GEChallenger
lurking
carlosMM said:
not really-- alot of that is subjective, irrelevant, or unproven. I'm not convinced that global warming is a threat or even occuring. And no, I don't believe that a "bearded old guy" made the world in a week.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Norseone
- Start date
not really-- alot of that is subjective, irrelevant, or unproven. I'm not convinced that global warming is a threat or even occuring. And no, I don't believe that a "bearded old guy" made the world in a week.
that's simple false. nothing is subjective, nothing is irrelevant, nothing in unproven. We have excellent curves for the gasses and the temps!GEChallenger said:
I'm not convinced that global warming is a threat or even occuring. And no, I don't believe that a "bearded old guy" made the world in a week.
well, if you are a sane and intelligent person (and do not believe in fairy tales) then please go adn read up on global warming. If you want I can get a few recent papers etc (a repeat of a previous psot here will even do, if I can find it).
Pikachu said:
For one thing, if you heat the tropics up more and more (e.g. 3°), the usual 'off.flow' of energy will lead to near-pole regions goiung up, too (e.g. the tropics 'keep 1°' and the intermediate zones get 1° and the poles 'get 1°', to make it an easy example). Now this will lead to a reduction of the ice cover (remember, a 1° reduction in average year temp can be enough to induce permanent snow cover! cooler summer = ice, warmer summer = no ice! -15°C or -1°C makes no diff, but +2°C or +3°C in summer CAN make that difference!). When the snow cover goes down, albedo goes down, and the poaler regions get more direct sun heat, leading to more melting etc. Also, though this is not as solidly modeled as I wish it was, it looks like heat transfer in the ocean will up when the polar ice caps are reduced (maybe through loss of the circumarctic stream?), adding to the poblem of reducing the albedo further by keeping the sae water from freezing over and leading to rain instead of snow in the summer - further reducing the ice cover - again heating up the poles!
Essentially, the albedoe effect of frozen water gets us a steep gradient, take the poles out of the temp range where it can occur and you get a rather uniform temp distribution.
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
Seems to me a lot of the discussion about global warming misses the point:
It's not about:
- what exactly will happen where, which coastline will be submerged, etc.
- how much exactly of the temperature changes is due to human influence, how much due to natural cycles
What matters IMO:
It's clear (to anyone but ostriches who stick their heads in the sand):
- Temperatures are steeply on the rise
- This will change local conditions, in places probably drastically
- Human behavior has an influence on the rate of temperature rising
Any rapid change in local weather/temperature conditions is 'bad' from a human point of view, because humanity has adapted to the prevalent local conditions: agriculture, construction, housing....
Even if we don't know just exactly how much global warming will affect individual areas, it's clear that the total effect of any rapid change on humanity must be negative!
If we once accept that, and concede that emissions play a part in this process, it becomes obvious that it's in humanity's best interest to limit this influence as far as possible!
Those who deny global warming, on these forums or elsewhere, simply don't want to face up to their responsibility, because it's much simpler to simply deny everything and avoid having to change their lifestyle - secretly hoping that the negative impact on humanity will hold off until after their lifetime!
The sad thing is that great increases in the efficient use of energy are possible without decreasing your quality of living - countries like Germany and others are far ahead of America in these respects, but: America just doesn't want to make the effort! You just want to keep driving your fuel-inefficient monster cars and f**k the rest of the world!
And then you wonder why America is increasingly unpopular in the rest of the world....
It's not about:
- what exactly will happen where, which coastline will be submerged, etc.
- how much exactly of the temperature changes is due to human influence, how much due to natural cycles
What matters IMO:
It's clear (to anyone but ostriches who stick their heads in the sand):
- Temperatures are steeply on the rise
- This will change local conditions, in places probably drastically
- Human behavior has an influence on the rate of temperature rising
Any rapid change in local weather/temperature conditions is 'bad' from a human point of view, because humanity has adapted to the prevalent local conditions: agriculture, construction, housing....
Even if we don't know just exactly how much global warming will affect individual areas, it's clear that the total effect of any rapid change on humanity must be negative!
If we once accept that, and concede that emissions play a part in this process, it becomes obvious that it's in humanity's best interest to limit this influence as far as possible!
