Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

Jaysus, I just had an opinion. Sorry, I'll leave this topic alone now......

The problem was you came in here talking all doom and gloom with the basis of your ideas coming from a blatantly biased propoganda film created by a politician desperately trying to remain in the spotlight.

I've seen many documentaries that talk about sea levels rising and wiping out entire cities and, in some cases, countries, IF the polar ice caps melt and they go on about ice caps melting. The problem is that would require a 60+F degree increase in the ice caps and global warming at its worst is talking about a few degrees globally.

Then you act like we make all these "tiny" changes and everything will be better (which you did mention fuel efficient cars, even if you didn't specifically say hybrid). Have you considered what is required to make all these changes? It will risk upsetting the economy and set back technological progress. Have you considered that or that you would be risking all that for something that is a sketchy theory at best with scientific arguments coming out left and right? You are asking for global technological and social change that might not do anything.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, ok, sorry, I found the film very interesting though. I thought the facts were true. Maybe not though...

It is true that if Antarctica melted it would be bad. It is also true that parts of Antarctica are melting. What he didn't tell you is that as a whole, Antarctica is growing - reducing the sea level.

You were told an inconvenient half-truth... as in, half of the story. The other half makes all the difference.

 

[Duke]

Did I say anything about buying hybrid cars? I just typed my opinion based on facts I have heard. Most of it came from what I saw in the film, An Inconvenient Truth

But are they indeed FACTS? As others have pointed out in great detail, they are not necessarily facts just because they are presented as such.

Note that none of us on the sceptical side have insisted that global warming is not happening, and that human activity is definitely not responsible for it. All we've said is that the results are not conclusive. We have a scientific bent of mind, and that's how we operate.

Having sat through An Inconvenient Truth, I ask you: did the other side show any such restraint? Obviously not, since the clear and repeated message is that global warming is definitely happening, glaciers and ice caps are definitely melting, and it's definitely our fault.

 

[GJB93]

Maybe I didnt catch the jist of the forum properly. My bad

 

[FoolKiller]

Obviously not, since the clear and repeated message is that global warming is definitely happening, glaciers and ice caps are definitely melting, and it's definitely our fault.

You forgot "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!" and "We didn't Listen!"

 

[Danoff]

You forgot "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!" and "We didn't Listen!"

"I broke the dam."

 

[GJB93]

There seems to be alot of opinions coming up now. I like reading different opinions. I gives me good info. Could be used....

 

[UnoMOTO]

And billions will die because we can't move to higher ground before the ice melts

 

[Duke]

And billions will die because we can't move to higher ground before the ice melts

It's all part of a Republican scheme to get rid of the blue states, poor people, and pinkos world wide.

 

[UnoMOTO]

It's all part of a Republican scheme to get rid of the blue states, poor people, and pinkos world wide.

haha...your right...most of the blue states are on the coast. No wonder why Al Gore is on this band wangon.

 

[Swift]

"I broke the dam."

"I Broke the dam"

 

[Danoff]

haha...your right...most of the blue states are on the coast. No wonder why Al Gore is on this band wangon.

All joking aside, I think Al Gore truly believes that he is correct. I think he's completely convinced that global warming is real, that we're the cause, and that we can stop it. I don't believe that he made the movie to get into he spotlight, he's a man on a mission to save the Earth.

The only problem is that he got convinced a little too easily.

The questions are as follows:

1) Is global warming real?
2) If yes, are we the cause?
3) Either way, can we/should we do anything about it?
4) If yes, what's the most effective thing we can do about it?

Gore was convinced on number 1 by some decently respectable data. He then jumped right past step 2 based on very little because (like many liberals) he's susceptible to the notion that humans and technology are inherently bad for the environment. He also jumped past number 3 and didn't think about step 4 very long.

Number 1 is a toughie. Number 2 is even harder. 3 and 4 don't even get talked about.

 

[UnoMOTO]

"I Broke the dam"

GREAT!....now we have to worry about flooding from ice melting AND the dam that you just broke!

 

[Swift]

GREAT!....now we have to worry about flooding from ice melting AND the dam that you just broke!

Hey, as long as you get the joke. Just don't try to find Manbearpig.

 

[Danoff]

"I'm totally serial".

 

[Zrow]

"Everyone's gonna be super stoked on me."


I think that a lot of the big uproar over global warming is just a trend. I honestly believe it's trendy for "hip, young, liberal" college students and twenty-somethings to be concerned for a "cause" like global warming. I think that a lot of political thinking for the younger generation is just the result of some trend or image people are trying to hold.

"Hey, I want to be a socially and politcally aware young person, um, DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS AND THE MAN! GLOBAL WARMING!" There seems to be less influence on finding actual truths.

