Global Warming - A real viable threat or scientific rhetoric?

Discussion in 'Your Bloody Soap Box' started by jaguar75, May 3, 2005.

  1. lumpy

    lumpy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    1

    Ya know jaguar, you started this looking for a fight, so don't be suprised when people oppose your view.

    Humans have changed the face of the earth drastically. Deforestation of the Amazon. The mediterranean once was surrounded by lush forests but they dissappeared when people chopped them all down. Over 90% of the large fish in the ocean are gone due to overfishing for another example. The last time the Earth faced a die off of species like we've experienced in the last 100 years, was the ice ages, which took thousands of years. We're doing it in a generation.
    The greenhouse gasses are clearly changing the environment. America is the largest producer of these gasses with China in second place. China is rapidly catching up with their pollution and soon will be well past us. What will happen then? We're already seeing major changes form what we've done. What can we expect when China pumps a whole lot more pollution into the air?

    We're screwing ourselves, and our children simply. Why? because we're stupid. Just like what happened on Easter Island.

    I do agree with you that this planet will be soon rid of us, but it looks like it will be by our own hand.
     


  2. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lumpy I read this link and I have to say this link spends a lot talking about rising water and very little about the cause...if any.

    What amazes me is people can spend so much money, brain power and time trying to make one thing the problem and as a result over look so many other possibilities. One thing this site fails to talk about is the tremendous tectonic activity that surrounds the Pacific Rim...the other name for this is THE RING OF FIRE. This phrase was coined becasue so many islands appear and disappear becasue of volcanic and subterranian volcanic activity that companies that make maps can't keep up (figuratively). So let me see some some data and research on that, not this crap of constantly blaming our supposed destruction of the atmosphere.

    Remember...the planet is a living, breathing entity, not just some rock hurteling through space. The complexity is so sheer that to think that so many "problems" are caused by "green house"/"global warming" is just silly.
     
  3. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    No...I started this thread because I was looking for a debate...this is what we do in this forum...what we don't do is debate with blatant insults. Everyone gets heated from time to time and guess what you can turn off your computer and walk away and come back with a clear head.

    Have you heard of re-planting and selective deforestation? Many national conservation laws now protect that and combined with re-cycling are proving extremely effective. I agree with you on this topic but it is not the topic that I created or am talking about.

    A slight exaggeration don't you think!!! Show me something to support this.

    Kind of impossible if scientists are discovering over 100 new species of fish and insects every year and the endangered species lists are dwindling

    This is the problem with people like you constantly quoting this crap...you can't prove it! I have never seen one ounce of proof that was unbiased.

    What changes? Again I have yet to see any proof that is unbiased and created for any reason other than to serve the betterment of extremist special interest groups.
     
  4. lumpy

    lumpy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    1
    http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/story.asp?storyID=800
    "In the last decade, in the north Atlantic region, commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock and flounder have fallen by as much as 95%, prompting calls for urgent measures ....
    According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems."

    I saw a show on PBS called "Strange Days on Planet Earth". In it they said 90% of the large fish.
    here they say it's only 80-90%
    http://www.eurocbc.org/research_indicates_reduction-numbers-large-fish_2june2003page1072.html

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-04/uoc--sb040902.php
    "In a nutshell, what the researchers found is that over the next 50 years the changing climate is predicted to bring about great instability for wildlife, reshuffling ecosystems and throwing new predators and prey together as new diseases and parasites are introduced, with a majority of species having smaller geographical ranges than today. "In some local communities more than 40 percent of species are expected to turn over, which will lead to a cascade of further effects," said Peterson, lead author of the Nature paper. "If you remove enough species from an ecosystem, it's like the old child's game of pick-up-sticks -- there are only so many changes you can make before the ecosystem just rearranges, and maybe strikingly."

    You asked for proof of global warming so please read these:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4495463.stm
    that just came out the other day

    the US govt sponsored this study
    http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/threat/threat6.htm

    I got a kick out of this quote - "The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."
    That was here:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

    here is another:
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C9535-EF02-1C5A-B882809EC588ED9F

    and finally my favorite from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - part of the US Dept of Commerce:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1

    Scripps Institute of Oceanography, NOAA, the US govt scientists, Scientific American, MSNBC are all saying it's happening. Are they all biased?

    And please provide your evidence that global warming isn't real.
     
  5. darkboong

    darkboong New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    It *is* true. The review contrasted the Fiction with the Fact, and quite frankly Crichton is writing Fiction, not Fact.

    The review took many of those "Facts" apart comprehensively. What little I read of that book struck me as being some kind of naive fantasy that was sponsored by a fossil fuel salesman. I spent my money on a stack of second hand Frank Herbert books and even the poorest of those knocked Crichton's thinly disguised big oil manifesto for six.
     
