Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter ZAGGIN
  • 3,644 comments
  • 221,443 views

Which of the following statements best reflects your views on Global Warming?


  • Total voters
    497
One question.

Have they ever run a global warming model without the inclusion of any human produced carbon emissions?

If they did, would we still see an increase in temperature close to what has been predicted with the inclusion of human produced emissions?
 
I was reading in one of the papers the other day (local Herald) that scientists in Germany have created a pill that makes cows carbon neutral.
 
I was reading in one of the papers the other day (local Herald) that scientists in Germany have created a pill that makes cows carbon neutral.

Really!? now thats just bizzare. Kinda handy though considering cows are a major producer of CO2, not that I particularly believe that CO2 is the main problem in climate change.
 
Really!? now thats just bizzare. Kinda handy though considering cows are a major producer of CO2, not that I particularly believe that CO2 is the main problem in climate change.

Cows are a major producer of methane - a stronger greenhouse gas than C02.
 
The massive amount of cows is still human interaction though, if we didn't depend on their meat and their milk so much we would have farms with thousands of them.

Not saying we should do away with domesticated cows and I'm not even sure on whether or not global warming is even the results of humans.
 
The massive amount of cows is still human interaction though, if we didn't depend on their meat and their milk so much we would have farms with thousands of them.

Not saying we should do away with domesticated cows and I'm not even sure on whether or not global warming is even the results of humans.

I'm personally not convinced that greenhouse gases are causing the localized climate changes we're observing, or that those local climate changes are a symptom of an overall global climate change.

But if you do assume that there is a global climate change, and that it is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and that humans are capable of and should be doing anything about it - then cows are apparently a better target for emission controls than cars because, according to a UN report that I mentioned earlier in this thread, cows are a greater contributor to the greenhouse effect than car emissions. (not that either one is at the top of the list)
 
So we need a catalytic converter for cows? :lol:

I'm not sure how we control the out put of methane by cows other than limiting the number of given cows in an area. That however would disrupt meat and diary prices. Milk is already expensive enough consider what it is and I only want to pay 20 bucks for a prime cut of steak.

Making vehicles cleaner seems to be an easier way to go about doing things. Even though they are the sole producer of greenhouse gas we know they do produce a decent amount. I have no problem with driving an eco-friendly car, mainly due to the fact it would get better gas mileage thus saving me money. I don't think hybrids are what they are all cracked up to be though, I think they are more of an image thing than actually helping the environment. We've seen time and time again how destructive battery production is on the eco-system.

Whether global warming is happening do to cows, cars, whatever, I still would like to live in a decently clean world which is why I like to sort of promote eco-friendliness. Now if you will excuse me I'm going to go drive my 15 mpg SUV down to the gas station to fill up :lol:.
 
I'm not sure how we control the out put of methane by cows other than limiting the number of given cows in an area. That however would disrupt meat and diary prices. Milk is already expensive enough consider what it is and I only want to pay 20 bucks for a prime cut of steak.

I'm under the impression that several medications exist to limit cow methane production - just like we have for people. I personally think that cattle farmers should start selling carbon offsets to rich people in california with guilty consciences by offering to inject a cow with beano in exchange for a little cash.


Making vehicles cleaner seems to be an easier way to go about doing things. Even though they are the sole producer of greenhouse gas we know they do produce a decent amount.

It really isn't as much as you think. Especially if you drive a relatively new car that gets average gas mileage.

I have no problem with driving an eco-friendly car, mainly due to the fact it would get better gas mileage thus saving me money.

Which is why this problem is self correcting. The higher gas prices go, the more people will try to conserve. But the problem with driving an "eco-friendly" car to save the environment is that you're really not doing all that much good. Buying a television made in your country as opposed to one in Japan can offset your carbon usage by as much as the difference between owning a chevy suburban instead of a prius.

Of course, I didn't say much there because there are a lot of other factors. How much do you drive? How many people do you haul? Etc. But the point is that people need to think rationally about this stuff instead of just assuming that if they buy an eco-friendly car they've done their part - or assuming that every hummer they see on the road is responsible for the world's problems.

If people had a rational discussion about global warming, it would sound much different than the kind of finger pointing you typically see. But it's an emotionally and politically charged topic - so we're not likely to see much clear thinking on the subject.

If John's prius gets 50 mpg, and Dan's Hummer gets 10 mpg. But Dan lives 5 miles from work and John lives 30 miles from work, who uses more gas?

