Global Warming

Hiroyuki

-sama
Retired
QUOTE (qrdel @ May 18 2007, 07:35 PM) why... I always believed ozone layer was responsible for blocking UV light which causes severe damage to earth itself.
I think the main problem with UV is it damages living things - e.g. skin cancer in humans but also crop damage if the ozone hole had kept expanding.

I think the way the ozone thing got linked to global warming was that CFCs were not only damaging the ozone layer, they are also amongst the worst greenhouse gases, a CFC molecule being about 10,000 times worse than a CO2 molecule in that respect.
 

ubermensch

-san
Kouhai
hmm actually according to me the reality of global warming is quite true...because when i came to bangalore 7 years ago it was so windy and it would rain every evening and it would have a lovely,cool climate...thats why i always stick firm to my belief that bangalore has the best climate for any place in india(if not the world) cuz its always comfy and remains same throughout the year...so anyway back then you never needed a fan also but nowadays it becomes so hot in summer that an AC can be considered a must...so such a large diff might suggest global warming-note india is nearer to the equator so effects are probably more tangible here.....but considerin all this its my view that global warming is not such a great problem as its made out to be...because 1stly itll take centuries for it to have a verry severe change in the climatic landscape of the world...and 2ndly if we consider a world map,temperate regions are more covered with land than tropical 1s so if global warming does affect us itll prolly just make the climate in greenland,russia,canada more livable and make america and europe to have a nice,warm comfy climate...itll cause the tropics to become verry hot but thats not too much of a problem cuz after all people live in saudi arabia quite comfortably too...global warming will just make more parts of the world comfortable to live in
smile.gif
 

Mowerman

-dono
Sempai
The fact of the matter is, the earth goes through heating and cooling periods. Sometimes the core his hotter than other times and sometimes the earth is closer to the sun than other times. It's all in cycles. Human beings aren't changing the climate as much as we think we are. Before we were around, there were natural phenomenon that put off just as much if not more green house gas material as we do. I live on the coast and I can tell you, the sea level has not risen here in 20 years and the predictions about more storms. Well, let's just say that except for the one freak year where we went into the greek alphabet, we have not seen any more hurricanes than normal. These right wing financed climatologists and green peace freaks are taking random things and blowing them up way out of proportion.

Take this year for instance. The area local temperature is actually lower than what is the norm for our area. Currently we are sitting in the 75 to 90 degree F range and normally, during this time of the year, seeing temperatures below 90+ degree F is the norm. You might say that's because of the extra ice melt in the ocean but I live almost as close to the equator as you can get, in America, and have the gulf stream feeding the waters off the coast with warm water and providing a barrier from things like that affecting the climate.

They were predicting, 25 years ago, that by 2000, Florida would be under water, well Florida is still here and it's 2007. Maximum elevation here, 26 feet above sea level. Where are the so called combined 40 foot rises in sea level due to polar melt and ice shelf melt?

Now then, in urban sprawl situations, you might see a change in local area temperature by as much as 20 degrees hotter and 20 degrees colder, depending on the size of the sprawl, due to the fact that there is more dark material to capture the sun. But, unless your name is Al Gore, I don't think anyone would want to give up their house and country and planet just so the plants can take back over. Heck I have a hard enough time keeping the trees, bushes, grasses, weeds, etc from taking over my lawn as it is. There are times when mowing the lawn and defoliating the premises is a twice a week affair here, otherwise they foliage would overwhelm the area.

Oh one more thing, they point at the ozone holes at the poles and say, "Look there is proof." Where is the proof that they weren't always there? IMO, due to the way gravity and the debris the earth floats through in space, those places never had ozone to begin with. Where is the proof of that? Why do we have corona's in the upper and lower regions of the planet? Because those are the places where there is the most friction created by earth's passage through the sun's radiation. How does this added friction change the chemical makeup of the atmosphere? I don't know, but I am willing to bet that it keeps ozone from building up there. The lights are basically different chemicals being heated to a point where they start to glow, no different than what you see in neon signs.
 

mibukyo

-chan
Kouhai
.......i think global warming is very much at work......these past few years have shown increased cyclones, floods, hurricanes, draughts and so on..........

Has any seen the Inconvienient truth? it helps to clear up sum concepts of global waming...

cheers
biggrin.gif
 

Headswabby

-chan
Kouhai
QUOTE (mibukyo @ Jun 14 2007, 10:10 PM) Has any seen the Inconvienient truth? it helps to clear up sum concepts of global waming...
No offense to you, but an Inconvenient Truth seemed to be more of a political embarkment for the once U.S. Vice Pres than a socially enlightening film on global warming. The only thing the movie did was force feed the same crap everyone has been force fed lately anyways.

