Global Warming?

[Vanzazikon]

Man, after 8 months of scorching heat, its finally cold... Well its a little too cold and yet the leaves aren't even brown yet. Usually the leaves turned dry and brown in late August and September, even when it was hot. It seems like each time summer passes it lingers a little bit more. I not Al Gore but I'm starting to see the effects of what he was warning everybody of and it scares me because usually when there is a climate change, isn't there a chance of Day after tommrow event?

I'm not superstitious to be gullible on every report but I watched some programs that say's 2012 will be the end of earth.They claimed that it was the end of the Mayan calender and it was also predicted by Nostradomus, who predicted the 9/11. I'm not saying this is true but what is everybody response to this?

Do you think that global warning and climate change can trigger the end of the world, if they are related that is. Makes you wonder how we treat the world: >_> <_< *throws trash on ground and leave*.

[TheOneHero]

I give credit to Nostradomus, some of the stuff he says is pretty cool.

But you know, it's usually presented in such a way it could fit a number of things. Bad stuff happens, people go through his sayings and say, "OH LOOK HE TOTALLY SAID IT HERE!" They see what they want to see. I'm on the fence about him, use his sayings to stop something before it happens and I'll completely believe.

Anyway, sure, to an extent I believe climate change could end the world. It'd have to be a pretty flippin' big change. Bigger than what was presented in "Day After Tomorrow" (I think of the world ending as, humans are completely destroyed.)

I don't think it'll happen any time soon though.

[Leviathan]

Look up NASA &2012.

We won't die in 2012.
Mayan's just died before they could finish the calendar.


The topic made me think of this.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/1451/saturday-night-live-parallel-universe

[Outrider]

I've never seen the movie in question, but my understanding is that it has sudden, rapid environmental changes that take place within the span of a day.

It would (and will, should nothing be done about it) be much more gradual.

[Kylie]

Maybe, but I don't think it should be worried about... Well, beyond doing what we can do to improve our surroundings. :-P But, I mean, it the end comes, it comes, and I'll be dead and won't care too much if there was nothing I could do about it. As for global warming, I think it is a threat, and we need to do things to slow it down or stop it. However, I think as lot of it is just a cycle, and surviving that cycle is something we can do. We just need to prepare and work on the things that are man made.

[Para]

I think global warming definitely has some cause to be concerned about but it may be a bit over exaggerated. Doesn't mean we should try to make a switch to make things greener like gas efficient cars and green technologies for energy production.

[amtalx]

If you ever bother to read Nostradamus' work, you'll realize he was a hack. He wrote over 1000 quatrains and guess how many of them were "right"? Not very many. Ever noticed how nothing is ever predicted? It always happens first, then someone goes back and says "oh wait, this passage vaguely resembles current events based on 2 keywords."

[Tessu]

inb4theworldendsin2012

Uh, I don't think it will, and frankly, that 12/21/12 shit is crazy. They're just trying to convert you into Jehovah's witnesses, that's what they're doing. Yep yep.

If global warming does end us, though, it'll at least be around the tipping point (when the effects become irreversible) -- in 2060.

[furrypaws]

...Please don't tell me you're treating The Day After Tomorrow as a reliable science source. ;)

While it is plausible that global warming will cause things similar to that, you won't wake up one morning and see 6 tornadoes in Chicago on the morning news. This is going to be a fairly gradual process, but if I had my say, I'd pretty much say it's more likely that in 50 years the human race will get hit by a meteor, blown up by a nuclear bomb, or get destroyed by black holes from the Large Hadron Colliderbe unpopulated by a move of planets than being destroyed by global warming.

[Vanzazikon]

...Please don't tell me you're treating The Day After Tomorrow as a reliable science source. ;)It was a hyperbole, I never really meant it. Although I'm curious what will happen on 2012, but talking about it isn't going to solve anything. Guess I'll just see what happens until them. Let life roll by. :D

[pikachief]

well if it helps, the world in all of history has suffered from huge drops and increases in temperature :/

they had a huge increase in the middle ages i believe and then after wards it just dropped really low.

also, its still pretty hot where i live jsut really windy sometimes(california >.> )

[Vanzazikon]

Same here.

