this topic would pop up, and I wasn't surprised it went popular fast. Honestly, I think it is a problem and does exist. (although it isn't "Global Warming" anymore, but I'll settle for the title) Ignoring the previous debates on evidence, I'll just say that, yes, it is often Politics and Religion that push the yay or nay vote on wether we are the problem, but the real solution lies past that. Really, the subject we need to face is the fact that, regardless if this change in climate is our fault, we still need to pull ourselves out of this climb from the Industrial Revolution. Who cares if our CO2 emitions are affecting this planet or not.. They're enough that we need to reduce them. And they alone are less than half our problem.

I guess after days and days of hearing these debates I'll just end off with saying: No, I do not believe this climb in temperature will continue on for too long of a period. (The data also says it will not) Yes, we will plunge in to a cold snap after this. Yes, the fact that some places in the world are experiencing worse winters in relation to temperature DOES relate to Climate Change. It's called Negative Effect.

Hmm.. Guess that's all I have to say for now.
Melocoton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 04:35 AM   #110
Bj
Donator
 
Bj's Avatar

Default

Take a look at this page

about 1/3 of the way down where it says;

Carbon dioxide (co2) emissions (metric tons)

right now its at 19,810,490,000 (It is going up so fast that I cannot even keep up)


also this page shows the CO2 emissions by country.
Also notice it says;
Quote:

Total: 22,829,463.2 DEFINITION: CO2: Total Emissions (excluding land-use) Units: thousand metric tonnes of carbon dioxide
keep in mind, this is 2003 alone

Also keep in mind, this is the emissions by humans using coal, or gas, ext. (Not natural)
Bj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 04:41 AM   #111
Melocoton
Orbinaut
Default

Being too lazy to just look through all the pages here, . . Has anyone yet mentioned the statistics on the changes in our weather patterns, storm behaviors, or numbers in general?
Melocoton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 05:15 AM   #112
tl8
Addon Developer
 
tl8's Avatar

Default

Global Carbon Cycle - The Woods Hole Research Centre: http://www.whrc.org/carbon/index.htm

I love this image. It is so simple but explains alot.

Basically they are saying the the 6% extra CO2 will do the damage.
Attached Thumbnails
co2.jpg  
tl8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 07:47 AM   #113
zerofay32
Buckeye
 
zerofay32's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete.dakota View Post
 Evidence, please.

Saying it's not a issue, citing SUV-based metaphors, and the enormity of the atmosphere is not enough to dismiss the solid, scientific research that you, as an internet user, are privy to, and need to understand.

If you want sources I can send you a hefty list. While the planet has been in a warming trend since 1850, this is not becase of "global warming." Global Warming is described as an increase of "greenhouse gases" causing an increased amount of solar heat to be held by the atmoshere. This is not happening. While CO2 levels have be on the rise, it has gone from 377 parts per million to 386 in four years (go to http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ for graph), that is only a six parts per million increase in the main cause of "global warming." I attribute the warming trend to be in part a natural cycle of a planet that has existed for five billion years and has had three different atmospheres, and a growing increase of types of land use, ie cities. Also, local phenominon can't be looked at as proof. One location may get warmer, another may get cooler, but the current trend in a system that is as complex as a climate for an entire planet is just a drop in the bucket. I don't think that pollution is a good thing, but saying that we are distroying the planet is ridiculous. The first bacteria to inhabit the planet thrived off of an atmoshere that was mostly CO2 and expelled a highly corrosive gas (Oxygen) as a byproduct. Eventually these organisms died out and ones that could live in an environment with increased levels of O2 took over. Those original organisms polluted their invironment to the point of extinction. No one cries obout that. Unfortunately humans have two qualities that will come back to bite us. One, we have a strong urge to change our environment to what we want it to be. And two, we have a strong will for self-preservation.

Zerofay32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omhra View Post
 I had to laugh... If we try to reduce emissions we are meddling? and if we burn fossil fuels we are not... do you even read what you type?...
EDIT:Who said anything about emissions? Did you even read what I typed? I was speaking of more than just car emissions and other pollutants. Global climate is more than what is in the air.

