Global Warming! We're all going to die!

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Could it be that you've fallen victim to the Ultra-Liberal Press? The truth is, we don't know why the temperatures were/are raising. We know that the gasses produced by industry and automobiles tend to increase the greenhouse effect, but we have a very limited amount of data to work with, and so we really can't know exactly what is going on.

Because we don't know exactly what is happening should we all bury our head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening?

Personally, the ONLY reason I care about the cause, is finding the cause will help us find a solution (or at least something that may mitigate the climate change).

All of the evidence I have seen, seems to point to human activity having SOME affect (how much varies from source to source). Since human behavior is easier to change than the wobbles in the earth's orbit, that may be the most promising thing we can work on.

We aren't looking for who to bring to court, we are looking for a solution.

Although, it may be too late with the Atlantic gulf stream breaking down.

All I know is I need to get to Alaska before the glaciers all disappear

Mark

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Could it be that you've fallen victim to the Ultra-Liberal Press? The truth is, we don't know why the temperatures were/are raising. We know that the gasses produced by industry and automobiles tend to increase the greenhouse effect, but we have a very limited amount of data to work with, and so we really can't know exactly what is going on.

Irrelevant. Doesn't matter if we are the CAUSE of Global Warming or not, we have certainly pumped a bunch of carbon into the air in the last hundred years or so.

There is no way that can be a good thing. So even if removal of green house gases from our atmosphere doesn't mitigate global warming (which it WILL, but that's not the point) it's a good thing to do anyway.

Besides, the general consensus is in, and humans are the cause of Global Warming.

www.realclimate.org

TFS

[Cedars]

99% of the atmosphere is two components. Nitrogen at 78.08% and oxygen at 20.95%. Among the trace elements and compounds are the greenhouse gasses which include: water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, and ozone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_g...the_atmosphere

one website places the CO2 at 0.0360%
http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/conted/onl...0/210_7_1.html
another website with atmospheric composition information:
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Atmosph...ace_Gases.html

Snippet from an easy to read paper on temperature and carbon levels. I do not know if this has been refuted;

"Carbon dioxide levels are now at 380 ppm. When the level gets to 1000 ppm, the level will be one tenth of one percent of the air - yes, it will reach 1000, maybe even two or three thousand, no one knows for sure how high the level will go up. Sixty million years ago the level was 3500 ppm and as far as we know no beasts were hurt, but then we don't know everything from back then. I have read that levels of fifteen percent CO2 will be dangerous to us."

Read the entire paper here:
http://www.mich.com/~donald/globalwarming.html

Here is an easy to read article on the natural cycle of carbon exchanges:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/info/testimony.html

I do not know if this has been refuted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm

Several articles I have read indicate this is a natural cycle. Heres one I found today:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/e...ish_233658.htm

I have read a few convincing articles about the ocean currents being more involved in our global climate than greenhouse gasses. Heres another:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4928010.stm

I cant figure out all of what this document says, but it appears from the pictures and what I could understand, the amount of ice in antartic region has varied greatly in the last 35 million years.

http://www.hi.is/~oi/quaternary_glac...a.htm#Fig.%201

I also looked up the atmosphere of venus, which is often used as a comparison for runaway greenhouse gases. The problem is you cannot compare this planet and venus due to the location of venus, and the natural condition during planet formation and after, any water would have been boiled away by exposure to the sun thereby preventing a key element which allowed the water to stay on earth, namely the natural effects of the sun on these two planets during their early years due to their proximity to the sun and the huge difference in the rotation of venus compared to earth. As I understand it anyways.

http://gpc.edu/~pgore/astronomy/astr101/venus.htm

[Michaelangelica]

Ian Plimer in his book "a short history of planet earth" (ABC press, Sydney 2001)
Says a lot of intersting things about climate change on planet Earth.

"there was surface warming until 1944 followed by 32 years of slight cooling before reumed warming from 1977. There was a single warming step in 1976-1977"
..."the effects of natural variability in orbit, solar activity, the lunar tides, ocean currents, ice sheet dynamics, volcanicity, sedimentation, mountain building, subsidence and continental drift are far greater for temperature changes than those calculated for the worst human-induced greenhouse senario."
. . .
"We live in the last days of our normal ration of 10,000 years of benign climate in a 100,000 year cycle driven by orbital changes. Orbital variations change the length of the day. The orbital drivers of our current greenhouse/icehouse cycle is well past its zenith and summer reflection of solar energy at higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere is now waning. The Armageddon we humans face is not a pleasant greenhouse warming but a bitter and prolonged icehouse. The fourteenth century was our wake-up call"
PP213-215.

