The horrible effects of global warming.... [Archive]

3RA1N1AC

01-23-2005, 05:36 AM

i imagine that there's quite a lot which defies normal understanding of cause-and-effect. a hippocratic physician's normal understanding was that too much water caused a person to be phlegmatic, and a hopi shaman's normal understanding was that a rain dance caused rainfall. it's prolly a bit premature to think that we've got a firm handle on this cause-and-effect thing. i mean, what's thought of as the height of enlightenment (or even plain old common sense) in one era may well be regarded as mere superstition, later on. :P

SuperJude™

01-23-2005, 06:49 AM

1 Gallon of gas = 19.6 pounds of carbon. Where does that carbon go? We can't just friggin wish it away, and shipping lanes be damned, the Polar Ice Melt is just not good.

-SJ™

cpt_azad

01-23-2005, 07:23 AM

vidcc

01-23-2005, 07:38 AM

I don't care if global warming is fact or fiction...there is no excuse for the amount we polute.

Busyman

01-23-2005, 07:52 AM

@SJ

Well obviously we can't wish it away, but alas some people are just plain ignorant. They'll say things like "oh don't worry, won't happen for another 100 years". When the fact of the matter is that it's already happening.
There are those, very high in government, that believe the world won't be around but so long so they do for themselves. Also read up on Dominion Heresy.

mogadishu

01-23-2005, 08:32 AM

....are being visited upon our land this day.

Any normal understanding of the theory of 'cause-and-effect' is taking it's lumps.

The weather is absolutely gorgeous.

Check out the photo essay.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145107,00.html

I'm going out to tan, now.

:D

Ok guys, i guess we should forget all about global warming cus j2k4 found some cold weather...
Global warming will cause a general heating of the planet, but also wilder weather, more extremes, which in some cases means extreme cold. I don't know how global warming plays into this specific storm, but you would have to be pretty stupid to seriously think global warming is a sham because it snowed a lot in Utah. I know you are conservative, but to deny global warming is just silly. REAL conservatives would be worried about the environment just as much as they would about lower taxes. You sir, watch too much Fox News and have been brainwashed. I am willing to take your blind conservatism and big words to a certain point, but this is just madness.

manker

01-23-2005, 01:14 PM

Everose

01-23-2005, 02:30 PM

J2, don't you usually get these big snows? :D

j2k4

01-23-2005, 02:46 PM

Global warming has been happening for millenia. The cycle of warming and cooling has been happening for millions of years.

The Nile valley is now just a narrow strip of fertility intersecting the Sahara desert - whereas the surrounding area was once lush grasslands and jungle, it is now arid desert. I'm talking as little as 9000 years ago. In The UK we were buried under ice sheets right down to the Thames. It's now temperate here.

Ice Age, thaw, Ice Age, thaw, Ice Age, thaw. Think of it as a perpetual sine wave.

Sure, pollution is a bad thing - the general shittyness of the countryside and coastlines is awful, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves but stop blaming temperature fluctuations on Cadillacs, k.

My point, and well-stated.

In the '70s it was global cooling, and there was "NO WAY OUT!!!"

Now it's global warming, and, uh....."THERE'S NO WAY OUT!!!"

Not to bemoan the problem of pollution (in all it's manifestations); I am as concerned as any of you, whether you think so or not, but even the most knee-jerk environmentalist wouldn't proffer the notion that man at his most evil (think Saddam and his torch-party during Gulf War I) could make Mother Nature move any more quickly than she is inclined to.

As tragically proven by the recent events in Indonesia, She isn't obligated to sound us mortals out with regard to Her plan, is she?

UKResident

01-23-2005, 02:48 PM

Sure, pollution is a bad thing - the general shittyness of the countryside and coastlines is awful, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves but stop blaming temperature fluctuations on Cadillacs, k.

Just because warming and cooling have been going on for millennia does not mean our present pollution is not affecting things. Natural warming and cooling would happen at a set rate, whatever that is, we just don't know. What we are doing could well accelerate things with catastrophic effect.

We also don't know what causes the hole in the ozone layer and what effect that would have, we know fluorocarbons destroy ozone, and we know we have been releasing billions of tons of it. What we do know is that skin cancers have increased in countries lying beneath the hole.

One thing we cannot do is fail to take pollution seriously.

UKResident

01-23-2005, 02:54 PM

j2k4, you have made some pretty naive statements on here, this is one of your best.

Are you saying that turning forests into deserts doesn't affect the weather?

Are you saying a hole in the ozone layer twice the size of the US will have no long term consequence?

