Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[KSaiyu]

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...

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.".

You make all those logical points so what I don't understand is how climate change could POSSIBLY be attributed to humans? You said in an earlier post how we can't make a definite conclusion as to "this generation" of global warming as to whether it's caused by us or natural factors, but at the moment the only credible evidence I've seen supports the natural theory. I'm just interested as to what evidence could scientifically oppose that.

Now maybe I'm being a bit too simplistic, but if this has been going on even MILLIONS of years before humans have been around, what argument is out there that could convince so many people that this time the change is because of us, and the (relatively) small amounts of CO2 that we produce? I must be missing the point somewhere....

 

[Famine]

Well... the fact is that we exist. We populate most of the planet and we DO produce greenhouse gases. I can't - and no-one honest can - say for sure what the effect of what we produce is. We contribute to the overall effect, probably, but that contribution might be very, very small. On the other hand it might be just the extra little bit that tips the scales and produces a runaway effect.


The biggest problem we have when modelling the Greenhouse Effect is that we don't understand the climate. I mean, we can't predict the weather for the next week - which is short-term local climate - so what hope have we got for predicting the temperature of the whole planet 50 years down the line?


I'm minded to edge towards it being an almost-wholly natural trend, with human activity having little significant effect, if any. But if it can be shown scientifically to be anything different, I'll happily modify my position.

 

[KSaiyu]

Well... the fact is that we exist. We populate most of the planet and we DO produce greenhouse gases. I can't - and no-one honest can - say for sure what the effect of what we produce is. We contribute to the overall effect, probably, but that contribution might be very, very small. On the other hand it might be just the extra little bit that tips the scales and produces a runaway effect.


The biggest problem we have when modelling the Greenhouse Effect is that we don't understand the climate. I mean, we can't predict the weather for the next week - which is short-term local climate - so what hope have we got for predicting the temperature of the whole planet 50 years down the line?


I'm minded to edge towards it being an almost-wholly natural trend, with human activity having little significant effect, if any. But if it can be shown scientifically to be anything different, I'll happily modify my position.

👍

Now I wish old Ken would listen before he goes ahead with the climate change induced congestion charge rise....

 

[Famine]

Global Warming Hits Mars!

I blame the Mars Sojourner - after all, it's SIX-wheel drive.

 

[FoolKiller]

Global Warming Hits Mars!

I blame the Mars Sojourner - after all, it's SIX-wheel drive.

Too bad we don't have some nice long term, like 150 years or so, data to accurately test what the cause may be.

I know the article quotes one scientist as blaming increased dust storms, but that really sounded like an educated guess. It woudl be nice if we could compare what changes have happened to conditions on Earth to see if there is a possible link. But any comparison to Mars warming and Earth warming at this point would be more foolhardy than blaming man on Earth warming. I think it would give reason to at least look at possible extraterrestrial effects though.

 

[Touring Mars]

Global Warming Hits Mars!

Oh no, does that mean all the chocolate will melt?

 

[FoolKiller]

If you believe man-made global warming is real and can prove it without a doubt you could win $100,000.

http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/


Looks like JunkScience is laying down the gauntlet by basically saying, "Prove it!"

 

[Danoff]

Oops! Y2K bug hikes the temperature.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383

 

[Bram Turismo]

So this would mean we are less contributing to global warming then before WWII?

 

[FoolKiller]

Oops! Y2K bug hikes the temperature.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383

Mayhaps that explains why local meteorologists have been saying it is the hottest day since both 1998 and 1934 or whatever year, but it keeps bouncing between the 90s and the 30s.

 

[Speedster502]

I point the blame at the cows.....18% of green house gases....18%!!!

 

[Danoff]

I point the blame at the cows.....18% of green house gases....18%!!!

I point the blame at the Y2K bug that caused NASA's temperature data to jump up. But yea, the statistic I've heard is that cows actually contribute more to global warming than cars.

 

[Speedster502]

But yea, the statistic I've heard is that cows actually contribute more to global warming than cars.

I heard that they produce more green house gases than all of transport put together. As I said it's the cows.....