He then goes on to give "a number of possible scenarios for 'minor mass extinctions' of humans"
asteroids
geomagnetic reversal
major volcanic eruption (Taupo is a good candidate)
anti-biotic-resistant plague bacteria (recently found in Madagascar)

bacteria and virus jump from one species to another (eg AIDS, west nile virus, mad cow disease, Bird Flu +?)

I am not doing him justice. Anyone with an interest in global climate should read this book.
Michael

[rockytriton]

It just seems weird to me all the doomsday stuff people throw around. I mean, the earth was hit by a giant meteor that whiped out most of the life on it, and now it still sustains life... People have to get over this idea that the earth is this static sphere where all changes are irreversable by nature. You don't run around talking about the oxygen levels and how much we breath is going to affect how much oxygen is left on the earth, it will be replenished naturally.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Oh the earth isn't in much danger from Global Warming, but we sure are.

If we get to be too big a hassle, ol'Terra will just kill us off.

TFS

[pmaust]

Here is a really good site to take a look at. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html

[Wondering]

Originally Posted by rockytriton

It just seems weird to me all the doomsday stuff people throw around. I mean, the earth was hit by a giant meteor that whiped out most of the life on it, and now it still sustains life... People have to get over this idea that the earth is this static sphere where all changes are irreversable by nature. You don't run around talking about the oxygen levels and how much we breath is going to affect how much oxygen is left on the earth, it will be replenished naturally.

I agree with you on that point, but I think when people think that way, they are misunderstanding what researchers are trying to say. The reason we should be concerned is because we aren't prepared to deal with the changes that the earth can have. The answer to global warming is not a doomsday warming, but warnings shouldn't be overlooked either.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Wondering

I agree with you on that point, but I think when people think that way, they are misunderstanding what researchers are trying to say. The reason we should be concerned is because we aren't prepared to deal with the changes that the earth can have. The answer to global warming is not a doomsday warming, but warnings shouldn't be overlooked either.

I don't know if global warming is real or not. I have not read enough about it. It is certainly contentious.
It feels to me that it is getting hotter (Jan 1 at 40++C was a killer -even hardy roadside plants expired -a week of that and we would have had few plants alive.) and weather is more extreme. In Australia drought has alternated with devastaing cyclones. But personal observations and feelings are not science.

If you believe that global warming is real you should look at the "Terra preta" discussion here. One of the scientific articles postulates that if the world agricultural community were to adopt some Terra preta farming teqniques we could sequester (retire?) all of the carbon we have pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

Those that think that another ice age is ahead might feel that this is a bad thing.

My prophesy is that Tera preta farming will be adopted eventually world wide and a lot of cabon will be taken out of the equation.
Where does that leave us???

Michael

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Wondering

I agree with you on that point, but I think when people think that way, they are misunderstanding what researchers are trying to say. The reason we should be concerned is because we aren't prepared to deal with the changes that the earth can have. The answer to global warming is not a doomsday warming, but warnings shouldn't be overlooked either.

Even though I am skeptical of the dire predictions and mankinds effects on global climate via CO2, I hate to discourage people who are looking at this with an environmental concern. I think most of what is occuring globally is a naturally driven event by solar and plate tetanics and big issues, which means there is little mankind can do to avert the big picture on climate.

But what alarms me is the proposed solutions to what may be a non-issue on the global level. The proposals of Kyoto for example do not address the issue in a realistic way. What Kyoto proposes is some countries will have to make a huge monetary investment on top of what has already occured and exempts two countries which, if predictions hold true, will surpass all global emissions of CO2 in a very short time. I find the logic of Kyoto flawed because of this and other factors.

For example, China, and India should be held to the same standard as the rest of the big emittors. While they increase their technologies, they are not being required to use the most current and less pollution generating technologies that are available. What will occur if this trend continues unchecked is the total emmissions per person in each of these countries will exceed the per person emmission of the USA. This defeats the purpose. Once signed and agreed to, how exactly will the world change its mind and the rules to bring these other countries to the same emmissions standards.

The focus would better serve the globe if it was written to hold each country responsible for the future of the globe by accounting for the future in the proposals.