Answer? John, who drives 60 miles per day to Dan's 10. Dan uses 1 gallon/day, John uses slightly more than 1.

But people don't seem to like to think in those terms.

That's not to mention that John's prius might have been shipped across the pacific, or the effect of the batteries that are consumed after 100,000 miles (which he will get to first).

Now if you'll excuse me, it's about lunchtime and I think I'll go have a nice juicy hamburger. I've got to do my part to kill the cows that are producing so much methane. ;)
 
The Fact is, Powerful nations like Canada and the US HAVE the money to develop Hydrogen Cars. The reason why barely are developed is because stupid businessmen only care about their money. They are greedy and selfish. They'll do whatever it takes to keep that income, coming in, Even if that means the world becoming one piece of messed up rock. Because Oil is SO valuable, they want it. Now that Oil has become less available, it's become MORE Valuable. Hence, They'll try to get it. For example, Bush sent troops to Iraq to claim a MASSIVE oil supply they have, ( i heard this from someone..).

Oh btw, Now it isn't America who pollutes the most, it's now Canada that pollutes the most. Don't Bark at me for this, for i myself and a Canadian. However i don't pollute a lot anyway.:)

ALSO, there is 2 theories of how the Ozone Layer Works.
Originally, the Ozone layer is to a certian thickness that when the radiation from the sun, in this case "Heat", shines down on the earth and bounces back, the ozone layer lets SOME of the radation back into space and deflects some radation back to keep the Warth warm, but not overheated. The Ozone layer acts like Sunblock or Sunscreen, which tones down the intensity of the UV rays.

1st Theory: the extra emissions given off by factories and automobiles and such give off Nitric Oxide AS well as carbon dioxide. When the Nitric Oxide ( from now on known as NO, its chemical name) reaches the Ozone (O3), it acts like a Catalyst to deplete it into a thin layer. ACatalyst is a substance that accelerates chemical reactions. When NO mixes with O3, it speeds up the content of the O3 and causes it to deplete faster than its normal rate (remember nothing lasts forever). When this is done, Ultraviolet Rays (UV) from the sun becomes MORE directly and more dangerous to unprotected things such as skin. Also this earth will become more heated from this Raw exposure to the Dangerous sun. It's like cooking and egg on a frying pan.

2nd Theory: It is also said that extra CO2 emmissions of the like act with the ozone layer and Thicken its orignal size. Having this said, it means that LESS UV Rays will exit the earth's atmosphere, meaning MORE rays are trapped in the earth's Atmosphere. This means that the Earth's overall temperture increases, which in this case is the Greenhouse Effect. Increasing the earth's temperature, Ice caps are melting, making the water level rise, low elevation lands like California and Japan will be UNDER water level, Polar bears will drown because they have no ice plates to live on, Everyone experiences Droughts, Smogs and Heat Waves.. Millions will die and those rich greedy fat men will suffer the most in the end because he/she will always grapple that sack of cash they have. But what's the point of all that money? Money can't fixed the world, it can't make heat waves go away, it can't save Japan or California. For all we know he or she will eventually die, and have ALL that money, for what purpose? You can't take money with you wherever you go when you die, it'll just lay there beside their corpse and minutes later, someone will want it, but by that time noone WILL want money, because everyone's strugglnig to live, It's just printed paper we only use it to substitute something valuable.

-This links to why people believe the Earth's going to have another Ice age, because the Ozone layer was so thick no sunlight could penetrate it.

-For more references, go look up the recent documentary "An Unconvienient Truth" by Al Gore.

-And You people who don't recycle and think Polluting is Cool, then you can all Go Die for All i Care, because all you people do is serve nothing but negative aspects to the world. To re-enforce my point, here's a little story i jsut made right now..

