global warming

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

yes i know this topic doesnt belong here but the misc section is dominated by idiots so i need some smart minds

first, im assuming you all know what global warming is so ill jump right into the details

critics argue that global warming is a phenomenon which is natural and not directly attributable to human actions

they say that global warming has nothing to do with the increase of carbon dioxide levels within the atmospher seen over the past couple hundred years

well i propose a simple experiment, take a box full of regular air, shine a laser thru it and have a light meter at the other end to see how much light gets transmitted, now start pumping in carbon dioxide and measure any changes, obviously there are other factors at work like albedo and concentration of the gas at the upper atmosphere, the sun's output bla bla bla, but this would either prove or disprove the whole greenhouse gas theory bla bla bla

secondly, regardless of whether or not global warming is "our" fault, should we continue to let it happen, global warming brings undeniable consequences which are "bad" for wildlife, and humans alike, so even if this is a "natural" process, shouldn't we try to control it somehow ??
albeit if co2 emissions have nothing to do with global warming, we'd have a much harder time of controlling this process since we'd have to do something outrageous like change the entire planet's albedo or errect some type of huge disc mirror thingy in space at the lagrange between the earth and sun ...

im really tired right now since im writing a geography exam tommorow which i hvnt gone to class for in the past 8 months ...

[twinspark]

critics argue that global warming is a phenomenon which is natural and not directly attributable to human actions


they say that global warming has nothing to do with the increase of carbon dioxide levels within the atmospher seen over the past couple hundred years

well i propose a simple experiment, take a box full of regular air, shine a laser thru it and have a light meter at the other end to see how much light gets transmitted, now start pumping in carbon dioxide and measure any changes, obviously there are other factors at work like albedo and concentration of the gas at the upper atmosphere, the sun's output bla bla bla, but this would either prove or disprove the whole greenhouse gas theory bla bla bla

As far as I've understood it has been proved that increased CO2 levels have an effect to the temperature. But temperature changes are also natural, there's been huge differences in earth temperature before human has effected it in any way (all the ice ages and the warm eras between them etc.).

secondly, regardless of whether or not global warming is "our" fault, should we continue to let it happen, global warming brings undeniable consequences which are "bad" for wildlife, and humans alike, so even if this is a "natural" process, shouldn't we try to control it somehow ??
albeit if co2 emissions have nothing to do with global warming, we'd have a much harder time of controlling this process since we'd have to do something outrageous like change the entire planet's albedo or errect some type of huge disc mirror thingy in space at the lagrange between the earth and sun ...

Probably global warming could be decreased a certain amount by human actions, not likely to happen anywhere near future though. But not only the temperature has changed a lot in past, also the CO2 levels have been higher than they are today.

The latter propositions for a solution sound a bit far fetched, might fit in a science novel but not in reality IMO.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I think it's VERY hard to stop something when it's a Natural event, as the critics have put it.

Being environmentally friendly is extremely in vogue at the moment, but the trade off to our modern world (where you get your sneakers from China, you're T-Shirt from India and your computer from Taiwan) is that in order to move stuff, you've got to expel energy.

I am All for alternative energy sources so long as they prove themselves viable and workable alternatives, not just 'well they're severely compromised....but at least you're not harming mother nature!'.

The test you devise is a little difficult to understand - you plan on pumping Co2 into a box to check the way it affects light being passed through it from a laser? how would that prove/disprove global warming exists?

It's going to affect it much like Smog affects sunlight. by changing it's colour.

I think, while it's admirable to be environmentally friendly, I'm not entirely convinced that driving motorcars and flying planes is the sole cause. Industry is heavily responsible, but because people are willing to pay for freedom, they pick on the Motorist and the Traveller with more-expensive resources.

Interestingly enough global warming actually brings about global cooling. Go figure.

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

I think it's VERY hard to stop something when it's a Natural event, as the critics have put it.

Being environmentally friendly is extremely in vogue at the moment, but the trade off to our modern world (where you get your sneakers from China, you're T-Shirt from India and your computer from Taiwan) is that in order to move stuff, you've got to expel energy.

I am All for alternative energy sources so long as they prove themselves viable and workable alternatives, not just 'well they're severely compromised....but at least you're not harming mother nature!'.

The test you devise is a little difficult to understand - you plan on pumping Co2 into a box to check the way it affects light being passed through it from a laser? how would that prove/disprove global warming exists?

It's going to affect it much like Smog affects sunlight. by changing it's colour.

I think, while it's admirable to be environmentally friendly, I'm not entirely convinced that driving motorcars and flying planes is the sole cause. Industry is heavily responsible, but because people are willing to pay for freedom, they pick on the Motorist and the Traveller with more-expensive resources.

Interestingly enough global warming actually brings about global cooling. Go figure.

the light test thing would check how much more energy is absorbed by the atmosphere with high co2 concentrations

[Matra et Alpine]

also the CO2 levels have been higher than they are today.

Yes, but back then teh planet was able to then grow the vegtation at a prolific rate which tehn used the CO2 to re-oxygenate the planet.
We have removed 90% of that vegetation and serious levesls of pollution limiting the phyloplankton (sp?) too
These are the usual things the "it was like this before" brigade tend to forget or unable to comprehend Same as "why is it colder at X when it's suppsed to be global warming?" kind of questions
Mankind has altered the Earth's natural processes SO much through deforestation, construction, emission and pollution that we can't rely on it to sort itself out.