Are you saying the pollution caused since the start of the industrial revolution has had no effect?

Are you saying the increase in population, and the subsequent land clearing and city building has had no effect?

manker

01-23-2005, 03:26 PM

Just because warming and cooling have been going on for millennia does not mean our present pollution is not affecting things. Natural warming and cooling would happen at a set rate, whatever that is, we just don't know. What we are doing could well accelerate things with catastrophic effect.

We also don't know what causes the hole in the ozone layer and what effect that would have, we know fluorocarbons destroy ozone, and we know we have been releasing billions of tons of it. What we do know is that skin cancers have increased in countries lying beneath the hole.

One thing we cannot do is fail to take pollution seriously.
Quite.

I think I made it clear that pollution is an altogether bad thing, we should pollute as little as possible. My Cadillac comment was an allusion to the knee-jerk merchants who make claims akin to; 'high fuel consumption and cheap gas prices in the US will make us all melt.'

I simply don't know if our activities are the sole cause of the effect on the ozone layer, I'd guess not tho'.

As an avid proponant of evolutionary theory, you should be the first to doff your cap to nature's uncanny ability to adjust; we're burning fossil fuels and dumping chemicals in the sea, in the Cretaceous period a meteorite hit us and wiped out 90% of species while dumping billions upon billions of tons of pollutants all over the globe - yet she coped with that.

Lowering pollution and the avoidance of totally asset stripping our planet is an excellent ethos for one to adopt for a wide range of reasons, the possible effect of intensifying climactic change if we do not, is merely one of them.

j2k4

01-23-2005, 03:31 PM

j2k4, you have made some pretty naive statements on here, this is one of your best.

Are you saying that turning forests into deserts doesn't affect the weather?

NO, I DON'T THINK I'VE SAID THAT ANYWHERE IN THIS FORUM, EVER. PLEASE DO NOT PRESUME TO DEFINE THE INTENT OF MY POSTING, I AM QUITE CAPABLE OF DOING THAT, YOU SEE.

Are you saying a hole in the ozone layer twice the size of the US will have no long term consequence?

NO, I AM NOT.

I WILL STATE, HOWEVER, THAT IF YOUR ATTENTION SPAN ALLOWS, YOU WILL WITNESS A SHRINKAGE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED HOLE IN THE FUTURE.

THIS PHENOMENON IS AGE-OLD, AND YOU WOULD KNOW THAT IF YOU HAD PAID ATTENTION TO ANY OTHER THAN YOUR PREFERRED BRAND OF DEFECTIVE RHETORIC.

Are you saying the pollution caused since the start of the industrial revolution has had no effect?

AGAIN, NO I AM NOT.

I AM SAYING IT DOES NOT AND HAS NOT HAD THE CATASTROPHIC EFFECT ASSIGNED TO IT BY EXTREMISTS SUCH AS YOURSELF; EITHER OF THE VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS OF MT. PINATUBO (PHILLIPINES) OR MT. ST. HELENS (U.S.) PRODUCED MORE POLLUTION (RELATIVE TO YOUR "GLOBAL-WARMING") THAN THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL MAN'S ACTIVITIES GOING BACK TO HIS GENESIS.

Are you saying the increase in population, and the subsequent land clearing and city building has had no effect?

NO.

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF?

Apologies for the caps; something has gone amiss with my controls.

manker

01-23-2005, 03:41 PM

Apologies for the caps; something has gone amiss with my controls.:lol: :lol: - with, not at.

I quite agree re: the volcanic eruptions, I went for the more catastrophic meteorite impact to demonstrate the point but each serve as marvellous illustration tools.

One day there will be a collective 'Oh yeah!'. Soon, I hope ;)

UKResident

01-23-2005, 05:24 PM

In fact as we are part of the problem perhaps the solution would involve us not being here any more.
Well put. :w00t: (..at you not on you.)

Manker, the consequence of the meteorite you speak of was mass extinction. The consequence of rapid warming, or cooling, could have the same effect.

j2k4, l was referring to this remark ..

.. but even the most knee-jerk environmentalist wouldn't proffer the notion that man at his most evil (think Saddam and his torch-party during Gulf War I) could make Mother Nature move any more quickly than she is inclined to.
l was also replying to your well documented aversion to all things 'Liberal' ie. caring about things one sees as important.

And please don't shout, l may be on the other side of the Atlantic but l hear you perfectly, believe me.