There is a small hut that is as stable as a standing single chopstick. 3 people live inside, are in the middle of nowhere. In order for them to survive, they will have to learn how to look after themselves, as well being able to not make anything of waste. 1 does hunting of fish, deer, etc. the 2nd is like the housewife, maintains the house basically, while the 3rd does nothing everyday and make and excessive amount of unnecessary disposals such as killing small animals just for fun and leaving it there, destroying plants and trees NOT for Firewood, but for the purpose of having fun. 1st and 2nd survivor contribute to the survival of the 3, the 3rd does not. 1st and 2nd eat the least to conserve the food in case anything happens, while the 3rd eats the most. 3rd is very picky about his/ her food, Doesn't eat certain parts of meat of the deer so he throws it out the window, because that's happened, #3 just wasted a piece of meat which was or COULD have been useful to #1 or 2.When this everyday cycle continues, the thrown out Fresh food that was VITAL to the 3 members stacks up behind their hut, and now they can't eat it become it's covered in dirt and is infested by mice and flies.
The Animal Fur could've been their clothing and Bed sheets or blankets. The trees and plants #3 destroys begin to decay. The fact is, that tree that #3 decided to destroy into bits could've been firewood for them to keep warm and cook food on. The plants were powerful herbs that could aid them from sicknesses, but now they are trampled into mush and bugs are eating 'em. With this endless chain of wasted food and necessities, by logic, these 3 people will die sooner than would've if #3 didn't exist.

What my point is in this little story i made up as i went, is that the world can be sustained for a MUCH longer time and be MORE healthier if the people who don't maintain would Go to Hell (yes that's mean, but don't take this little stement so seriously). That way, the people would DO serve a purpose to the world live longer.

It rarely snows here in Toronto, Canada. When it Snows, IT Snows...like BIG..and everyone Blasts their Heaters. In the summer, it BARELY rains because of all the extrmely hot weather, no one goes outside, everyone's inside blasting their A/Cs. Especially in the summer, When people blast their A/Cs, they consume a LOT of power, and this led to the past 2 years of Blackouts.. What makes mankind so stupid is that they don't realize that when they pump the A/Cs, they consume a lot electricity, in which the powerplants will run much more, hence polluting more, which distrupts the earth's natural habits, in this case, temperature wise. So it gets hotter with every summer, and then people will feel the need to pump their A/Cs EVEN more than the previous year, consuming EVEN MORE electricty than the preiovus year, then the Power Supllies will pollute EVEN MORE than last year. Therefore, This Global Warming thing will NEVER End, it'll only go up, the overall temperature of the Earth will become SO Hot that eventually, there will no longer be winter, it'll be too hot for that, islands again, will become underwater, like Japan, Hawaii, California, Malaysia, etc. and people nowadays still don't realize this, but this still continues in life. Big corporations don't make recylcing programs because it costs too much, they find it SO much more easier to just throw everything in the trash, people sell and grow marijuana, wasting an EXCESSIVE amount of money, to sell it and smoke it, which pollutes the air.. Hydro Dams costs too much and distrupt the natural flow of water, Nuclear Plants heat up nearby water bodies and may contaminate it with it's waste, Uranium.. Fossil Fuel plants still run, for what reason? FOR ITS LOW COST and MOBILITY. Unlike Nuclear Plants, and Dams, they don't need a source of water to be build upon, but instead can be build jsut about ANYWHERE. Wind Energy, is probably the cleanest way to Alterante energy sources, Doesn't pollute, but why don't they make them? ITS BECAUSE IT REQUIRES SO MUCH MONEY TO DO IT.. and the governemtn refuses to pay that much money to make giant wind turbines in the windy prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada. But what they DON'T realize is that they might spend a LOT at the moment, but they WILL be able to save a lot more money in maintaining the Earth as well, the place will be a mucher better place to live. Soon, Clear Blue skies and bright lush green grass can be nothing but a dream.

See now, a majority of people who are aware about this global warming issue is doing nothing about it, they are still using a MUCH more energy than they need, for example, ignoring the lights of a room that has no one in it, leaving the computer on all night when it's not being used and nothing is running, using the clothes dryer when they can hang their clothes to dry instead, use cold water for laundry rather than hot or warm water, the list goes on.

If all this doesn't clearly point out my point to why Global warming is as it is now, then you obviously cannot read. Not to be rude, but I pretty much wrote an Essay out for those who even care..

P.S. Since i was 6 years old, and feared the Y2K thing, i always kept pondering on how life was to last much longer.. And 9 years later from then, it HAS become pathetic..
 
Actually global warming will make it colder in the northern areas of the world, hence why it will cause a new ice age. Global warming isn't a myth, the causes of it are though.
 
Global Warming is a myth. It's snowing right now, and it's April, and I'm not so much up north either.

It was one hundred freaking degrees a few weeks ago. 100º. In the beginning of March. I'm able to swim now in bearable pool temperatures (73º+) when you usually had to wait until late May to even think about dipping your big toe in the water.

I don't know about you, but that's global warming at its finest. I'd probably cry if and/or when it reaches 120º+ in July.
 