 

[ledhed]

The problem was you came in here talking all doom and gloom with the basis of your ideas coming from a blatantly biased propoganda film created by a politician desperately trying to remain in the spotlight.

I've seen many documentaries that talk about sea levels rising and wiping out entire cities and, in some cases, countries, IF the polar ice caps melt and they go on about ice caps melting. The problem is that would require a 60+F degree increase in the ice caps and global warming at its worst is talking about a few degrees globally.

Then you act like we make all these "tiny" changes and everything will be better (which you did mention fuel efficient cars, even if you didn't specifically say hybrid). Have you considered what is required to make all these changes? It will risk upsetting the economy and set back technological progress. Have you considered that or that you would be risking all that for something that is a sketchy theory at best with scientific arguments coming out left and right? You are asking for global technological and social change that might not do anything.

I am still waiting for the ice age I was promised before they changed their damm minds and gave us a warm age..I like the ice better with my scotch .

 

[UnoMOTO]

The problem is that would require a 60+F degree increase in the ice caps and global warming at its worst is talking about a few degrees globally.

There goes the tropical vacation to greenland that I was saving for!

 

[FoolKiller]

"I Broke the dam"

"No, really. I mean it. I...broke...the...dam."

 

[Kylehnat]

I see we have many members of the Church of Parker and Stone.

 

[Thiele]

okay, i had to research global warming at school today, and i found out average global temperatures have increased by 0.75%

 

[Famine]

okay, i had to research global warming at school today, and i found out average global temperatures have increased by 0.75%

Over what period?

So you expect me to believe that there is enough Mass contained in Ice at our polar regions to raise 70% of the earths surface 20 feet. Come on people...Start using your heads here!!!

Okies.

The Earth's surface is roughly 510,065,600 km² and, as you say, about 70% of that (357,045,920 km&#178 is water. To raise that much area through 20 feet (roughly 6 metres) will require:

6m x 357,045,920 km² =
6m x 357,045,920,000,000 m² =
2,174,409,652,800,000 m³ =
2,174,410 km³ of water

Ice is 91.7% as dense as water, so we would require 2,371,221 km³ of ice (in fact slightly less, as ice density increases with decreasing temperature, and much of the ice on our planet is at considerably lower than 0°C - but let's work with that figure).

So... is there more than 2,371,221 km³ of ice on Earth?

Well... The USGS puts the volume of ice covering Greenland at 2.6 million cubic kilometres. That's just Greenland - there's 10 times as much covering Antarctica. So melting Greenland on its own will release enough water to raise the entire planet's sea level by the requisite 20 feet.


So, using my head, yes there is enough ice in our polar regions to raise 70% of the Earth's surface by 20 feet. Do I expect you to believe it? I don't care - but you can find the numbers out and do the calculations yourself.


More importantly, though is the question of whether it's happening - and, if it is whether it's man to blame or not - and as danoff points out, Greenland is called Greenland because when the Vikings found it, it was green and in the 1100s there were no Viking SUVs to blame it on...

Sure, it'd be quite a major thing if it did happen, but there's a difference between "when" and "if".


It's also fun to work out what will happen if the ice content of the planet drops.
Ice is more reflective than water. Less sunlight will be reflected (the term "albedo" is generally used here), so more will be absorbed, increasing global temperature.
Increased global temperature will lead to more atmospheric water vapour, increasing global temperature (water vapour is the most potent of the Greenhouse Gases).
Increase atmospheric water vapour leads to increased cloud cover and precipitation, decreasing sunlight permeation, rapidly decreasing global temperature.
Decreasing global temperature leads to increased ice deposits at the poles.
Increasing ice deposits at the poles increases the planet's albedo, reflecting more sunlight and very rapidly decreasng global temperature.
Decreasing global temperature leads to increased ice deposits beyond the polar regions, increasing albedo yet further and accelerating ice deposition. This results in an Ice Age - into which the planet can become locked for many, many thousands of years (though last time we were lucky - the Little Ice Age ended about 150 years ago, starting somewhere in the 14th Century).

 

[TheCracker]

Famipedia strikes again!

 

[FoolKiller]

very rapidly decreasing global temperature.

How fast are we talking? I know we have found wooly mammoths with food in their bellies and whatnot and I want to know if I should expect to have my dinner interupted, because that would just ruin my day.

While that was facetious, I am seriously curious how fast we would expect this to happen. A random guestimate would be fine.

 

[Famine]

How fast are we talking? I know we have found wooly mammoths with food in their bellies and whatnot and I want to know if I should expect to have my dinner interupted, because that would just ruin my day.

While that was facetious, I am seriously curious how fast we would expect this to happen. A random guestimate would be fine.

With a real nasty Ice Age... over the course of about 20 years you'll see a global 6 degree drop.