I read about half of these posts, and I have to say Hiroyuki-kun is rather knowledgeable on the subject.

The world goes through cooling and warming cycles. In the 1970's, the world was on a warming cycle, which is when the whole global warming thing actually started. Currently, in 2007, the world is actually in a global cooling. OMG I know! No one will believe it I'm sure, but it's true.

In terms of CO2 gas production, CO2 gas is produced in mass quantities by the combustion of fossil fuels. There is no doubt about that. And CO2 output is something I believe we should lower, but it is not making as much of an impact on the world's climate as everyone thinks. This is actually where "An Inconvenient Truth" fudges some information. Sure, CO2 is much much more abundant than at previous times, and the world seems to have been warming during this. So Obviously there must be something that ties them together right!?!

Not necessarily. Water vapor is the best "greenhouse gas", where as CO2 is relatively weak comparatively.

When compared to graphs of other effects known to cause climate change, the most astounding correlation was with the number of sunspots that occurred during the time. Sunspots have been known to effect climate for a long time. A perfect example would be the little ice age back in the 1300's. During those years, there was little sunspot activity. Once the sunspots started occurring again, the climate started returning to a milder temperature.

Now, I'm not saying that sunspots are our answer, but I do believe it has more correlation than CO2 gas does to our climate. The thing that the general public aren't always reminded of, is the climate is a set of checks and balances. Our ozone is a part of this.

Ozone recreates itself and destroys itself, depending on the concentration in the atmosphere. CFCs destroyed ozone at a very alarming rate, which is why we have a hole over our south pole currently. Once we stopped CFC outputs, the CFCs finished there chemical reactions (still destroying ozone). Meanwhile the ozone was recreating itself. Currently, most of the CFCs have completed their reaction mechanisms, so the ozone production rate is much higher than destruction by CFC. Therefore the hole starts to close.

Anyways, global warming happens on it's own.
 

Nightdragon

TSiF-Tearraven
Retired
I thought some British Scientists already admitted that Global Warning was just a lie or a misconseption... or just plain wrong...
 

Bold

-kenja sama
Retired
QUOTE (jacotyco @ Jun 16 2007, 11:57 AM)if there's not enough ozone up there and to much down here why doesn't it rise to even it out? Because Ozone is a relatively heavy gas. It is O3 (3 oxygen with each oxygen weighting 8 protons). The air we breath is mainly composed of N2 (each of those 2 nitrogen weight 7 protons). As for the oxygen we breath, O2, it is obviously lighter than O3 since it has one less oxygen atoms.

If you wonder how ozone happens in the low level atmospheres (meaning at our level), it is mainly due to electric discharges. For those of you living in cities where there are electric trains, you probably notice the characteristic smell when the train stops and starts. It is the smell of ozone.


QUOTE (Nightdragon @ Jun 16 2007, 01:33 PM)I thought some British Scientists already admitted that Global Warning was just a lie or a misconception... or just plain wrong... Quite possible, this is the basic of sciences. Many people argue many things. What we consider the truth is merely what the majority of people in the field regard as the truth.

The legitimacy of a scientists is directly related to how many people in his field consider he is legitimate. This means that if I am the greatest and most intelligent mind of my time, if I make an affirmation and others don't believe it, it won't be "the truth".


QUOTE (mibukyo @ Jun 15 2007, 12:10 AM).......i think global warming is very much at work......these past few years have shown increased cyclones, floods, hurricanes, draughts and so on.......... An increase in the number of cyclone is not necessarily due to global warming. What I mean is that an increase in the last 5 years is first of all a VERY short period. Secondly, why are we considering it "not normal"? Because the current models we have to predict such phenomenon don't seem to work as well as before. This means we are basically considering our models semi-perfect while they are not. No model is so perfect, since it is, after all, a model.
 

raigainousa

-chi
Kouhai
QUOTE I'll agree. But my experience with those who argue against the human influence in global warming has been that their arguments are an excuse for inaction. There is no proof that humans are the major mercury polluters (since there is evidence of natural mercury pollution!), so we don't need to stop polluting.

Yes there is little proof that humans are the major mercury polluters, but it can upset the whole food chain of a place(Remember the Minimata Incident and rethink before you respond. If you are not deterred and you really are ignorant.). I have studied environmental science as a subject is school and those in higher trophic levels get more poison since they eat more lower trophic level preys to satisfy their diets, storing more poison in their body. So destroying innocent animals by ignorant people.