Actually global warming will make it colder in the northern areas of the world, hence why it will cause a new ice age. Global warming isn't a myth, the causes of it are though.

uh.... no. Not even remotely correct.
 
Ozone Layer

The Ozone layer acts like Sunblock or Sunscreen, which tones down the intensity of the UV rays.

Ultraviolet Rays (UV) from the sun becomes MORE directly and more dangerous to unprotected things such as skin. Also this earth will become more heated from this Raw exposure to the Dangerous sun. It's like cooking and egg on a frying pan.

2nd Theory: It is also said that extra CO2 emmissions of the like act with the ozone layer and Thicken its orignal size. Having this said, it means that LESS UV Rays will exit the earth's atmosphere, meaning MORE rays are trapped in the earth's Atmosphere. This means that the Earth's overall temperture increases, which in this case is the Greenhouse Effect.

Ultraviolet doesn't cause a heating effect. You're confusing two things - the Ozone Layer and Global Warming are not directly linked.

recent documentary "An Unconvienient Truth" by Al Gore.

To call An Inconvenient Truth a "documentary" is akin to calling Teletubbies "hardcore porn".

What makes mankind so stupid is that they don't realize that when they pump the A/Cs, they consume a lot electricity, in which the powerplants will run much more, hence polluting more, which distrupts the earth's natural habits, in this case, temperature wise.

Please go right ahead and prove this.

So it gets hotter with every summer, and then people will feel the need to pump their A/Cs EVEN more than the previous year, consuming EVEN MORE electricty than the preiovus year, then the Power Supllies will pollute EVEN MORE than last year. Therefore, This Global Warming thing will NEVER End, it'll only go up, the overall temperature of the Earth will become SO Hot that eventually, there will no longer be winter, it'll be too hot for that, islands again, will become underwater, like Japan, Hawaii, California, Malaysia, etc.

Please go right ahead and prove this too.

Wind Energy, is probably the cleanest way to Alterante energy sources, Doesn't pollute, but why don't they make them? ITS BECAUSE IT REQUIRES SO MUCH MONEY TO DO IT.. and the governemtn refuses to pay that much money to make giant wind turbines in the windy prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada. But what they DON'T realize is that they might spend a LOT at the moment, but they WILL be able to save a lot more money in maintaining the Earth as well, the place will be a mucher better place to live.

Wind turbines are built from aluminium - which requires MASSES of electricity to extract - and concrete - which releases carbon dioxide as it cures.

Wind turbines produce more carbon dioxide than they eliminate.


You seem to be under the impression - probably courtesy of Mr. Gore, the private jet user - that manmade carbon dioxide causes global warming. In actual fact, we just don't know either way, nor do we know whether observed recent temperature increases are anything out of the ordinary.

Anyone who tells you that Global Warming is due to man is making it up. There is not sufficient scientific evidence to back this position up. Anyone who tells you that Global Warming is NOT due to man is making it up. There is not sufficient scientific evidence to back this position up either. The simplest current explanation of Global Warming is that we do not know whether it is happening (the world's slightly warmer now, on average, at the surface, compared to a few decades ago, but in of itself that's not enough to give it capital letters) and, if it is, we do not know what the cause(s) is/are. But we're trying to find out.

Any action taken to reverse the trend assumes that a) we can; b) we should (if it's wholly natural, interfering with the process could be catastrophic).

Personally I save electricity and stuff as much as possible because it saves me money and gives me a better quality of life. In my case, money leads to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions - exactly what you said doesn't happen.
 
uh.... no. Not even remotely correct.

Global warming leads to ice ages eventually, it's not a science secret. It's not right away and it takes a while. I'm not sure of the whole science aspect of it but it has something to do with the oceans cooling down and the changing of how the jet stream keeps northern areas warm.

But care to add more then just the fact I'm incorrect? If you are going to disagree at least give some reason.
 
Because the greenhouse effect heats the planet rather than cooling it? Because it doesn't make sense for the oceans to be cooling if they're actually heating up. I questioned your claim that global warming leads to an ice age... now it's your turn to try to prove that it does.

Edit: As an aside, I find your stance quite typical of global warming doomsayers. Someone says they're hot? GLOBAL WARMING!! Someone says they're cold? GLOBAL WARMING! Too dry? GLOBAL WARMING! Too wet? GLOBAL WARMING! Hurricanes? WARMING! Storms? WARMING!