[Nitro Vordex]

Global Warming is a scam.

Accusations aside, the temperature here dropped pretty fast, especially for a desert state. (AZ) It was 100 degrees a week and a half ago. Now it's about mid to high 70's.

Nights are rather cold. It's like the seasons are actually catching up here.

And screw all of you that were born in snowy states. :/

[TheOneHero]

100 degrees here feels like 75-80 in most other states. I seriously gotta get you outta here, Nitro. XD

Sometimes I think people in AZ are soft, compared to humid summers in other places I've been, 115 degrees is really...quite refreshing.

Anyway, I do believe Pika mentioned it earlier, but the earth's temperature has changed quite a bit over history, I wouldn't be too worried about global warming. (We should still try to reduce our greenhouse gasses.)

[astuarlen]

I'd recommend that anyone interested in the topic take a look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 Summary for Policymakers (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf). For the most part, I've found it very easy to understand and informative, though I'll admit I haven't yet read it all. (Bonus: Fun graphs and visual aids!)

This summary report frequently uses terms like very likely, likely, etc to describe its conclusions. An explanation of these descriptions is in the intro of the main report, so I'm quoting it here, because they won't mean much without appropriate definition.
[spoiler-box]Treatment of uncertainty

The IPCC uncertainty guidance note1 defines a framework for the treatment of uncertainties across all WGs and in this Synthesis Report.
This framework is broad because the WGs assess material from different disciplines and cover a diversity of approaches to the treatment of
uncertainty drawn from the literature. The nature of data, indicators and analyses used in the natural sciences is generally different from that
used in assessing technology development or the social sciences. WG I focuses on the former, WG III on the latter, and WG II covers aspects
of both.

Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties each with a distinct form of language. Choices among and within these three
approaches depend on both the nature of the information available and the authors’ expert judgment of the correctness and completeness of
current scientific understanding.

Where uncertainty is assessed qualitatively, it is characterised by providing a relative sense of the amount and quality of evidence (that is,
information from theory, observations or models indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) and the degree of agreement (that is,
the level of concurrence in the literature on a particular finding). This approach is used by WG III through a series of self-explanatory terms
such as: high agreement, much evidence; high agreement, medium evidence; medium agreement, medium evidence; etc.

Where uncertainty is assessed more quantitatively using expert judgement of the correctness of underlying data, models or analyses, then
the following scale of confidence levels is used to express the assessed chance of a finding being correct: very high confidence at least 9 out
of 10; high confidence about 8 out of 10; medium confidence about 5 out of 10; low confidence about 2 out of 10; and very low confidence less
than 1 out of 10.

Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations
or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very
unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.

WG II has used a combination of confidence and likelihood assessments and WG I has predominantly used likelihood assessments.
This Synthesis Report follows the uncertainty assessment of the underlying WGs. Where synthesised findings are based on information
from more than one WG, the description of uncertainty used is consistent with that for the components drawn from the respective WG reports.

Unless otherwise stated, numerical ranges given in square brackets in this report indicate 90% uncertainty intervals (i.e. there is an
estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that
range). Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the best estimate.[/spoiler-box]

[Blitzkommando]

In the 1970s we were entering another ice age. In the 1980s to mid 1990s we were doomed by ozone holes forming and raping us all with deadly radiation. Today it's global warming. Next decade it will be some new form of activism (perhaps the earth's magnetic field is being disrupted/destroyed by rampant industrialization leading to more deadly space radiation) that I will give an equal amount of respect.

Honestly, if we can't accurately predict the weather 12 hours from now why the hell should I give them any credit for what it will supposedly be even 12 months from now?