Those who deny global warming, on these forums or elsewhere, simply don't want to face up to their responsibility, because it's much simpler to simply deny everything and avoid having to change their lifestyle - secretly hoping that the negative impact on humanity will hold off until after their lifetime!
The sad thing is that great increases in the efficient use of energy are possible without decreasing your quality of living - countries like Germany and others are far ahead of America in these respects, but: America just doesn't want to make the effort! You just want to keep driving your fuel-inefficient monster cars and f**k the rest of the world!
And then you wonder why America is increasingly unpopular in the rest of the world....
- vielleicht kennen wir uns sogar 
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
carlosMM said:sadly we are not ahead by much
Still not as far as we should be, I agree - but far ahead of the US and most other countries...
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
An increase in temperture of a near few degrees while change the likely hood of hurricans from forming. I believe the tempature in which hurricans form is 22 degrees water tempature.
Thus a massive increase in hurricans / wild storms can be expected.
Thus a massive increase in hurricans / wild storms can be expected.
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
FriendlyFire said:
As we've seen the last few years already...
onedreamer
Dragon
Norseone said:
If ice caps melt, increased level of the seas will only be one of the many changes that will occur on Earth. All the world will be involved and I believe none can really tell for sure who will be striken the most and why.
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
Not really, the number of major storms has been pretty typical. Increased damage is due to increased human populations in affected zones, and increased numbers compared to the last decade is almost certainly due to the 'north Atlantic mode'. This is a coherent, multidecadal fluctuation of global sea-surface temperatures. Much like ENSO (the El Niño/La Niña cycle in the pacific), and we've been in a cool mode. It was in its warm phase between 1950 and 1970 (or so). During that period there were numbers of hurricanes equivalent to what we are seeing now.
It is possible that climate change will lead to increased hurricanes, but I haven't seen any good models of this. Current climate models cannot resolve the tropical storms that eventually lead to hurricanes. In addition hurricanes aren't only about warm surface temperatures, but also the generation of a coherent structure in multiple tropical storms, which seems to be related to rotating baratropic disturbances coming off Africa. They in turn are generated by the large temperature and moisture gradient between the Western Sahara and tropical African rain forests, along with a contribution from the Indian monsoon season.
Large scale ocean circulation is another unknown.
As you can see none of this is simple, and trying to figure out how any of this will respond to an increased infrared opacity in the troposphere (the greenhouse effect) is very tough. Things will change, but how they will change is currently an open question.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Allow me to refer you to this poll I posted a while back:storealex said:
Reasons CFC'ers stop posting in threads
You didn't defeat anybody, in the global warming thread or any other. It wasn't your allegedly superior arguments. Your opponents simply got bored or forgot about the thread or something.
Always remember this.
@Gothmog: me too!
GEChallenger
lurking
carlosMM said:
So if I examine the evidence for global warming, and come to the conclusion that much of it is biased, innaccurately reported, or whatever, I am insane and ignorant? Interesting. It often seems that people who have strong environmental or scientific beliefs are almost religious about them-- question the theory and be branded a dangerous, ignorant, insane "heretic".
I've read some about global warming. Not as much as I might, but I have other priorities. What I've seen is unconvincing.
Anyone interested (not just you, carlos) might try reading State of Fear, a new book by Michael Chrichton. I am well aware that it is a work of fiction, and the story is a bit weak, but it raises some interesting questions and makes many good points. It might open your mind a bit.
That said... if people don't follow up on arguments, it doesn't necessarily mean that they 'lost'. Many might not have the time. I probably won't post any more replies to this thread-- I'm very busy at the moment and don't have much time to surf the net.
nope, if your read the sual sources (especially in the regular news) then I completely understand that you doubt global warmings.GEChallenger said:
If, OTOH, you read the first-hand research papers and still doubt global warming then you ARE ignorant!
Each time I am in the US and heard/read about GW what I see is mostly stuff referring to studies in misquotes, misunderstandings, or oversimplyfing them. Often enough, the stuff is directly or indirectly paid for my compnies that deal in fossil fuels.
Go figure!
Over 1/3 of Americans believe WMD were found in iraq - this si the same phenomenon again.