 

[UnoMOTO]

6m x 357,045,920 km² =
6m x 357,045,920,000,000 m² =
2,174,409,652,800,000 m³ =
2,174,410 km³ of water

Neither I nor Al Gore can compete or comprehend numbers like that!

 

[niky]

My problem is blaming every minor natural event on Global Warming. Everything from an unusually warm day to hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis have been blamed on Global Warming almost as much as Pat Robertson blames them on sinners. Both claims have the same intellectual quality as far as I am concerned.

I have the same problem myself.

Then I also have qualms with using temporal coincedence to try and blame an entire climactic change on humans. We aren't able to overcome localized weather patterns but we can affect the entire global climate?

Actually, in localized urban vicinities, we do have an effect on weather patterns.

You mean aside from slowing economic growth and technological progression?

The explosive growth we've seen in the past century has had its consequences. It wastes non-renewable resources, causes pollution and brings all sorts of problems. Sustainable growth... smart growth, requires to think, not just about where we're getting the next five years' worth of raw materials and supplies, but the next five decades' worth.

Technological progress does require money, and an industrial base, but what's important now is technological progress in terms of production efficiency.

If you wish to clean up localized air quality around urban centers then go at it, but don't try and tell me, living in rural Kentucky, that I am killing the Earth by driving 80 miles every day. I like to drive and I can afford the gas so let me have at it. (NOTE: I'm not accusing you of this, but this is the sort of thing I hear from my Prius-driving brother.)

I drive over 60 miles a day, myself... ...I'm not an anti-SUV zealot... I don't like them, or the waste of gas, but a serious greenie doesn't tootle around in a Prius all day, then go home to an air-conditioned/heated 20 room mansion with a 40" LCD TV and a pumping stereo system (hellooooo Hollywood!)

But saving money on gas by going lighter, more efficient and greener (not Prius green... think Fit green) is good for both the economy and the end-user.

The end result is never positive. Environmental groups are using fear-mongering and hysteria to make people jump to action without stopping to wonder what the cost will be on their budget or wonder if they can afford that hybrid. It attempts to make those that do check their finances first feel guilty for not making the sacrifices necessary to cough up that extra cash.

People who buy hybrids aren't exactly starving. They're just unwilling to give up the convenience of a full-sized (ironically, I find the Prius kinda small) car for fuel efficiency.

This kind of thing preys on the weak and reactionary and is utterly despicable. People like Al Gore are fully aware of what they are doing, judging by his past statements, and willingly creating a false hysteria should be nothing short of criminal. Orson Welles does it in less than an hour and they practically round up a lynch mob, Al Gore does it over years of planning and he gets applauded.

Depends on your goal, I guess. If you're scaring them into doing something that benefits them economically...

-----

RE: the debate on whether or not we should do anything reminds me of a Larry Niven book: "Fallen Angels"... it's a funny one anyone on either side of the debate should look up, just for reference.

In the book, eco-extremists have taken over the government, banned anything and everything that has to do with greenhouse gases, and...









The world enters an Ice Age...

And, like Famine succintly explains, that's not a good thing.

 

[FoolKiller]

Actually, in localized urban vicinities, we do have an effect on weather patterns.

Sure the concrete and metal allows the local temperature to differ by as much as ten degrees locally, but I was referring more to weather patterns. The temperature variances are because you essentially built a giant reflective, heat absorbing box. I am sure that if turned Earth into Coruscant then we would have a global effect, but the effects you see in a large city now aren't representative of what global warming caused by pollution is. That would be like saying you changed the weather by building a glass box. Fill the box with CO2 and then we'll talk.

The explosive growth we've seen in the past century has had its consequences. It wastes non-renewable resources, causes pollution and brings all sorts of problems. Sustainable growth... smart growth, requires to think, not just about where we're getting the next five years' worth of raw materials and supplies, but the next five decades' worth.

But when the growth began we assumed there was penty to go around forever, it did get through five decades worth. The effects of pollution weren't something that was even envisioned. The problem with the pattern today of trying to reverse global warming is that it isn't looking at all the science and isn't searching for a long-term solution that wouldn't have negative effects on society. Instead the popular thing to do is to grab the newest trend in the evironmental direction without trying to grow it into something viable. Did we jump on to non-renewable resources fast and start using them like crazy? Yes. Is the current trend to grab a hybrid any better? No.

Environmenatlists want something right now and so they are pumping money into research that wouldn't have a large effect if it did work out. I have heard everything from solar panels or windmills on the top of every building to fining anyone that drives more than a certain number of miles to work. None of these are reasonable ideas but the money is being pumped into them and if there is a heat wave everyone runs around screamin "We didn't listen!" and throws even more money into this.

I imagine the next energy source is still a long way down the road after we exhaust every stupid idea they can come up with.