QUOTE There is no proof that we will run out of oil one day, so we don't need to make vehicles more efficient or find alternate sources of energy. The depletion of fish stocks can't be proven to be attributable to overfishing or strip mining the ocean floor of life, so keep doing it.

Denying a fact that oil is a non-renewable resources. A simple fact.



QUOTE They were predicting, 25 years ago, that by 2000, Florida would be under water, well Florida is still here and it's 2007. Maximum elevation here, 26 feet above sea level. Where are the so called combined 40 foot rises in sea level due to polar melt and ice shelf melt?

NO OPINION. My former classmate lives in Florida. But I do not trust predictions. I only rely on observations.


QUOTE Oh one more thing, they point at the ozone holes at the poles and say, "Look there is proof." Where is the proof that they weren't always there? IMO, due to the way gravity and the debris the earth floats through in space, those places never had ozone to begin with. Where is the proof of that? Why do we have corona's in the upper and lower regions of the planet? Because those are the places where there is the most friction created by earth's passage through the sun's radiation. How does this added friction change the chemical makeup of the atmosphere? I don't know, but I am willing to bet that it keeps ozone from building up there. The lights are basically different chemicals being heated to a point where they start to glow, no different than what you see in neon signs.

Ozone hole(Don't pluralize it) is found in Antarctica, and is somewhat unrelated in global warming. No worry, you are only saying the ozone in troposphere, I am talking about in stratosphere.

Corona? I thought it is Aurora.

But in ozone thing, ozone helps to keep those UV rays from entering the planet, so since there is hole, UV rays enter, higher cases of skin cancer.
 

Yuki Shiido

-chan
Kouhai
My boyfriend says that global warming isn't actually happen; it's just natural and the world is actually going through global cooling or something like that. I have no idea, and frankly, I don't particularly care. As long as we take care of the Earth, I'm happy.
 

raigainousa

-chi
Kouhai
QUOTE How about trebling the CO2 release rates in the next 3 years ? How does that sound ?
Then wait another 10 years and just make very detailed and accurate measurements
of temperatures, rain levels, sea levels etc. around the globe.

It is too dangerous to do something we do not understand. How does it sound? It sounds hazardous.


QUOTE (mibukyo @ Jun 14 2007, 10:10 PM).......i think global warming is very much at work......these past few years have shown increased cyclones, floods, hurricanes, draughts and so on..........

What increased? actually it becomes more extreme. In 2005, Katrina showed hurricane strenght in New Orleans and destroyed its levees of it and produce floods in the city. Surprisingly, there is no major hurricane in 2006.

Draughts...are you British? I think is droughts...

The cause why global warming is abnormal is that it is jumping out of normal cycle. It is in CO2 in the atmosphere.
 

Headswabby

-chan
Kouhai
QUOTE (raigainousa @ Jul 05 2007, 03:24 AM) The cause why global warming is abnormal is that it is jumping out of normal cycle. It is in CO2 in the atmosphere.
No. The global warming occurring right now is not abnormal yet, nor do we know if the CO2 we actually released is affecting things as greatly as we once thought. In fact, according to previous estimates, the world's cooling and warming cycle is still right on track.

Want to know the background of why CO2 was brought up as a "global polluter"? in the 70's, a Swedish scientist found a vague similarity between CO2 levels and temperature rise. He mentioned it, and some clung to it. Especially the hippies. Especially the extreme hippies who wanted us to all live in caves and never have the chance to "harm" the environment. The were against corporations and society in general, and since buildings and vehicles spit out CO2, they stuck to it and kept the anti-CO2 movement going.

In the end, we are where we are currently because of them, and so obviously this movement has roots in being anti-corporation. Which means it has an alternative agenda. Which means don't trust everything you hear just because it's popular culture.
 

d'observer

-Procrastination Expert
Sempai
Popular culture or not,I can basically say the same about the theory that global warming is just a mere hoax.Is it normal,just anoter cycle this Earth would go through after a period of time,or it's indeed abnormal that's caused by us human's actions?

Well,either of it,we're basing our conclusions on estimations only,so basically,even if people want to say it's not out of abnormality,like what they have stated themselves,we only have little data on limited period of time,and some say our record only go as far as two centuries ago,I think I could say both possibilities is bound to a same thing,it's yet another mere estimation based on that limited amount of data,right?