 

[Swift]

Does it strike anyone else as hilarious that the same people that believed in a natural ice age and natural "thaw" believe in man-made global warming? or did someone mention that already?

 

[Bram Turismo]

I heard that they produce more green house gases than all of transport put together. As I said it's the cows.....

This may be true but methane dissapears into the atmosphere by undergoing in chemical reactions. It is, however, 21 times as stronger as carbondioxide and although it dissapeares when in the atmosphere, we should still minimize release of methane gas into the atmosphere. CO2 also dissapeares, but it takes much longer time as it will not dissapear by ineracting with chemical reactions but instead, it returns to the earth, for the plants to be used. It takes a lot of time though, since the industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration has become bigger with nearly 30% and it will take a lot of time before even half of that concentration, is cleaned form the atmosphere...

 

[Speedster502]

This may be true but methane dissapears into the atmosphere by undergoing in chemical reactions. It is, however, 21 times as stronger as carbondioxide and although it dissapeares when in the atmosphere, we should still minimize release of methane gas into the atmosphere. CO2 also dissapeares, but it takes much longer time as it will not dissapear by ineracting with chemical reactions but instead, it returns to the earth, for the plants to be used. It takes a lot of time though, since the industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration has become bigger with nearly 30% and it will take a lot of time before even half of that concentration, is cleaned form the atmosphere...

You lost me......

Question: Did you copy that from a internet site? Or was it written in your own words?!

 

[Bram Turismo]

Own words, but I'm sure other members know a lot more about it, and I'm even more sure, that those members will give me a hard time to proove my point. My point is, we are definitely to blame for global warming.

Also: If you're wondering whether I really wrote it, see how crappy the English is

 

[Speedster502]

Own words, but I'm sure other members know a lot more about it, and I'm even more sure, that those members will give me a hard time to proove my point. My point is, we are definitely to blame for global warming.

Also: If you're wondering whether I really wrote it, see how crappy the English is

Okay, you have to remember I did my thing for the world a while back with my "Save the World" update. That will do me for the next 20-50 years.



Joking okay......

 

[Danoff]

Own words, but I'm sure other members know a lot more about it, and I'm even more sure, that those members will give me a hard time to proove my point. My point is, we are definitely to blame for global warming.

Really? Well, you've made such a strong case with so many facts and figures that I think we can finally put this thread to bed.

 

[Bram Turismo]

So you think such a strong global warming since 1850 is not our fault, but that's something natural for earth? O RLLY?

 

[Famine]

So you think such a strong global warming since 1850 is not our fault, but that's something natural for earth? O RLLY?

Considering it has happened many times before, independently of industrial activity and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and that we had a warmer period than now in 1000-1300 and an Ice Age (albeit a Little one) in 1700-1850, yes.

 

[Danoff]

So you think such a strong global warming since 1850 is not our fault, but that's something natural for earth? O RLLY?

This might help.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2426188&postcount=648

 

[Swift]

Bram Turismo, one question. Has the earth at ANY point between now and "creation" sustained an ice age?

 

[KSaiyu]

I was telling my dad it's a sad day when Peugeot advertises it's "greener fuel efficient cars" by comparing it's engine technology to that of an LMP1 Le Mans car.

It seems this green movement is gathering more and more momentum (in this country at least and the car industry) but for me more facts would be helpful before I buy into everything governments/companies/protestors are telling me.

 

[FoolKiller]

I was telling my dad it's a sad day when Peugeot advertises it's "greener fuel efficient cars" by comparing it's engine technology to that of an LMP1 Le Mans car.

Is it Peugeot that has a diesel, aside from Audi? Or are they runing ethanol? Anyway, part of the purpose of the prototypes is that they use prototype technology that trickles into the production vehicles. Audi's TDI is now going to be in the Audi's and VWs, just not as big.

It seems this green movement is gathering more and more momentum (in this country at least and the car industry) but for me more facts would be helpful before I buy into everything governments/companies/protestors are telling me.