SuperJude™

01-23-2005, 05:44 PM

The Earth will be fine, it is humanity I worry about. We can say as much as we want that there are natural fluctuations of weather patterns and I sure remember the "Big Chill" of the 70's but facts are facts. Since the advent of the industrial revolution we as a race have dumped untold amounts of carbon (amongst other things) into the atmosphere. That is fact. These gases also will add up to playing havoc with weather patterns.

The thing is we are not as a race going to give up0 the technology we have now. Even the most hardcore protesting greepeace member still probably needs to drive to the grocery store. So it is up to us to find other ways to deal with these issues, alternate energy sources and technology.

"Global warming" does not necessarilly mean it gets hotter, just that the likelyhood of changes is more manifest.

Or this tidbit: Greenhouse gasses heat the earths surface at a rate of 2 watts per square meter, worldwide, and only the oceans ability to regulate heat prevents it (at the moment) from getting worse . Of course one gravitational flux, one asteroid hitting, any sort of thing can happen to change climate, but the fact is we as humans are greatly altering something we don't know enough about. Like I said: the Earth will be fine, it's those of us living on it I worry about.

Just look at the amount of packaging that exists for everything and anything. Packaging alone saddens me. We must learn to live properly with our technology. I mean at the point when we have the most knowledge about the planet, suddenly there are more cars on the road than ever, and car tires themselves are a whole other evnironmental issue.

This is a subject that concerns me.

-SJ™

hobbes

01-23-2005, 06:15 PM

1 Gallon of gas = 19.6 pounds of carbon (dioxide). Where does that carbon go? We can't just friggin wish it away, and shipping lanes be damned, the Polar Ice Melt is just not good.

-SJ™
First off, everyone is quite correct that we should be concerned about pollution, it clearly will effect the quality of our atmosphere.

Manker makes a good point in giving people a little perspective as to the climate of the Earth "big picture". Compared to the natural fluctuations in the Earth's temperature, global warming is like worrying about a hill when you're already standing on a mountain. This does not mean he is not concerned about warming, no, he is just telling the Chicken Little's (http://www.geocities.com/mjloundy/) to stop squawking about things they don't really understand.

Manker also makes the point that the Earth tends to adjust to changes in the environment.

SuperJude, do you want to know what happens to the carbon dioxide we produce? We don't need to wish it away, plants use it as food and make oxygen. So all this carbon dioxide is great for plants, which make more oxygen for us. So the Earth may well adapt to increased levels of carbon dioxide by growing more plants.

Photosynthesis:

6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/leaf1.gif

I drew this picture for this thread, really I did. :wacko:

bonus material- this will not be on the test.

What would be interesting, as a bit of a rambling theory, is that if we were to abruptly switch from fossil fuels to an alternate source which does not produce CO2, it would be equivalent to famine for plants and they would die the worldover. This would then let us observe evolution as only those plants with the best ability to trap CO2 would survive in the new depleted environment.

UKResident

01-23-2005, 06:32 PM

What would be interesting, as a bit of a rambling theory, is that if we were to abruptly switch from fossil fuels to and alternate source which does not produce CO2, it would be equivalent to famine for plants and they would die the worldover. This would then let us observe evolution as only those plants with the best ability to trap CO2 would survive in the new depleted environment.
If that was the case, how did the Earth come to be covered in lush forests before we started polluting?

Forests are often called ‘the lungs of the world’ able to soak up carbon dioxide and produce the oxygen we need to live.
But now researchers at the Australian Canopy Crane Research Facility are finding worrying evidence that this forest has begun to do the unthinkable. It’s started to produce carbon dioxide.
Public Eyes (http://www.publiceyestv.org/global_warming_news_archive_1.htm)

vidcc

01-23-2005, 06:34 PM

Hobbes.

In factoring this theory did you take into account mans destruction of said "greenery" ?

I agree totally that the earth will adjust, I also feel that man has the ability to make changes faster than nature can adjust...as some have said...the earth will survive...perhaps man may not be so lucky ;)

hobbes

01-23-2005, 07:13 PM

If that was the case, how did the Earth come to be covered in lush forests before we started polluting?

Public Eyes (http://www.publiceyestv.org/global_warming_news_archive_1.htm)

According to the article, microbes were producing more Co2 than the trees were consuming. This was felt due to a drought which was stressing the trees ability to utilize photosynthesis.

You are questioning my theory because a local drought caused trees to stress? Local variations in climate are common, but they fail to reflect the big picture.

6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2
In this case, it is water, not CO2 that is the rate limiting factor in this equation.

Some of my stocks lost money last year, others made money, overall my portfolio shows a net increase.