[Seority]

Global Warming is real. How in the hell could it be a scam? It is happening and it is a huge problem.
Even though explaining everything would take ages, here are some pointers I got.

http://www.effectofglobalwarming.com/images/What-is-global-warming-img.jpg
It's not only the ozone layer anymore. We, as a world population, have decreased the use of chemicals that destroy the ozone layer almost completely. It's about CO2 emissions traping heat in the earths atmosphere.
As of right now, it's true that the USA is the leading country in CO2 emissions. (We're responsible for 30% of the CO2 pollution. That means 70% is the rest of the whole world.)
Heating up the earth is doing more then extending our summers. A LOT more. The increased heat will dry up a lot of the land creating drought in many agrigated areas. The earths oceans will become hotter then ever which isn't good for it's natural flow. With the warm water comes the melting of glaciers and rising sea levels. Both in turn cause more severe weather like tornados/hurricanes/and typhoons. Not to mention the flooding of many heavily populated areas, and more amd more severe weather conditions. For example Katrina/Ike.
With new climates in areas, animals will have to find other areas to migrate to survive. Among such creatures are insects and viruses/diseases that are spreading to more areas.


http://whyfiles.org/211warm_arctic/images/1000yr_change.jpg
This is an accurate chart on what is happening now. Look how fast it jumped and how high it is between 1950-2000? That's just 50 years. As of now, the temperature/CO2 emissions are off that chart. It's predicted that in the next 50 years (2000-2050 If things remain the same,) those numbers will double from the highest it's at now. Think about it. DOUBLE that. You think things are hot now? One thing this doesn't list is the global population. In the baby boom era, there were 2 billion people on the world. Note: baby boom era. Now?

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/livestocksystems/images/7220f03.gif
(Even though this has predicted the population till 2025) We are at 6.7 billion and that's only counting known cities with citizens. We have almost 7 billion people on this earth since the baby boom era. Now my dad was at the end chain of the baby boomers, so in his life time, from when he was born (which was concidered a huge jump) the population has more than tripled. Within one life time. Think of that in your lifetime. It was 6 billion, now it would be 18 billion! And you thought pollution was bad now?

[SPOILER-BOX]

http://www.greendiary.com/images/canada-glaciers-retreating_5106.jpg
http://www.greendiary.com/images/barnett-glacier-retreat_5106.jpg
http://www.stopglobalwarming.com.au/images/current_impacts/global_warming_glaciers_around_world.jpg
http://members.cox.net/renegade_sith2/miscjunk/glacier_melt.jpg
http://www.climatehotmap.org/photos/65.jpg
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/3/3a/Muir_Glacier.jpg/350px-Muir_Glacier.jpg
[/SPOILER-BOX]
As I did state, all glaciers of the world are rapidly melting. Millions of pounds of ice are breaking off of glaciers and melting daily. Oddly enough, it's not only random mountain glaciers that are doing this, but whole continents of ice.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00100/antarc1_100622a.jpg
This is Greenland. This is called a "glacier pool". This whole glacier, hundreds of miles of ice, all melted with in 3 months. Not years, months. This is only one of them too. It's mainly floating glaciers that are melting because of the warm waters, but in places like Greenland or Anartica, the land based glaciers are held in place from the floating ones. Once those melt, the glaciers on the land just slide off and melt also. Greenland and Anartica are pretty much just big glaciers. Hope you all didn't forget the penguins and polar bears there too. It's no ice, no dice for them. It's said, with the rate of this melting, in 50 years, places such as Florida, California, New York, Bejing China (and many many others) are going to be flooded, and not just a few 100 feet. About 40% of Florida will go under (yes, including Disney World). The World Trade center mamorial will be completly underwater.