Tell me about it. I went to Mid-Ohio for American Le Mans and IndyCar and everything was either diesel or ethanol. I just wanted to tell them to put some jet fuel in it and go. The thing is it's all just PR to save the racing industry from having to hear about how horrible they are from environmentalists.

Side effect: I heard on the radio that ethanol in racing has led to less corn being raised for feed and that being part of the reason why milk prices in the US are at their highest ever. The other parts having to deal with fuel prices and other market factors. I wonder what the effect would be if ethanol became very widely used.

 

[KSaiyu]

Is it Peugeot that has a diesel, aside from Audi? Or are they runing ethanol? Anyway, part of the purpose of the prototypes is that they use prototype technology that trickles into the production vehicles. Audi's TDI is now going to be in the Audi's and VWs, just not as big.

It's the HDi technology used in their diesel engines, and I suppose your right about that being part of the point of motorsport, I'm just sad to see it leads to such unexciting developments you wouldn't have thought would have been associated with motorsports ten years ago.

Tell me about it. I went to Mid-Ohio for American Le Mans and IndyCar and everything was either diesel or ethanol. I just wanted to tell them to put some jet fuel in it and go. The thing is it's all just PR to save the racing industry from having to hear about how horrible they are from environmentalists.

Side effect: I heard on the radio that ethanol in racing has led to less corn being raised for feed and that being part of the reason why milk prices in the US are at their highest ever. The other parts having to deal with fuel prices and other market factors. I wonder what the effect would be if ethanol became very widely used.

heh, can't win eh?

 

[livemusic]

Side effect: I heard on the radio that ethanol in racing has led to less corn being raised for feed and that being part of the reason why milk prices in the US are at their highest ever. The other parts having to deal with fuel prices and other market factors. I wonder what the effect would be if ethanol became very widely used.

I think you'll just have to adapt the production to it. We've been using ethanol for twenty years or so and the country never had any problems with its sugar demand.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think you'll just have to adapt the production to it. We've been using ethanol for twenty years or so and the country never had any problems with its sugar demand.

Honestly, I think it might be a 30 cent difference a gallon, so it isn't like it is a major issue because the cost difference was spread out, but if the demand for ethanol grows either more feed corn farmers will switch, making the situation actually become an issue, or ethanol will just become expensive.

Well, the real long-term issue with ethanol is that if it became a full worldwide gasoline replacement then it would require more land to grow corn on than is available. Plus, the few people I know who have tried using it have gotten less mileage and it costs more in the long run.

My wife's friend visited her parents that live about 300 miles away. On gasoline her Escort would get there with a quarter of a tank left so she could fill up on her way back home. When she used the ethanol that her engine was rated for (20% I think)she was running on empty when she arrived. The cost benefit doesn't work out and that will prevent it from being widely accepted as an alternative.

Now, I don't know how the ethanol only engines pan out or if the racing grade has a better mileage quality, but if the technology doesn't improve ethanol is not viable.


Right now petroleum still presents the best energy to dollar ratio, which is why (bringing us back to topic) I feel that until we have something conclusive that proves global warming is a man-made effect I am opposed to regulating to other fuel sources.

 

[Sureboss]

Another problem with petroleum is of course it's not an endless supply, we do have alot down there (something like only 20% of the oil in the North Sea is accesible) so we either A) Invest in better oil sucking (that isn't right but I don't know what to put) technology or B) Stick it out with alternative fuels, something which we can control to a larger extent. We WILL have to find another fuel supply, and there's no point in waiting until the oil is nearing it's death, we should be acting now. It's not just an issue of global warming.

 

[FoolKiller]

We are acting now. The fact that we are discussing ethanol is evidence of that. The problem is that too many people are putting stock in things like hybrids. So far we have intermediary technologies, but nothing that is a long-term viable product. By its name hybrid is intermidiary.

A long-term alternative will have to replace petroleum, be just as cost effective, and not create a performance difference. Anything less will be fought against.

My issue is that global warming fear has people trying to force economy effecting regulations that we don't know will have any effect. What good is an alternative if we can't afford it because it is A) more expensive and B) effects everything else so that I have less money to start with?