Suddenly any weather at all becomes a symptom of this nebulous problem. The symptoms don't add up, the problem doesn't add up, the solutions don't add up, the wrong people are taking the blame... and generally the whole discussion lacks rationality.
 
Did you even bother to read the article?

These are quoted from said article:

"Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades."

"The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago."

Here is another website just in case you don't believe NASA:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8398
 
It's certainly possible that "Global Warming" can lead to an ice age (doesn't have to be a big one either). It's by no means definite that the one WILL lead to the other, but it can.

Problem is, we don't understand the climate all that well. We certainly don't understand it well enough to start claiming all sorts of things about why it changes.
 
Did you even bother to read the article?

Why yes, yes I did.

Joey D
These are quoted from said article:

"Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades."

North America & Western Europe != Globe

Therefore

"plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze" != "Ice Age"


Joey D
"The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago."

At the END of the last ice age.... and again, we're talking Europe here, not the planet. Global warming leading to Europe being cold is not the same thing as:

Joey D
Global warming leads to ice ages eventually

Try again.
 
Last time I checked, which was earlier today while doing some research for a paper, the last Ice Age didn't cover the entire globe in ice. In fact I'm pretty sure the glaciers came down to the area where I live, in fact I know they did because at a local natural history museum there is a display that shows it. There is a lot of area between Lake Orion, Michigan and the southern part of the globe.
 
Last time I checked, which was earlier today while doing some research for a paper, the last Ice Age didn't cover the entire globe in ice.

That'd be a Snowball Earth. Probably happened once.

Nevertheless, an ice age (even a little one) isn't necessarily a natural "end" product of a global warming - though it's one possible consequence.
 
Ya I actually just came across the Snowball Earth hypothesis today. And I realize that an ice age isn't the end result, but ice ages can and probably are caused by a rise in the global temperatures. The severity as you pointed out might not be very high and it might only cool the world enough to freeze out the real northern areas.

There has to be a cycle though, we've seen the earth has had ice ages in the past and we aren't under a bunch of ice now, so there must be some sort of a cycle. Also I've read and seen on various TV programs that the climate was much warmer during the time of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago. I'm sure you know more than I about it though, I'm just going off the Discovery Channel.
 
Ya I actually just came across the Snowball Earth hypothesis today. And I realize that an ice age isn't the end result, but ice ages can and probably are caused by a rise in the global temperatures. The severity as you pointed out might not be very high and it might only cool the world enough to freeze out the real northern areas.

There has to be a cycle though, we've seen the earth has had ice ages in the past and we aren't under a bunch of ice now, so there must be some sort of a cycle. Also I've read and seen on various TV programs that the climate was much warmer during the time of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago. I'm sure you know more than I about it though, I'm just going off the Discovery Channel.

Well, I'm a molecular biologist rather than a climatologist - which means I'm at least as qualified to talk about Global Warming as Algore is... :D

The idea that the Earth's mean temperature is static - or anything even close to it - is ridiculous. Though it's one that we've got in our heads because this year's pretty much like last year and quite a lot like it was in 1973 - so we think the Earth should be this hot and anything else is wrong.

The Earth does periodically get warmer and colder - even over the span of human civilisation. The last "Ice Age" was in the 15th Century (~1450 - ~1800), generally termed as "the Little Ice Age". Of course, this is extremely unhelpful to anyone trying to keep an open mind and a perspective on the massive times involved, because we can see paintings of the Thames freezing over and think "Ooooh, it was colder back then and it's warmer now. Oh noes! Global Warming!". Prior to that we had a "Medieval Warm Period" (~1000 - ~1300) when the temperature was slightly higher than it is now (without any manmade carbon dioxide from evil cars!!!!one!). Amusingly, the Vikings discovered a green land during that period and called it Greenland. During the Little Ice Age it froze over and now we're getting back near the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, Greenland seems to be turning green again. Of course, we remember it being icy, the ice seems to be melting... Oh noes! Global Warming!


So yes, the Earth - along with the Sun, crucially - cycles. It's all too easy to go "But we're here now. Everything must be due to us.".
 
Last time I checked, which was earlier today while doing some research for a paper, the last Ice Age didn't cover the entire globe in ice.

Correct. But an ice age requires the global temperature to cool. What you described earlier is a local temperature cooling in Europe while the rest of the globe is heating up. That's not a very good description of an ice age.

So no, that's not an example of how global warming can trigger an ice age. That being said, on the timetable of geological events, we are actually due for an ice age.
 
Back