So let's try and summerize this.
With Global Warming, things will get hotter, land will dry up (which means lots of agriculture will be gone), the land will shrink (meaning not only humans, but animals must share space more) and wherever we live. there will be major storms that occur frequently.
That doesn't sound to pleasent to me. Can we change this? How can we change it? There are many small things we can do as individuals and as a country to change. "Small things? Small things won't solve this major crisis. It seems like we need something much bigger then just recycling the trash." Many small things added up can help quite a bit. Actually, recycling trash and using it to remake items and even use as a sorce of energy, it is one of the biggest things we can do to stop CO2 emissions. Other small things such as finding new / using less harmful energy sources and using mass transportation (riding buses/trains and carpooling). We as a nation can change things by voting for laws that will lower the CO2 emissions in the air.
We, as in Americans, have still yet to come to agreements on this completely since we are the only polluent heavy nation that has not signed the Kyoto Protocol. We make 30% of the pollution, but do little to nothing about it. Why is this you ask? Maybe it's because our leaders are spending more of our money "fighting terrorism" then caring about things such as this which caused things like Katrina and Ike. As one person we can't do much, but as one person times millions, we can make a huge impact. If we do do all we can to help this cause, we will not only stop Global Warming, but acctually decrease it drastically. It's true that things will never be the same way they were 50 years ago, but at least they won't be x10 worse like they are now.
Kyoto Protocol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Kyoto36-2005.png
Global Warming is a real and big issue that is happening now, and we are the only ones who can do anything about it.
This documentary cleared up a lot of questions I had about it: "An Inconvenient Truth"

[Cracka_J]

LOL, seo fact bomb.

and btw:

and it was also predicted by Nostradomus, who predicted the 9/11.
this is wrong. it was an internet hoax after 9/11 happened that posted false text regarding something along the lines of "twin giants or brothers" falling, and it was proven to be nowhere in any of nostradomus' writings.

If I were you guys, I'd be much more worried about that apothis meteor that's gonna take a nice tour around earth in 2017, and come back for a victory lap in 2036. That shit is real, and could be the most devastating thing this world has ever seen.

[CrimsomWolf]

I believe that there's some global warming and we have some part in it, but I don't believe that in less then 100 years we could screw our planet as badly as most of these hysterical ecologists say.

Besides, climate changes happened in the past, so its logical that they can happen in the future.

[amtalx]

Honestly, if we can't accurately predict the weather 12 hours from now why the hell should I give them any credit for what it will supposedly be even 12 months from now?

Because weather trends can be followed/predicted over great spans of time. Day to day weather is too volatile to predict. Think.

[Seority]

I believe that there's some global warming and we have some part in it, but I don't believe that in less then 100 years we could screw our planet as badly as most of these hysterical ecologists say.

Besides, climate changes happened in the past, so its logical that they can happen in the future.

I don't believe Steve Iwrin actually died from a sting ray, but that doesn't chage it from being true :lol:

[CrimsomWolf]

I don't say that we don't have anything to do with it.

But to tell the truth, there isn't that much evidence that only we are the only cause of it.
Similarly we can't really say if Steve Irwin stepped on sting ray or sting ray bitten him

Also, I don't think that Al Gore's movie is that good if my memory serves me right.
We happened to discuss it in school. Most of teachers say that it's not bad, but not overly good and that some things are sort of "pseudo-science."
Like lots of white bears drowning on (what's left of) North Pole.

[Cracka_J]

Topic derailment ftw!!

Steve Irwin didn't die from the initial Stingray barb pierce. He died from pulling it out quickly and causing severe damage to internal organs. It was reported that he would have had a *chance* at survival had he not pulled the barb out ;o

Back to your normally scheduled rant :D

[Seority]

What else do you suppose is putting a shit load of CO2 in our atmoshpere? The birds? The trees? Your dog? Oh, of course it's not the thousands of thriving factorys puffing out CO2 by the crap load. It's not like they buy clean air from the government to pollute it or anything. Oh wait.

It's not a movie. It's a documentary. It points out facts and issues with the subject and tries to explain things about it.

If the rising of fossil fuels being used, human population increasing like all of us eat viagra for breakfast, and the fact that the earth has never ever ever in the billions of years of existance has it once ever been this hot, and still rising doesn't satisfy you as to why global warming is happening, I'd love to hear what you really think is making this all possible. :)

[CrimsomWolf]

Did you noticed that I said that we are a part of global warming, but not as big as some eco-maniacs try to say.
Also, if you're interested, some time ago astronomers confirmed that Mars is also experiencing warming (it's ice caps are melting).

To tell the truth, all of our industrial "power" is bullshit, when compared to what Sun can do.
and I would also point out that our knowledge on climate of Earth is mediocre at best.