A "solution" to our CO2 that is actively researched is to try to chmically capture and store it underground and away from the atmosphere. I prefer prevention rather than cures tho;' so reducing ouptut ( ie Kyoto or similar ) would have been preferred

[mj9977]

Global warming is perhaps an out-dated term. Global climate change is more accurate as indeed some areas are experiencing increased temperatures, whereas others are experiencing marked decreases in temperature. What is happening is more of a push to the extremes, with record high temperatures in the summers and record lows in the winters.

Originally Posted by twinspark
As far as I've understood it has been proved that increased CO2 levels have an effect to the temperature. But temperature changes are also natural, there's been huge differences in earth temperature before human has effected it in any way (all the ice ages and the warm eras between them etc.).

CO2 levels do increase temperature because they can trap ultraviolet radiation in our atmosphere that would otherwise escape, causing temperature to rise. And while the earth's climate has varied throughout its history, it is the current rate at which it is changing that has scientists concerned. As for a solution, it must be a global effort. The industrialized nations can't reduce emmissions while third world countries continue to operate without environmental standards. That will not help anyone. IMHO, our petrol supply is going to run out long before we have to worry about the effects of climate change.

[Matra et Alpine]

Global warming is perhaps an out-dated term.

Well as it reflects the average increase in sea temperature then it's still valid.
Just that many then think that should result in a wamer day in their town and thus can't be real as it was codler today than yesterday ---- down to lack of education and decent explanations on media

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

Yes, but back then teh planet was able to then grow the vegtation at a prolific rate which tehn used the CO2 to re-oxygenate the planet.
We have removed 90% of that vegetation and serious levesls of pollution limiting the phyloplankton (sp?) too
These are the usual things the "it was like this before" brigade tend to forget or unable to comprehend Same as "why is it colder at X when it's suppsed to be global warming?" kind of questions
Mankind has altered the Earth's natural processes SO much through deforestation, construction, emission and pollution that we can't rely on it to sort itself out.

A "solution" to our CO2 that is actively researched is to try to chmically capture and store it underground and away from the atmosphere. I prefer prevention rather than cures tho;' so reducing ouptut ( ie Kyoto or similar ) would have been preferred

not so sure about the validity of this claim but in my textbook it says even if kyoto protocol was ratified in every single country in the world today it would only slow temperature increases modestly at best, from 2.1 degree increase in 100 years to 19.6 degrees in 100 years

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

that may be a bit too optimistic mj, sea level increases have been projected from anywhere between 0.5 to 3m increase within the next hundred years, even at the conservative end this would mean the anhilation of several island states and the destruction, flooding (both are interrelated really) of hundreds of coastal cities along the world, the island economies of taiwan, hong kong, new york, etc would be in serious danger

[Matra et Alpine]

not so sure about the validity of this claim but in my textbook it says even if kyoto protocol was ratified in every single country in the world today it would only slow temperature increases modestly at best, from 2.1 degree increase in 100 years to 19.6 degrees in 100 years

True when you take a snapshot of Kytoto that's tru.e
BUT one step at a time is the only way to compete a journy.
NOBODY said Kyoto was the ANSWER, btu it was propsed and agreed to be a reasoanble step to take to reasonably protect economies, nations, resources and the planet.
Sadly some put their #1 ahead of the others
There are LOTS of debate about how much Kyoto changes could actually make. Usually split into camps of the "the planet will be fine" and "the planets doomed" extremes with occasioanal tents in between
Anti-Kyoto is more about protecting national interests
It will help is all that is proposed on Kyoto.
It's the ill-thought out negativity that has the media flooded with the Kyoto as "not an answer" comments D

[kingofthering]

screw global warming, it will never end unless we bury all the vintage cars/cars built before 2000 and kill all the humans.

[Matra et Alpine]

screw global warming, it will never end unless we bury all the vintage cars/cars built before 2000 and kill all the humans.

NUMBERS.
There are 100,000s cars out there for every vintage car and doing about 100 times the mileage. The nubmers dont' stack up.
Who every said it was "vintage" ?
Since 2000, there's not really been any major shift ( maybe another 10% improvement ) Course this depends on where as some places are still out-selling unecessary gas-guxxlers for "tranpsort"

Check out emissions from power plants, excess consumption in heating and cooling buildings and hundreds of othe contributors. Cars is jsut one of many, but a relatively easy one to extend the "best in class" in efficiency and emissions.

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

kill all humans ?? ...
hmm, i doubt the planet's gonna be doomed, humans may be doomed but the planet has taken worse shit in the past, itll live thru this one

im so confused on the issue tho, i know steps like kyoto will reduce impact on the globe and benefit in the long run which will be essential for the survival of my descendants ... but i dont feel like giving up my current consumption either ...

when it comes down to it, reduction of emissions and plan to restore the globe back to its previous configuration is the best, no, only logical choice and one which ensures the survival of the human race

how we still manage to put our short term wants and need above this is beyond me ... really makes ya think, we're suppose to be the most civilized species on the planet yet we're willing to endanger everything else on the globe including ourselves to satisfy these material wants...

[kingofthering]

we will never stop global warming.

[Matra et Alpine]

we will never stop global warming.

Has anyone suggested that the natural cycles of the planet can be "stopped" ? NO.

But are you saying that nothing should be done to mitigate the damage the industrial revolution and beyond has done to alter the natural cycles ?