Biggles

01-23-2005, 07:18 PM

Pollution of the environment is not good.

As Mogadishu said, it is surprising that more Consevatives are not concerned (as they own most of the environment :) ) Try chucking an empty beer can into a suburban garden and you will soon generate an interest in pollution.

I fear we are all NIMBYs by nature - it is human nature. Real concern over climate change (whether man made or natural) will concentrate minds when the back gardens are compromised.

j2k4

01-23-2005, 07:45 PM

j2k4, l was referring to this remark ..

l was also replying to your well documented aversion to all things 'Liberal' ie. caring about things one sees as important.

And please don't shout, l may be on the other side of the Atlantic but l hear you perfectly, believe me.

I apologize again for "shouting"; in order for me to interject point-by-point, I was reduced to caps, as other options are not currently working, for whatever reason.

I am at a loss as to why my remark about Saddam should have caused any discomfort; I cannot discern any significant or lingering ill-effect (other than monetary) owing to his pique.

As to this "well-documented aversion" you refer to:

Biggles as well seems to believe, as I am conservative, I am thereby precluded from holding or expressing any concerns with environmental matters.

I would urge you both to recall what the very word conservative means, and explain to me why it should not apply?

Do you libs claim a monopoly on environmental sentiment or something?

j2k4

01-23-2005, 07:57 PM

j2k4

01-23-2005, 07:59 PM

i like to live in a modern world with modern things and modern packaging. i also think polution = bad

Irony of ironies....

SO DO I!!!! :D

j2k4

01-23-2005, 08:17 PM

'tis a curse .... a curse i tells ya.

An' I been tole, then, huh?:)

vidcc

01-23-2005, 08:22 PM

http://www.nigelhumour.co.uk/j2k.jpg

So polution isn't the cause? :unsure: ;)

j2k4

01-23-2005, 08:26 PM

http://www.nigelhumour.co.uk/j2k.jpg

So polution isn't the cause? :unsure: ;)

...of something that arguably doesn't even exist?:huh:

That would be difficult to say.:D

vidcc

01-23-2005, 08:29 PM

Btw. shouldn't you be j2k5 now? or am i off the mark of the origins of the name?

Biggles

01-23-2005, 08:46 PM

j2k4

01-23-2005, 08:57 PM

J2

Infamy! Infamy! :)

I did not mean what you thought I meant, I think. :blink:

I was merely amused by the small irony of consevatives not conserving due to alternative priorites (i.e. profit)

Of course this cannot be translated across the board as conservatives are a broad church and the Highland Laird who lives in his castle with his land his life is going to have a different political outlook from someone dealing in oil shares on wall street.

I really should not post and try and make dinner at the same time.

:lol:

But infamy looks so good on you.

Back to basics, then:

You should try to cook dinner, not try "and", okay?

Success awaits!

(Sorry-don't get to do that, ever.:D )

Methinks also that some who are assholes are being gifted improperly with the sobriquet of "conservative"; make no mistake, they do exist.

vid:

You are off the mark, though, as it is your habit, I am loathe to relieve you of it. :P

Biggles

01-23-2005, 09:03 PM

your having a late dinner mate, it's quarter to nine for fecks sake

It is now, but is was 7.18 when I made the somewhat opaque postage.

Dinner was successfully accomplished and teh kinder and ex were most complementary. I have the chicken gravy down to a fine art these days.

j2k4

01-23-2005, 09:07 PM

Dinner was successfully accomplished and teh kinder and ex were most complementary. I have the chicken gravy down to a fine art these days.

That's excellent, then.

Gravy of any sort is a gambler's nightmare.

Biggles

01-23-2005, 09:30 PM

i am quite sure your chicken gravy is to die for. certainly for t'chicken.

As the old joke goes "the chicken was committed to it whereas I ..."

ilw

01-23-2005, 10:00 PM

I wrote a whole load of bollocks, but thought that a few pictures would speak louder than all those words.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/vostok.jpg
Just for reference on the CO2 one above we are currently at 380ppm ie the scale would have to be increased by 60% to plot our curent concentration.

http://www.planktos.com/images/CO2.gif

http://www.planktos.com/images/co2_conc_em.gif

http://www.planktos.com/images/globaltemp.gif

http://www.planktos.com/images/iceagetempcycles.gif

http://www.planktos.com/images/execsu1.gif

Biggles

01-23-2005, 10:13 PM

Lovely C02 temperature correlation.

