Global Warming, not man made!

[Torn blue sky]

I don\'t actually think if the ice caps melted we would all drown Farseerlum . Simple rule of displacement, the mass is already present, I doubt it would effect water levels...It would leave some very unhappy polar bears and penguins though.

 

[Jericho]

Originally posted by Trevor
Then when I actually read a bit of the methodolgy it was obvious it was a joke, sounded like an episode of Star Trek. \"I\'ll just depolorise the primary EPS manifold, then we can sublimate the tertiary plasma grid and centrifuge the DNS connectors and we should end up back at the point in time we left at\"

Obviously it was a joke, they didn\'t even use the deflector dish to enhance the structural integrity of the flux capacitors.

 

[Torn blue sky]

*stares blankly*

Ok...

*Grabs coat and leaves*

 

[Infidel Castro]

I don\'t know what\'s correct or not, but it would be jolly nice to see some more respect for the environment around us, if only to keep in touch with the cycles of nature. Within 10 years, 3 out of 5 of us will live in a city. Depressing or what!

 

[darklord]

what worries me is that a lot of people seem intent on seeding the atmosphere or similar projects and we simply don\'t understand it enough to know what side effects there will be. hell don\'t these people know what happen\'s when they do that stuff in movies. Although if it killed of wasps it would\'nt be so bad!

 

[Einion]

Originally posted by Trevor
Thats because we ARE on a cooling trend, at least geologically speaking. Trouble is that recent decadal evidence suggests we are experiencing unprecedented (for the last 10,000 odd years) warming.

Not true, it\'s by no means unprecedented; this is one of the key exaggerations put forward in the media that\'s not actually reflected in some of the scientific data. And no, we\'re not in a cooling trend*.

Part of the problem is that it\'s hard to be precise about just how fast, and by how much, temps have changed in the past. Some of the data is a judgement and some of it is just educated guesswork, which could be off by a huge margin.

*North Africa was the breadbasket of the Roman empire before the encroachment of the sub-Saharan zone. Other sources (including parts of the Bible) make it plain that the Middle East was not nearly as dry & hot around the beginning of the CE.
*During what used to be referred to as the Dark Ages the average temps across Europe were significantly lower than about a half-century later, and now. The change in Greenland\'s climate (for the worse) was not part of a trend, it was caused by changes in Atlantic currents due to warming elsewhere.
*Changes in climate in North America in the three or four (?) centuries before the arrival of Europeans led, in part, to the early stages of Plains culture. Similar changes in the steppes of Russia - it was a lot less dry between Europe and Siberia in the time of the Golden Horde which is why they could feed an army of horses (and themselves off the game available) all the way here, and back.

Einion

 

[Avelorn]

@Einion:

The climate has always been in change due to natural phenomenons. Dramatic changes has come to specific parts of the earth through oceans currents changing for example. I\'m not sure what you are getting at though. Are you implying that these changes atm are natural and that CO2 emission has nothing do do with that, and to top it off that you have the scientific data on your side? Then I suggest you state the sources and articles that support your claims.

 

[Sand Rat]

Originally posted by AinuLainour

OK, seriously though, our science is significantly better then it was in the 70s.

This is the same science that in 2006 said that 2006 was the hottest year on record, then earlier this year had to revise that and say that no, actually the hottest year on record was in the 1930\'s?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm

Am I saying we should ignore the issue? No.
But I think listening to Ed Beagly Jr is a better idea than Al Gore.

 

[Avelorn]

@steelcult: If we speak temperature increase we talk globally and not the U.S. temperature of course which those figures talk about. Global warming doesn\'t even mean that every country will get warmer it depends how currents change etc.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/

 

[Sand Rat]

True. However, my point was not that the US is the only one affected by Global Warming, but that science is only as good as the data it uses.

 

[farseerlum]

Originally posted by Torn blue sky
I don\'t actually think if the ice caps melted we would all drown Farseerlum . Simple rule of displacement, the mass is already present, I doubt it would effect water levels...It would leave some very unhappy polar bears and penguins though.

true the icebergs melting won\'t change a thing. but there is a lot of ice above the waterline. of course there is no guarantee that is will turn to water either. it could just as well become clouds since it\'s hotter.

the penguins are well stuffed though.

 

[Astonia]

I don\'t think we need to know 100% if we are helping global warming to take action to slow it down.

1. Global warming = manmade
Do nothing means the world may become a pretty hostile place to live in.
Do something means we at least have a chance to make it better

2 Global warming = not manmade
Do nothing means the world may become a pretty hostile place to live in
Do something means we at least have a chance to make it better.

So in both these cases, there is a \"may\", but the risk of global warming turning out to be partially our fault and we did nothing to stop it, I think, is greater than the risk of it being not manmade and us humans still trying to cut down CO2 emmission and use less energy and in general taking more care of our planet. Yes OUR planet that we all share.

So my point is, it doesn\'t hurt to just switch off the lights, use less or better fuel, and recycle, even if global warming turns out to be happening on its own.

 

[Beelzebrush]

Originally posted by Astonia
I don\'t think we need to know 100% if we are helping global warming to take action to slow it down.

1. Global warming = manmade
Do nothing means the world may become a pretty hostile place to live in.
Do something means we at least have a chance to make it better

2 Global warming = not manmade
Do nothing means the world may become a pretty hostile place to live in
Do something means we at least have a chance to make it better.