  6. wilmar13

    wilmar13 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since it is cold and windy and I don't want to be on the trainer I have to throw my $.02 in here.

    I totally agree that most environmental groups don't have firm grasp of the effects of all the variables and are eager to assign cause to anything that is against their agenda... However, what difference does it make in the whole scheme of things? We do not know if man-made greenhouse gases will f*ck the earth up or not, but we know they aren't a good thing, right? Same goes for most of the other stuff that the tree-huggers are for and the naysayers are against. Why waste time arguing about the level of severity? Is driving a big SUV going to kill the seals in Anartica? No, but it is certainly not going to help anything either. If people were more into doing what was right and avoiding what was wrong in an altruistic sense, you wouldn't have to waste time arguing about whether the ocean is getting warmer because of our power plants, or simply because there is a sh!tload of volcanic activity in the area. I don't change my values based on whether there is a God that will punish me or not, and I don't work harder if my boss is standing over my shoulder. If you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that pollution is not going to f*ck up the world long term, I am not going to start dumping my motor oil down the drain and burning my old tires, and if you prove that it is, I am not going to all of a sudden change my lifestyle to living in a yurt and growing my own food. Instead of bickering about how bad it is, focus on ways to avoid contributing to it. Militant attempts to enforce your views on others will always backfire (this is more true on the Green side IMO with the outrageous environmental damage claims). I guess maybe some people need the gun to the head to motivate them (the ocean is going to rise 12"next year and kill everyone if you don't sell your Hum-vees!), but is seems like sometimes it just results in people arguing about technicalities rather than changing behavior.
     
  7. wilmar13

    wilmar13 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is furthering the cause? He never said it isn't real, only that you don't know the cause (which is true).
     
  8. lumpy

    lumpy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    1
  9. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for keeping the topic to point! :)
     
  10. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would have to say that is because the EPA is running low on their grants and funding for this administration!!! :)
     
  11. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will save you the trouble of having to click on a link to read the following information. I was at the library today looking at mags and I, ironically, came across the April 05' issue of Popular Mechanics and there was the following article titled "What Lies Beneath"
    -(8500ft.) The remotely operated vehicle Victor 6000 chimney-sweeps a hydrothermal vent on the East Pacific Rise, northwest of the Galapagos Islands, looking for tubeworms, clams and other faunathat thrive in the darkness of the briny deep. Victor is a high-tech submersible that roams the ocean floor pking around for as many undersea species as possible on behalf of Deep-Water Chemosynthetic Ecosystems-one of the 13 projects of the Census of Marine Life.
    Launched in 2000, the census should create a base line to help gauge the effects of pollution and climate change. 'This endeavor has grown from 20 scientists sitting in a room' says spokewoman Darlene Crist, 'to 1000 scientists in 73 nations' field researchers are discovering approximately 2 new fish species per week. 'WE KNOW ABOUT 10% OF WHAT LIVES IN THE OCEAN' says Ron O'Dor, senior scientist for the project. 'WE COULD POTENTIALLY DISCOVER A MILLION NEW SPECIES BEFORE THE END OF THE DECADE'. At last report, scientists put the official number of species in the oceans at 230,000. That includes hundreds of species from chemosynthetic playgrounds like these"

    This sounds a little more unbiased and factually driven than most of the crap interest groups want you to read. Popular Mechanics does a good job of trying to remain factual in their articles.

    While I don't doubt commercial fishing has had a big impact on those types of fish, I would say don't go rush out there and park your skiff in front of any fishing ships to stop them. Moderation not elimination should take heed!
     
  12. lumpy

    lumpy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    1
    I've always believed that if you are going to make a statement, you need to show your data to back it up. I didn't realize that including the links so one can read what I found was an inconvenience.

    So, starting in 2000 they've been doing a census on marine life and finding new species. It's not like they are just now evolving - we're just sending deep sea submersibles looking for them now.
    Of course they're finding new species - they're looking for them in places people have never been!
    FYI, they just found a new salamander species in Korea. Turns out in Korea all salamanders are aquatic. No one had ever thought of looking under a rock for an non aquatic salamander ... so they found a new species! http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/05/MNGIUCK4R11.DTL&type=science

    However, since there is 25,000 square kilometers of amazon rainforest being destroyed each year, I don't see the correlation between loss of habitat and ecosystems, with finding a new species.