Technological progress does require money, and an industrial base, but what's important now is technological progress in terms of production efficiency.

My previous answer rambled into this. None of the ideas presented so far that use no fossil fuels are long-term efficient.

I drive over 60 miles a day, myself... ...I'm not an anti-SUV zealot... I don't like them, or the waste of gas, but a serious greenie doesn't tootle around in a Prius all day, then go home to an air-conditioned/heated 20 room mansion with a 40" LCD TV and a pumping stereo system (hellooooo Hollywood!)

Well, my brother does have 1500 sq ft house and a 60" projection HDTV. His sound system is non-existant though.

But saving money on gas by going lighter, more efficient and greener (not Prius green... think Fit green) is good for both the economy and the end-user.

I just bought a Rabbit, is that good enough? I checked the Fit and Yarius out but I like a quiet ride and some power left after I hit 60 mph.

RE: the debate on whether or not we should do anything reminds me of a Larry Niven book: "Fallen Angels"... it's a funny one anyone on either side of the debate should look up, just for reference.

Is it a full book? I've got some of his short stories and like them. I'll have to check it out.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Can I hire one of you global warming junkies to come shovel 12" of snow from my driveway?

 

[niky]

Sure the concrete and metal allows the local temperature to differ by as much as ten degrees locally, but I was referring more to weather patterns. The temperature variances are because you essentially built a giant reflective, heat absorbing box. I am sure that if turned Earth into Coruscant then we would have a global effect, but the effects you see in a large city now aren't representative of what global warming caused by pollution is. That would be like saying you changed the weather by building a glass box. Fill the box with CO2 and then we'll talk.


But when the growth began we assumed there was penty to go around forever, it did get through five decades worth. The effects of pollution weren't something that was even envisioned. The problem with the pattern today of trying to reverse global warming is that it isn't looking at all the science and isn't searching for a long-term solution that wouldn't have negative effects on society. Instead the popular thing to do is to grab the newest trend in the evironmental direction without trying to grow it into something viable. Did we jump on to non-renewable resources fast and start using them like crazy? Yes. Is the current trend to grab a hybrid any better? No.

Environmenatlists want something right now and so they are pumping money into research that wouldn't have a large effect if it did work out. I have heard everything from solar panels or windmills on the top of every building to fining anyone that drives more than a certain number of miles to work. None of these are reasonable ideas but the money is being pumped into them and if there is a heat wave everyone runs around screamin "We didn't listen!" and throws even more money into this.

I imagine the next energy source is still a long way down the road after we exhaust every stupid idea they can come up with.


My previous answer rambled into this. None of the ideas presented so far that use no fossil fuels are long-term efficient.


Well, my brother does have 1500 sq ft house and a 60" projection HDTV. His sound system is non-existant though.


I just bought a Rabbit, is that good enough? I checked the Fit and Yarius out but I like a quiet ride and some power left after I hit 60 mph.


Is it a full book? I've got some of his short stories and like them. I'll have to check it out.

RE: Fit/Yaris - I'm the same... not enough space for me. And the way I drive, I probably go through almost as much gas as an SUV driver, anyway.

RE: Cities - they're a microcosm of climate. It's not representative, but it does have an effect over areas around cities, and that's a lot of area.

Reducing pollution and greenhouse emissions in and around cities is a good thing, especially if you live in a craphole like Mexico or Manila, where the skies are permanently tinged brown, the rain eats holes in car paint (no kidding) and the weather downwind of the city is different from the way it was twenty years ago.

RE: the idiotic rush on alternative energy sources. Well, what can I say, it's wasteful. But then, so much of research is, anyway... but if you've got a thousand monkeys typing away on a thousand typewriters...

That's why I'm on higher efficiency. Use what resources we have... renewable, non-renewable, whatever, but use them more efficiently. I think research into more effective combustion and reclaiming lost energy from waste heat (turbosteamer or even small-capacity turbo engines) is a bit better than full-on hybrids. I'm also hopeful (I've said this before) about super-capacitors or electrical flywheel storage. Pinning your hopes on a hydrogen or electric economy, based on renewable resources, that requires batteries or fuel cells made from horrendously rare, valuable and limited resources, is trading one problem for another.

RE: Fallen Angels: It's a full-length novel. Kind of interesting, and good, as long as you don't get overly irritated by the tons of insider references and cameos from sci-fi fandom... actually, those references don't hurt the book much, it's your basic cardboard-character Niven novel sprinkled with his wonderful fairyland sci-fi machines and concepts. Okay read. 👍 But if you like his shorts, you'll be better off buying Rainbow Mars, which includes the Time-traveller stories, as well as some interesting tidbits about the environment squeezed into some stories.

Like: If, after thousands of years, we adapt to the higher CO2 and pollutant levels of industrial age air... will clean air kill us?