So in both these cases, there is a \"may\", but the risk of global warming turning out to be partially our fault and we did nothing to stop it, I think, is greater than the risk of it being not manmade and us humans still trying to cut down CO2 emmission and use less energy and in general taking more care of our planet. Yes OUR planet that we all share.

So my point is, it doesn\'t hurt to just switch off the lights, use less or better fuel, and recycle, even if global warming turns out to be happening on its own.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts too.

In reality, they are only lifestyle changes that need to be made. Which is probably easier said than done.

However, until heavy industry follows suit and makes the same concessions worldwide, the efforts of normal people is pretty much redundant.

Also, global warming is a wonderful way for business and government to make a lot of extra profit, revenue etc. Anything associated with saving the planet tends to have a suitably inflated priced tag. Things like solar panels, wind generators and other means of renewable. clean energy sources really need to be hugely subsidised - the same with anything that has green credentials. The problem is that if it affects the balance sheets, it\'s not going to happen.

It\'s also about time that casual air travel was ended. Make it expensive to travel and curtail flippant and avoidable plane journeys.

 

[Bill]

Agreed with Astonia. But we need other methods of combating it. How many years have people been told to turn off lights, cycle etc.? Has anyone really done much to help? Hardly any impact has been made at all. Stuff like Iron fertilisation is what we need to use. By the way, Good Energy is a good way to help if you are in the UK.

 

[Einion]

Originally posted by Avelorn
The climate has always been in change due to natural phenomenons. Dramatic changes has come to specific parts of the earth through oceans currents changing for example.

Was my point.

Originally posted by Avelorn
I\'m not sure what you are getting at though. Are you implying that these changes atm are natural and that CO2 emission has nothing do do with that...

No, if I\'d meant that I would have said that It is possible that we have produced no significant effect on global temperature; I don\'t think so but let\'s not forget some scientists don\'t acknowledge a causative link and they\'re in a better position, one would think, to make the judgement.

Now me, given there seems to be little doubt that ozone depletion is directly man\'s responsibility, I think the case is made there that we can affect global conditions to at least some degree. But the magnitude of global temperature changes since the Industrial Revolution, taken against the trend over the last ~10,000 years, may actually be insignificant.

Some interesting reading.

Einion

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Astonia
I don\'t think we need to know 100% if we are helping global warming to take action to slow it down.

1. Global warming = manmade
Do nothing means the world may become a pretty hostile place to live in.
Do something means we at least have a chance to make it better

2 Global warming = not manmade
Do nothing means the world may become a pretty hostile place to live in
Do something means we at least have a chance to make it better.

So in both these cases, there is a \"may\", but the risk of global warming turning out to be partially our fault and we did nothing to stop it, I think, is greater than the risk of it being not manmade and us humans still trying to cut down CO2 emmission and use less energy and in general taking more care of our planet. Yes OUR planet that we all share.

So my point is, it doesn\'t hurt to just switch off the lights, use less or better fuel, and recycle, even if global warming turns out to be happening on its own.

No, it doesn\'t hurt ,but then again, it doesn\'t really help either.
Man\'s CO2 emissions are minuscule compared to the CO2 emissions created naturally by the earth.
If Global Warming is caused by CO2 then it is inevitable.
If Global Warming is natural it is as inevitable as the next Ice Age.

And it\'s all the mooses fault.

 

[supervike]

I agree we should conserve and save or recycle.

It makes no sense not to. I believe you should keep your house in good order. Waste not, want not, that sort of thing.

But, being really proactive about a problem we don\'t obviously understand makes no sense either.

I think mankinds biggest downfall may be it\'s ego. We are possibly much more insignificant to the eco-systems of the Earth than we care to admit.

My last comment is to point out that according to studies Mars, Triton, and Pluto are all seeing a very similar rise in temperatures. Surely, our greenhouse gases don\'t affect them as well...do they?
Of course, there is a common denominator to that...the sun.

Those studies are in early stages, and could still be proved inaccurate, but my point is really that more care and time should be spent before we start doing drastic measures.

 

[Rigged4Mini]

There is a upside to destroying our planet.... It will force us to reach to the stars faster. I\'m down with that.

 

[StarFyre]

the facts

The idiocy of people, is that regardless of who causes it or what, we should agree it;s not a good thing as all the ice melts, cities get more poluted, etc.

Hell, i was in LA recently, with the smog there, hell, some terrorist could nuke it..and guess what? YOU COULDN\'T tell the difference.. the smoke from a bomb would probably be less than is already there.

companies can start change..the tech is there; but greed and money coming from certain companies cause the other companies that can start to make a small difference (and gov\'ts) not care.

Sanjay

 

[mickc22]

Originally posted by Jericho

Originally posted by Trevor
Then when I actually read a bit of the methodolgy it was obvious it was a joke, sounded like an episode of Star Trek. \"I\'ll just depolorise the primary EPS manifold, then we can sublimate the tertiary plasma grid and centrifuge the DNS connectors and we should end up back at the point in time we left at\"

Obviously it was a joke, they didn\'t even use the deflector dish to enhance the structural integrity of the flux capacitors.

thing is if we all stopped fighting (Globally) each other and worked together, we could be doing this for real
if \"they\" started using some of that alien stuff instead of squirrelling it away in area 51, we wouldn\'t need fossil fuels either Gits!