EDIT2:My last comment on the subject is that no matter what we do that infuences the climate, we will never distroy the Earth. The end of humans' dominance on the planet, probably.

Last edited by zerofay32; 11-20-2008 at 08:20 AM.
zerofay32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 08:13 AM   #114
Bj
Donator
 
Bj's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zerofay32 View Post
 While the planet has been in a warming trend since 1850, this is not becase of "global warming." Global Warming is described as an increase of "greenhouse gases" causing an increased amount of solar heat to be held by the atmoshere. This is not happening.
Definition of global warming;

by Wikipedia;
Quote:
Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation.
by the free dictionary;

Quote:
global warmingn. An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change.
And are you saying whats not happening is the CO2 emissions, or the global warming?


Quote:
Originally Posted by zerofay32 View Post
 While CO2 levels have be on the rise, it has gone from 377 parts per million to 386 in four years (go to http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ for graph), that is only a six parts per million increase in the main cause of "global warming."
True enough, it only went up a little PPM, however a little can go a long ways;

http://zfacts.com/p/205.html
Quote:
Human-Caused Warming Has Been Very Slight
The consensus is that tropical oceans are about 0.5 C (slightly less then 1 F) warmer. This is so little that computer models of hurricanes predict only a very slight increase in hurricane power.

But Hurricanes are Very Sensitive to Tropical Sea Temperature
That’s where Dr. Kerry Emanuel’s Nature article comes in. He did not look for global warming; he just looked at how hurricane power has related to tropical sea temperature for the last 61 years. His data show the computer models are wrong, and a 0.5 C causes a much larger impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerofay32 View Post
  I attribute the warming trend to be in part a natural cycle of a planet that has existed for five billion years and has had three different atmospheres, and a growing increase of types of land use, ie cities. Also, local phenominon can't be looked at as proof. One location may get warmer, another may get cooler, but the current trend in a system that is as complex as a climate for an entire planet is just a drop in the bucket.
Zerofay32
Ok so lets say that it is perfectly natural for the climate to change (which it is, but to a degree).

So are you saying that even if it isn't humans fault for climate shifts, you still would not do anything to research the climate shift and develop new technology? So what if it is/isn't mankind's fault. Are you just going to 'take it?'

Edit; To what cost? Are you going to wait for Earth to become Venus (I know, extreme but hey ) or freeze over again? (whatever the possible outcome could be)
Bj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 08:27 AM   #115
zerofay32
Buckeye
 
zerofay32's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bj View Post
 Edit; To what cost? Are you going to wait for Earth to become Venus (I know, extreme but hey ) or freeze over again? (whatever the possible outcome could be)

Looks like I can't keep my promise in my last edit. Just keep in mind that computer models of complex systems are highly inaccurate to actual outcomes. Just take them with educated scrutiny.

What gives us the right to judge what is best for the planet? Nothing. What is comes down to is all we are doing is look out for ourselves. (that whole self-presurvation thing again) Ok, now I'm done. Have fun with the rest of the discussion. Nothing like the exchanging of ideas...

Zerofay32
zerofay32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 08:42 AM   #116
simonpro
Beta Tester
Default

I can't believe this is still going on. Climate change is happening and Humans are at least partially responsible. People who think otherwise are most likely in need of a course in climatology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zerofay32 View Post
 If you want sources I can send you a hefty list. While the planet has been in a warming trend since 1850, this is not becase of "global warming."
So you're saying that the fact that the planet is warming on a global scale is not caused by global warming?
Well of course it's not. Warming is the result, not the cause (although it can be a strong reinforcer for future climatic trends).

Quote:
Global Warming is described as an increase of "greenhouse gases" causing an increased amount of solar heat to be held by the atmoshere. This is not happening.
No it isn't.