    # Rainforests contain 170,000 of the world's 250,000 known plant species
    # A recent survey in the Atlantic rainforest of Brazil found 487 tree species in a single hectare (2.5 acres), while the US and Canada combined only have 700 species
    # 1/3 of world's birds found in South America
    # Whereas all of Europe has some 321 butterfly species, the Manu National Park in Peru (4000 hectare-survey) has 1300 species, while Tambopata National Park (5500 hectare-survey) has at least 1231 species
    # The United States has 81 species of frogs, while Madagascar, smaller than Texas, may have some 300 (99% of which are found nowhere else). 80 frog species have been collected in a single day at localities in Peru.
    # A single square mile of rainforest often houses more than 50,000 insect species

    I agree with you about Popular Mechanics efforts to be factual.
    So back to the point, here is an article of theirs about global warming from the Popular Mechanics october '04 issue:

    The Cold Truth

    Tree rings, satellites, and ice cores suggest global warming models underestimate risks.

    For years critics of international treaties aimed at controlling greenhouse gases claimed that the complex mathematical models that predict widespread global warming were wrong. The latest look at those models suggests those critics may have been right. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the chief greenhouse gas released by burning fossil fuels, is now about 380 parts per million (ppm), said Harvard University professor of geochemistry Daniel Schrag. He predicts that by the end of the century the level will rise as high as 1000 ppm. "The last time CO2 was this high was during the Eocene, 55 to 36 million years ago. Palm trees lived in Wyoming, crocodiles lived in the Arctic, Antarctica was a pine forest and the sea level was at least 300 ft. higher than today."
    Given the dramatic climatic conditions that accompanied these high CO2 levels, many researchers were curious to see what would happen when concentrations in the 1000-ppm range were plugged into their mathematical models. To their surprise, temperatures refused to climb to the high that occurred in the Eocene. Despite this unexpected turn of events, researchers haven't lost faith in the models. They do, however, believe that the models need to be fine-tuned to account for the fact that the Earth appears to be more sensitive to changes in CO2 levels than previously believed.
    It also appears that temperature swings can occur abruptly, Thomas Crowley, a professor at Duke University, told a recent conference on Global Warming sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He told scientists who attended the Washington, D.C., meeting that just this sort of shift has taken place in the recent past. "Composite tree-ring and ice-core studies indicate that during the Middle Ages temperatures were relatively warm in mid-high latitudes. A subsequent cooling, termed the 'Little Ice Age,' was probably the coldest period of the last 8000 years," he said.

    "Changes of as much as 18°F or more have happened in about a decade in some locales," said Richard B. Alley, the Pugh Professor of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University.

    Physical evidence abounds that these quick temperature rises are now taking place. Michael Oppenheimer, Professor of Environmental Science at Princeton University in New Jersey, offered the conference some examples. "Warming is causing the retreat of ice at the margins of polar regions. Many glaciers are shrinking along the coast of Greenland, and the periphery as a whole appears to be losing ice. Floating ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula have undergone spectacularly rapid disintegration over the past decade," Oppenheimer said.

    And the changes are taking place not only at the polar regions.

    "In 1912 the ice on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, Africa, covered about 4.3 square miles, but today it covers only .94 square miles. If the current rate of retreat continues, the perennial ice on Kilimanjaro is expected to disappear within the next 15 to 20 years," said Lonnie G. Thompson, Professor of Geological Sciences, at Ohio State University.

    Researchers are focusing on why their global warming models failed to predict the sharp temperature rises revealed in satellite images when CO2 levels reached the 1000-ppm level. Penn State's Alley believes abrupt climate changes seem to happen when warming crosses a threshold, triggering change to a new and persistent state. He draws an analogy with boating, where leaning a little too far can flip a canoe.

    One force rocking the boat appears to be a change in the salinity of the sea. Extensive temperature measurements of ocean water show a clear circulation pattern. Because warm water moves to the north, Europe is far warmer than its latitude would suggest. Heat, however, is not the only factor that determines the way in which seawater behaves. Salinity plays a large role in moving the current south. As the ice melts in the most northern latitudes, more fresh water enters the system, making the ocean less dense. One of the consequences is that global warming could cause this massive oceanic conveyor, illustrated above, to shut down. The result would be that European cities would begin to experience the same low winter temperatures measured in cities with comparable latitudes.

    Among those who work on warming issues, there is an emerging consensus that future global models will only confirm the need for tighter controls on greenhouse gases. But for the moment, there is only one prediction that can be made with any degree of confidence: Global warming may hold some chilling surprises.
     
  13. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with much of what you say...I am a strong conservative, however, I like things beautiful and stupid pollution and senless deforestation in non NATO countries is also just stupid...I don't like these things happening because when I walk out onto the levee by the River I don't like seeing AND smelling pollution...what I don't agree with is scientists telling me that we MUST stop doing this because it is destroying our very way of life and if we don't stop we will all be dead blah blah blah...IT IS CRAP!!! We should stop doing these things because it is just not necessary anymore to do so. It is a genuine quality of life that people want to live without turning on their faucets and drinking brown water or looking out of their home windows and seeing barren mountain sides that can create mudslides and increase erosion...whatever!!!
    Don't throw extremeist crap at me and shove it down my throat (not you in particular...generally speaking) and expect me to just believe it because you say so so therefore it must be true when I see so much more that tells me contrary...