Even so,didn't people always basing their actions and judgements on the worst possibilities?If we're making our views with such attitude,isn't it's safer for us to well,provide several solutions and developed some kind of technology to ease global warming's effect,SHOULD the global warming is indeed taking place right now?(or later).We know that most solutions(or steps taken,my shuck english has failed me in finding better term.) to prevent or reducing global warming's effect are beneficial for healthier enviroment.Treat the nature kindly.Even if the global warming indeed won't going to happen,or have no relations with humanity's actions,I see no minus points if we're taking positive steps in preserving the environment.

Making research and development for things that might not happened is just a waste of time and resources?Well,tell that to America,and several other countries that spend lots of money coming from their people paying their taxeS,only to provide annoying security to prevent the so-called terrorist attack which who knows when or whether it will happen.
dry.gif
That thing is more of a hoax to me.
dry.gif


And global warming is a propaganda of the hippies that refuse development,of people that are anti-corporation?Well then,that might be true,who knows.But then again,please provide proofs that the theory that global warming ain't going to happen isn't coming from people that have their own agenda.Especially if it's coming from scientist that comes from a country that didn't even bother to sign Protocol Kyoto.
dry.gif
I see lots of alternative agendas there too.

And finally,like I said,since most solutions supposed to be taken to prevent global warming(if it's true) from worsening does beneficial for us that lives on this blue planet ourselves,it's essentially nothing to lose if we were to take those steps into practice.True or not,hoax or not,that's something we'll find out sooner or later.I just don't want us to be dumfounded should the effects global warming indeed come true one day...Just do what we can do right?
wink.gif
If it is within our capabilities,if it is within our knowledge,just do it.When sh*t happens,sh*t happens.At least we've done what we could then.

Another one of my long two cents.Dummy d'observer.
dry.gif
.....
tongue.gif
 

Headswabby

-chan
Kouhai
I agree that CO2 emissions should be lowered by industrious nations. I completely agree with that in fact. I just disagree with the statement that CO2 is the cause for our strife and global warming. Sure it should be lowered, because it's not exactly natural to have high doses of CO2 emissions.

The anti-CO2 movement has it's plus sides and minus sides. If we were to restrict CO2 emissions in all countries, then 3rd world countries who need oil as a semi cheap way to power their countries would be S*it out of luck. Where as nations like the US should have no problem lowering emissions to a level that is compliant with the Kyoto Protocol while still being able to pursue, and test alternative fuel sources.

I think the anti-CO2 movement in and of itself is a good thing, since it creates jobs and tries to return CO2 emissions to a more controlled amount. The only problem I see with it is the amount of misinformation. Knowledge can be a valuable tool, but popularity will always be the world's truth.
 

Hiroyuki

-sama
Retired
QUOTE (Headswabby @ Jul 06 2007, 06:19 AM)No. The global warming occurring right now is not abnormal yet, nor do we know if the CO2 we actually released is affecting things as greatly as we once thought. In fact, according to previous estimates, the world's cooling and warming cycle is still right on track.
Which estimates? And how do you determine the "right track" from the "wrong track"?

QUOTE Want to know the background of why CO2 was brought up as a "global polluter"? in the 70's, a Swedish scientist found a vague similarity between CO2 levels and temperature rise. What was his name? Where was his study published?

QUOTE He mentioned it, and some clung to it. Especially the hippies. Especially the extreme hippies So are all climatologists hippies? I thought the hippies died out in the 1970s. Perhaps you have some evidence that cliamatoligists and other people who believe in global warming are hippies?


QUOTE Sure it should be lowered, because it's not exactly natural to have high doses of CO2 emissions.
CO2 comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Apart from global warming, why would more be a problem when there's so little of it?
 

Headswabby

-chan
Kouhai
QUOTE Which estimates? And how do you determine the "right track" from the "wrong track"?
What I said was that today's climate is not out of the ordinary.


QUOTE What was his name? Where was his study published?
If I would have remembered this, I would have put it down. But I'll be sure to look through my old school textbooks for ya.

EDIT: Ah sorry. My memory isn't what it used to be. The Swedish scientist was Erik Eriksson. His paper was "Possible Fluctuations in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Due to Changes in the Properties of the Sea". I had the decade wrong. It was the 60's. However I had forgotten Roger Revelle's work in the matter.


QUOTE So are all climatologists hippies? I thought the hippies died out in the 1970s. Perhaps you have some evidence that cliamatoligists and other people who believe in global warming are hippies?
I never said all climatologists are hippies. I said hippies took the idea and ran with it to help make the movement what it is today. Hippies is a broad term, and does not necessarily have bad connotation. And if you think hippie culture died out, well sorry to say it, but you are very wrong.