Quote:
While CO2 levels have be on the rise, it has gone from 377 parts per million to 386 in four years (go to http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ for graph), that is only a six parts per million increase in the main cause of "global warming."
You tell us later in your post about how different locations do different things, yet here you use a graph representing just one location. You'd have been better off looking at the lower graph. Even if we just go from that graph, the rise you mention (which isn't 6ppm, it's 9. 386-377=9) is still about 2%. A 2% increase in anything related to our atmosphere inside 4 years is impressively worrying. If you examine the data to the right of the screen you'll also see that CO2 hasn't just been rising for the last 4 years (I have no idea why you seem to think climate change has just been happening for 4 years), it's been rising in every year they have records for. Overall the increase is on the order of 15% over 40 years, that's a big jump.


Quote:
I attribute the warming trend to be in part a natural cycle of a planet that has existed for five billion years and has had three different atmospheres, and a growing increase of types of land use, ie cities. Also, local phenominon can't be looked at as proof. One location may get warmer, another may get cooler, but the current trend in a system that is as complex as a climate for an entire planet is just a drop in the bucket.
Of course it's part of a natural cycle, but we are part of nature and as can be seen from the figures, we have a large affect on the system as a whole.

Quote:
I don't think that pollution is a good thing, but saying that we are distroying the planet is ridiculous.
I don't recall anyone outside of the sensationalist media saying we're destroying the planet.

Quote:
EDIT2:My last comment on the subject is that no matter what we do that infuences the climate, we will never distroy the Earth. The end of humans' dominance on the planet, probably.
You've not encountered nuclear weapons, then?
simonpro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 08:46 AM   #117
Bj
Donator
 
Bj's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zerofay32 View Post
 Looks like I can't keep my promise in my last edit. Just keep in mind that computer models of complex systems are highly inaccurate to actual outcomes. Just take them with educated scrutiny.
Yes they are very complex, I agree 100%. However what the graphs are showing is data, not predictions...



Quote:
Originally Posted by zerofay32 View Post
 What gives us the right to judge what is best for the planet?
I dont know,
who gives Judges the right to sentence you to prison?
Who give the supreme court the right to do whatever they do...

Earth is an object, not a person with feelings. So just like any possession that you have, you have to take care of it.

Now how do you take care of it?
One example in medicine,

When they develop some medicine, they cannot find the cure for cancer if they don't research it. But ( absolutely no attacks on anyone whatsoever) its almost exactly like people are ignorant of cancer and do not acknowledge its existence. The only difference is that cancer is (almost) never self inflicted.

From valid data, you can determine a cause/s and solution/s.
Bj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 08:52 AM   #118
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zerofay32 View Post
 Looks like I can't keep my promise in my last edit. Just keep in mind that computer models of complex systems are highly inaccurate to actual outcomes. Just take them with educated scrutiny.
That's why they come with a nice invention called "error bars".

But when even the most conservative calculation results in a massive warming, you can't say that there is still hope for something else happening. Something between best and worst case will happen (if the model is correct).

Now, the important question is: Are the latest computer models of our climate correct?

For knowing this, we need to know not only the relations between the variables, but also the correct input functions and the correct initial state.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 09:18 AM   #119
Moonwalker
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zerofay32 View Post
 My last comment on the subject is that no matter what we do that infuences the climate, we will never distroy the Earth.
Yes. We are energetic dwarfs related to the nature, solar system and the universe. And we always will be. Our technologies and some sciences make some people believe that we are the center of all and everything and that we have to decide almost all and everything, yet even global climate changes.

I have (the right to have) strong doubts that the current measured very slight increase in global mean temperatures, and the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which are only 6% to 7% of the global natural CO2 emissions, would have catastrophic effects in the future. It's all just guesswork. No more, no less. No matter what the so called vast majority (NASA) of climatologists do believe (related to their data), which by far is not all scientists on the planet. Concerning the German geophysicist Georg Delisle (who researches permafrost) as one example, there probably is a disagreement between climatologists and the rest of the earth science communities, since it is recognisably that climatologists tend to play down past climate changes to reinforce their predictions and believes.
Moonwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 09:51 AM   #120
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

We also don't need to destroy Earth. Just making it a so unpleasant world that we can not survive on it is enough.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge

Tags
global, warming


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:15 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.