    I forgot to tell you about this fact earlier...You say that we have increased the c02 content of the atmosphere and IT MUST BE ATTRIBUTED to the buring of fossil fuels because all of your research says so...I say that when a volcano...one of the most powerful forces on this planet...erupts it sends more earthkept c02 into the atmosphere than any industrial nation could hope to create in a single life time. I say that in our life time there have been numerous Carribean and pacific eruptions...let me see some data that says the increased c02 levels in the atmosphere did not come from mother earth herself? If I were the extremeist liberals I would think that my time worrying would better suited about worring how to defend this planet from a rogue asteroid or worring about the "supervolcano" in the Northern US that is supposedly swelling and if it goes this whole converation is mute...

    Life on this planet is extremely fragil so lets spend constructive time worrying about what truly makes life on this planet fragil....
     
  14. wilmar13

    wilmar13 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    You hit the nail on the head.
    I guess I would consider myself an environmentalist, but I don't know which is worse: The soccer mom driving the Excursion/HummVee routinely down to Starbucks which is two blocks away or the hippy freaks spouting off half truths in an attempt to change peoples behavior (which results in people attacking the details instead of accepting the message behind it). Anybody remember the wacko environmentalist character on IN LIVING COLOR played by Jim Carey many years ago?
     
  15. Darjevon

    Darjevon New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said radiation, not plasma. As i clearly stated, radiation IS NOT measured in tons. And i was right. And I very well know that air has mass. I know what plasma is. So it would appear, your understanding of the article you linked is remarkably inaccurate. Also, it was written by a photographer, and NOT a scientist.

    AND, i am still right. I understand that these kertrillion tons of plasma are one of the major players, however, they never actually reach earth; they merely release protons and electrons, (solar wind), which charge atoms in the atmosphere, causing them to emit light. And, one more thing, this is not taught in chemistry. I may have been too stoned to listen in chemistry, yet I did manage to pay attention in other classes, such as astrophysics and earth sciences.
     
  16. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    here's a cheerful image :) ...not :eek:
     
  17. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now you are going to tell me that you moonlight as a scientist for having taken an astrophysics class? Well I once took an economics class in college and I have a minor in Psycology I think I will become an economist or better yet a therapist.

    Back to the Northern Lights....The following Article explains better...PLASMA does reach the Planet and you saw in the first article that it is indicated in weight...Again I resate my point. The abuse our planets "atmosphere" takes on a daily basis is tremendous compared to anything we could hope to do against it.
     
  18. cpx

    cpx New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is completely false.

    From the USGS: Volcanoes emit between 130-230 million tonnes of CO2 per year (all types of volcanoes, world-wide). World emissions by human activities total 22 billion tonnes per year.

    Thus, humans generate 150 times the amount of CO2 volcanoes do.

    Check out this image ... the light green patches are clear-cuts. The brown patches are forest fires which, these days, often rage out of control because we have spent a century altering the fuel-complex and protecting the new, stunted and unhealthy trees from natural forest-fires (so they can be logged later on).

    Lake Nipigon, in the center, is 80km (50mi) wide. The north-shore of Lake Superior is at the bottom of the image.
     
  19. cpx

    cpx New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Aritlce written by ... a photographer?

    The "10 billion tons and 27,000 Empire State Buildings" (yes, quite fantastic) is an example of the total amount of plasma a solar flare might create. If you were to be nearby - say, hanging about on the surface of the Sun - you'd be in real trouble.

    It takes ~8 hours for that material to reach Earth, and like any other shock wave, it spreads out / dissipates as it travels. The amount of plasma that actually ends up colliding with the Earth (and getting funneled into the North and South Magnetic poles) is a minute fraction of the original "10 billion tons".

    Thankfully we have a magnetic field, which has kept the Sun from being a problem for, well, most of geologic time.

    Following your logic, the Sun is suddenly a force to be reckoned with, and we should be polluting like mad just to keep up with it?

    My logic - as a scientist - tells me the Aurora have nothing to do with CO2 emissions and they are quite harmless to the atmosphere (for starters, our atmosphere came into existence in spite of them).
     
  20. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well CPX thank you for bringing your scientific toughts into this discussion, however, I wish you would have read from the begining of the thread and addressed the issue at hand...

    No my logic is NOT to "catch up to the sun", my logic and use of Aurora B was to emphasize the "pounding" our atmosphere takes on a daily basis from cosmic forces is mind boggling.

    AND AGAIN I will restate...I have yet to see ANY unbiased, non self serving information that tells me that we (Humans) will hurt this planet long before this planets rids itself of us!
     
Loading...
Loading...