We've been here for around 4/3 thousand years (homo sapience even less) so we know shit about how ecology of Earth runs in the long term.

[Seority]

There's more then just us there with cameras to document things.
We can find out things from the past from trees, dirt, rocks and even ice in glaciers.
It's not that we have no clue, it's from what we do know, this is not natural for the earth to do this.

And are you only saying "It's some kind of heat wave generated by the will power of the earth" is the cause of why we have an extreme amount of C)2 in the atmoshere?

[CrimsomWolf]

I never said "willpower of Earth" or anything like this.

It should be noted that recently the Sun has been very active. In fact, it's one of the most active periods in last 8000 years:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041030221144.htm

Therefore much more heat reaches the Earth. Thus the "greenhouse effect" is bigger than it would be normally i.e Earth is warmer.

The sun was highly active back in 1980's (up to now and continuing) when people started to notice such thing as "global warming" and there was global increase in temp.

[Seority]

The greenhouse effect is caused by the CO2 trapping the heat in the atmosphere. It's not making more come in at all. That is back to the ozone layer getting owned by cars and old lady's hairdryers. We have stopped using most of the chemicals that destroy it, but the fact that we did make holes in it is still apparent. That might be why "the sun is more active". Having more heat hit the earth once could alter our summers slightly, but not heat up our oceans significantly and make most glaicers around the globe start to melt, along with big chunks of Antartica and Greenland.

I know that you mean it's a combination of both, but I believe most of it is from us, not the sun.

[CrimsomWolf]

It is constantly coming in.

Since dammn lot of heat enters our atmosphere, more stays due to greenhouse effect.

It doesn't take a lot of CO2 - the hole exchange is too slow for excess heat to leave - and even more will come in. So we have temp. increase and all North/South Poles, ice cream etc. melt.

Dun Dun Duunnn.

[Seority]

And they would escape if there wasn't so much CO2 in the atmosphere =)

[CrimsomWolf]

So ultimately, we're screwed either way.

Sun will continue to produce more heat we will cook anyway.

If CO2 really rises, we'll cook up even faster.


*Edit* Yes they would escape more faster, but there would still be rise in temp. - since heat would continue to come in. It might have not been as "big"as people say it is, but it'll still be here. It's like that on most planets or moons in our Solar System.

[Seority]

Remember when I stated that it's a joined effort?
Yes, the sun will blow up eventually in the next billion or so years, but if you cure one, it will help things.

[CrimsomWolf]

Yeah.

I wanted to make clear to some people (because I knew some at my school and elsewhere) that we are not solely responsible for climate change. W are part of it,but it's just one of many parts.

Anyway... oil will run out pretty soon, so at least one issue will be gone.

[TheOneHero]

Steve Irwin didn't die from the initial Stingray barb pierce. He died from pulling it out quickly and causing severe damage to internal organs. It was reported that he would have had a *chance* at survival had he not pulled the barb out ;o

Absolutely false. The stingray's barb went straight up into his heart, then retracted on it's own, and the creature swam away. It felt threatened because it was boxed in between Steve and another cameraman. It was a purely defensive act.

[Seority]

There's always vegitable oil.
So instead of carbon dioxide going into the air, it'll just be water~
But who the heck has the money to buy a hybred these days? Not like every car company is trying to make hybred cars or anything xD

[Ketchup345]

There's always vegitable oil.
So instead of carbon dioxide going into the air, it'll just be water~
But who the heck has the money to buy a hybred these days? Not like every car company is trying to make hybred cars or anything xDBy vegetable oil, I assume you mean biodiesel? Biodiesel still puts out some carbon dioxide (pure biodiesel puts out roughly 48% less though), as well as other pollutants (NOx, etc). Hydrogren fuel cells would be water vapor only (at the tip of the car's exhaust).