QUOTE CO2 comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Apart from global warming, why would more be a problem when there's so little of it?
Just because CO2 comprises a relatively small percentage of the atmosphere, does not mean that if the percentage were to go up by .01% nothing would happen. I'm sure you wanted me to say this, so I will, but I don't know what would happen if current trends continued for CO2 output. It could be a good thing, it could be a bad thing, it could be nothing. But lowering CO2 emission levels would imply a lower amount of fossil fuel burning, which then implies alternative fuel sources, which at this day and age is not a bad thing.
 

raigainousa

-chi
Kouhai
QUOTE Want to know the background of why CO2 was brought up as a "global polluter"? in the 70's, a Swedish scientist found a vague similarity between CO2 levels and temperature rise. He mentioned it, and some clung to it. Especially the hippies. Especially the extreme hippies who wanted us to all live in caves and never have the chance to "harm" the environment. The were against corporations and society in general, and since buildings and vehicles spit out CO2, they stuck to it and kept the anti-CO2 movement going.

If youre saying that I am one of those people, youre wrong. However, it is still wrong to say that we must harm the environment. Look, we have made efficient cars since we are thinking and using our brains.


QUOTE In the end, we are where we are currently because of them, and so obviously this movement has roots in being anti-corporation. Which means it has an alternative agenda. Which means don't trust everything you hear just because it's popular culture.

I do not know if you are advicing me or flaming me in that sentence. Whatever, the environment is the one that feels the effect of global warming, not us.


QUOTE CO2 comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Apart from global warming, why would more be a problem when there's so little of it?

God created earth with balanced levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we reproduce, it is not a problem. However, vehicles and factories are the main sources and CO2, and they are destroying the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere.
 

Headswabby

-chan
Kouhai
QUOTE If youre saying that I am one of those people, youre wrong. However, it is still wrong to say that we must harm the environment.

I never said you were a hippie...

I also never said you "must" harm the environment... even though it is true. We expel CO2 in our breathing, and since CO2 is a "global polluter", we all must invariably pollute! Sure, it's not nearly as much as the factories and automobiles, but we do our own share
wink.gif



QUOTE I do not know if you are advicing me or flaming me in that sentence.

I try to not flame people. That sentence was advising if we had to classify it...


QUOTE the environment is the one that feels the effect of global warming, not us.


QUOTE If we reproduce, it is not a problem.

Where's the logic in these statements? Maybe I'm reading them wrong... who knows.
 

raigainousa

-chi
Kouhai
QUOTE I also never said you "must" harm the environment... even though it is true. We expel CO2 in our breathing, and since CO2 is a "global polluter", we all must invariably pollute! Sure, it's not nearly as much as the factories and automobiles, but we do our own share
wink.gif


What I am trying to say is that it is NORMAL for us to expel CO2 in our breathing since it is part of respiration, a bodily process. So you cannot blame our existence because we "invariably pollute" the environment. That's why there are plants. Never said? Why is that found in your post??


QUOTE CO2 comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Apart from global warming, why would more be a problem when there's so little of it?

Really? It is because it is out of normal levels.


QUOTE Where's the logic in these statements? Maybe I'm reading them wrong... who knows.

I will REPEAT... the environment feels the effect of global warming, not us. Okay? So the logic is there. Finish.
 

Headswabby

-chan
Kouhai
QUOTE What I am trying to say is that it is NORMAL for us to expel CO2 in our breathing since it is part of respiration, a bodily process.

Hehe. I could start a whole philosophical debate on this statement alone, but since we're talking global warming I'll refrain.


QUOTE Never said? Why is that found in your post??

English grammar rules. I used quotation marks for the word harm. Meaning I was quoting someone else about saying that. and if you read the sentence with the word harm in it, it clearly states that the extremists were the ones who said we were harming the environment. Therefore I, as in myself, never said we must harm the environment. I actually disagree with the whole "We must harm" thing, but for some reason I decided to play devils advocate on my last post.


QUOTE I will REPEAT... the environment feels the effect of global warming, not us. Okay? So the logic is there. Finish.

You still didn't explain the logic... The whole thing about the global warming movement is we are doing damage to the environment, which in turn very much so effects us. We harm the environment, and it produces worse weather which are killing people and leaving others in inhospitable living conditions.

Another part of the global warming movement is that the warming of the Earth is melting the polar ice caps, which is releasing even more CO2 into the environment, which is then making the global warming problem stronger. This is raising the levels of the oceans, which will invariably put currently hospitable land underwater.

So please, explain your statement. I've tried explaining why the statement doesn't make sense to me.
 
Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more
Top