Anyzthing I have read by MC on the fields I studied (and thus consoder myself to see through BS) has raised mostly concernes that people will believe this 'near-to-the-truth' stuff more than the truth. And it often happenes that they do - then blaming us experts when reality doesn't conform to the book.
An interseting programme (Horizon) on Uk TV this week suggested that global warming may be soon much worse than we have so far predicted. Much of its effects have been compensated by global dimming - up to 30% of the energy of the sun has been reflected back by atmospheric pollution over the last 40 years. As pollution is now getting reduced, the full effects of the greenhouse driven global warming are beginning to be felt.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Well, you were right, GE--somebody just did exactly that, and right AFTER you posted about it, no less!GEChallenger said:
Akka
Moody old mage.
Well, nothing to do with the fact that you HAVE to be ignorant to refuse the FACT that there is global warming and such thingsBasketCase said:
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Five hundred years ago it was known that cutting a hole in a person's skull would cure insanity.
It was fact that the Earth was the center of the universe. People who said otherwise were threatened with really painful forms of execution.
It was fact that the sound barrier couldn't be broken.
All of the above were considered facts--and all of them were wrong.
What we've got now is a temperature spike of one-half to one degree over the last century--in a time period when the planet was supposed to be doing that anyway. Earth has had a regular hot-cold cycle for half a million years, and we're in a hot period. For the last ten or twenty thousand years, the planet's average temperature has been fluctuating in a range of 3 or 4 degrees. If a spike in your data is within the range of normal fluctuations in this way, you can't verify the source.
But this was all covered in the other global warming thread (actually, I think there are three such threads going right now) and it went nowhere in the other thread either, so don't worry about it.
It was fact that the Earth was the center of the universe. People who said otherwise were threatened with really painful forms of execution.
It was fact that the sound barrier couldn't be broken.
All of the above were considered facts--and all of them were wrong.
What we've got now is a temperature spike of one-half to one degree over the last century--in a time period when the planet was supposed to be doing that anyway. Earth has had a regular hot-cold cycle for half a million years, and we're in a hot period. For the last ten or twenty thousand years, the planet's average temperature has been fluctuating in a range of 3 or 4 degrees. If a spike in your data is within the range of normal fluctuations in this way, you can't verify the source.
But this was all covered in the other global warming thread (actually, I think there are three such threads going right now) and it went nowhere in the other thread either, so don't worry about it.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Yeah, yeah, whatever, it's not like you aren't dead set into your illusions after all
I watched a program yesterday that basically, and convincingly, said Earth is already living on borrowed time 
Ash from our polution has caused Global Dimming. This reflects the sun's energy, cooling down our planet! There is data proving that the amount of light we are receiving has been continuously dropping since the 1950's.
If that energy had not been reflected, we would already be dead! The amount of greenhouse gasses (ignoring ash) is already too much.
Because Europe has been cleaning up it's polution, it has less ash. Less dimming. This caused the deadly heat waves of 2003!
There was other data to suggest we are basically screwed. We have left it too late. Global Dimming has slowed down our man-made disaster, but it cannot prevent it.
Corrected forcasts put the non-reversible point of damage at 2025.
There are already too many greenhouse gasses in our atmoshphere. Reducing production of CO2 is too little, too late... we need to do more.
Ironically, the effect that has slowed down our destruction and bought us time, also reduces the effectivess of solar power.
Ash from our polution has caused Global Dimming. This reflects the sun's energy, cooling down our planet! There is data proving that the amount of light we are receiving has been continuously dropping since the 1950's.
If that energy had not been reflected, we would already be dead! The amount of greenhouse gasses (ignoring ash) is already too much.
Because Europe has been cleaning up it's polution, it has less ash. Less dimming. This caused the deadly heat waves of 2003!
There was other data to suggest we are basically screwed. We have left it too late. Global Dimming has slowed down our man-made disaster, but it cannot prevent it.
Corrected forcasts put the non-reversible point of damage at 2025.
There are already too many greenhouse gasses in our atmoshphere. Reducing production of CO2 is too little, too late... we need to do more.
Ironically, the effect that has slowed down our destruction and bought us time, also reduces the effectivess of solar power.