Pure electric and hydrogen fuel cell would be cleanest in terms of direct from the car. Yes water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but of course we have rain and snow to keep that in check. Electric cars need to have acceptable ranges and speeds, as well as size. Hydrogen is currently being tested (most popular one I can think of is the Honda FCX Clarity), but is limited by fueling stations (Honda is doing test leases in only 3 parts of California based on the availability of hydrogen stations there). Both of these methods though may pollute based on how they get their energy. Getting hydrogen to be in the proper form requires energy. Of course we need electricity to charge a car's battery.
Were this energy comes from may be a polluter. Of course this can be cut down by using cleaner energy methods (wind, hydro, tidal, solar) and nuclear (no carbon, but does have other wastes).


Source (http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:PPhSETv7kpcJ:www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/emissions.PDF+biodiesel+emissions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a) for first paragraph.

[Leviathan]

We lose chunks the size of Texas every year in the arctic.
Global warming is real.

[Nitro Vordex]

It's more like the Earth's cycle. If we had an Ice Age, why not an age of warming?

Also, I think 1 degree over a span of 100 years really isn't that big of a deal.

Does anybody else realize the other planets are heating up as well? Unless our CO2 production reaches all the way to Mars, I don't think we're the biggest problem.

And, volcanoes put out way more gases than we do in cities.

[Ketchup345]

It's more like the Earth's cycle. If we had an Ice Age, why not an age of warming?

Also, I think 1 degree over a span of 100 years really isn't that big of a deal.

Does anybody else realize the other planets are heating up as well? Unless our CO2 production reaches all the way to Mars, I don't think we're the biggest problem.

And, volcanoes put out way more gases than we do in cities.Stanford is saying that solar is only a minimal cause. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

NOAA is saying the IPCC came up with anywhere between 1.1-6.4 degrees Celsius by 2100.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q11

On volcanoes: City? Probably. But the total from all humans over 1 year is significantly larger than the total from volcanic activity. Roughly 117x the amount by my quick calculation. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php (Effects tab)

[Sharkyland]

I thought the movie made by Al Gore (whatever was called) seemed pretty accurate. Though I am still trying to remember what they did on MythBusters about Global Warming.

---

CO2 reaching up all the way to Mars? I really doubt it. It's an element with some atomic weight and it is pulled by gravity in such a way that it hardly escapes the earth's atmosphere.

[Sinue_v2]

Global Warming is real, but the climate is an extremely complex system which we still know very little about in the big picture. Most of these exaggerated doomsday predictions are based on computer models which have a rather limited scope both in programing and in knowledge compared to the actual interactions of the climate. There's no doubt that we're contributing, but to what level is still really not fully investigated. It's a good banner for change though, since we cannot continue on this path of reckless consumption without the infrastructure to support it.

That's part of why I whole heartedly support 5 - 8 dollar gas prices. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if we expect to push clean renewable energy solutions - we're going to need some major motivation. Saving money and imminent death are great selling points. I'm not trying to insinuate some underlying conspiracy behind all this - that's just the way things are turning out. An emergent property of our global markets and communications.

Although I would like to see some of those record high profits the oil companies are raking in going towards R&D on these new energy sources (some is, but not enough) or to other worthy causes - like helping Africa to become more self-sufficent and regulated in regards to resources and agriculture. Or god forbid, actually modifying our current societies infrastructure to accommodate the coming climate change.


Adaptability is the key to survival. All things change in a dynamic system, which our planet and climate are. We cannot preserve nature, only conserve it - manage it. You have to roll with the punches - because a rigid system will break down and make matters even worse in the long run. If we insist on trying to conform nature to our civilization, rather than conforming our civilization to nature, then it will only end with our ruin.

As for 2012... heh... well, to put it succinctly, it's a bunch of crap. I'd be much more worried about the Technological Singularity, which has a far greater likelihood of occurring and will force us to start answering some of the really big questions which have plagued philosophers for years. That is, unless you're like me and are looking forward to it if it ever does come. Either we will transcend our humanity by merging with our technology, or we will die in the childbirth of the next step of evolution.

Eh, but I ramble...

[Seority]

Thanks for clearing that up Ketchup. I wasn't so sure myself ^^;
I just knew that using normal gas was the worst compaired to biodiesel/electricty/hydrogen.