Not sure what Manny would say about a 400,000 year old ice core though. :)

vidcc

01-23-2005, 10:17 PM

Not sure what Manny would say about a 400,000 year old ice core though. :)

God liked to give things an "antique" effect :unsure:

ilw

01-23-2005, 10:33 PM

Lovely C02 temperature correlation.

Not sure what Manny would say about a 400,000 year old ice core though. :)
lmao

and its true when i was looking into all those creationism/evangelism websites for the evolution topic, they all dismissed global warming (and indeed pretty much all pollution) as nonsense, which i suppose makes sense if the earth is only 6000 years old and god is always on hand to sort out any big mistakes :rolleyes:

bit disturbing though.

Biggles

01-23-2005, 10:43 PM

lmao

and its true when i was looking into all those creationism/evangelism websites for the evolution topic, they all dismissed global warming (and indeed pretty much all pollution) as nonsense, which i suppose makes sense if the earth is only 6000 years old and god is always on hand to sort out any big mistakes :rolleyes:

bit disturbing though.

Unfortunately, if you accept a young earth then such fluctuations cannot possibly be, therefore any science data associated with such predictions has to, by default, be flawed. Fortunately, there are not enough young earthers to make a difference to the climate.

I do not believe for one moment that the Whitehouse gives such stuff credence. Any stalling on moves to deal with emissions is purely economic with one eye towards changing policy if the fan looks messy.

UKResident

01-24-2005, 08:38 AM

BTW-

If the next Ice Age begins next year, how are you going to blame it on Conservatives or American big business, having invested all of your political capitol and credibility in the global warming scenario?

Would it not be preferrable to keep your options open; i.e., honestly expressing your true belief that, no matter what ills befall the big blue marble, it is the fault of Conservative big-business America, or any variation thereof?

j2k4, as incredible as it may seem, global warming could well bring on another ice age. You can GOOGLE (http://www.google.com.au/search?ie=UTF-8&q=global+warming+lead+to+ice+age) lots of articles about this. The Ice Age temperature chart posted by ilw shows how ice ages follow periods of high temperature, suggesting they are brought about by said temperatures.

Terrence Joyce, senior scientist at the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, recently developed a theory that links this gaseous heating of the planet to the onset of a possible ice age.

His article in the New York Times, titled "The Heat Before the Cold," warns: "paradoxically, global warming could actually bring colder temperatures to some highly populated areas like Eastern North America and Western Europe."

Joyce said there has been a gradual buildup of fresh water in the North Atlantic, caused by the melting Arctic ice, which is lowering the salt content of the ocean. This, in turn, threatens to slow or turn the ocean current of warm water that flows from the tropics northward along the East Coast of the United States before turning toward Europe.

Hobbes: That particular article was indeed based on local conditions, however, it has global consequences. If stress, in the form of drought, or anything else, can cause forests to emit CO2, changing weather patterns, such as El Ninos, could have catastrophic effects in unexpected ways.

Barbarossa

01-24-2005, 10:06 AM

SuperJude, do you want to know what happens to the carbon dioxide we produce? We don't need to wish it away, plants use it as food and make oxygen. So all this carbon dioxide is great for plants, which make more oxygen for us. So the Earth may well adapt to increased levels of carbon dioxide by growing more plants.

This is all good in principle, but where???? We are destroying all the green areas and building car-parks and hypermarkets instead, which are not known for their oxygen-creating abilities...

On a more serious note, I found this report last week rather worrysome..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4171591.stm

It seems to imply that the particulate pollution in the atmosphere is masking the true effect of global warming caused by excess greenhouse gases. It also seems to imply that since we are reducing particulate pollutants quicker than greenhouse gas pollution, this will reduce the dimming effect, and global warming will accelerate.

Eek! :helpsmili

manker

01-24-2005, 02:17 PM

j2k4, as incredible as it may seem, global warming could well bring on another ice age. You can GOOGLE lots of articles about this. The Ice Age temperature chart posted by ilw shows how ice ages follow periods of high temperature, suggesting they are brought about by said temperatures.No no no no. The high/low temperatures are caused by global phenomena, not the other way around.

It's not a theory I buy into, totally, but if we were to take ilw's graphs as the literal cause of ice ages then releasing more CO2 would seem to help guard against an ice age. Do you see that.

I refer the honorable gentleman to the sine wave analogy I made earlier - ilw's graph, to which you refer, confirms it. Glad you've got your head around it, maybe I should have posted a picture too - but then a sine wave is easily googleable, if you didn't already know what it looked like.

Ilw's graphs are intended to make the point of increased levels of CO2 in the 20th century and how these levels correlate to higher temperature, the graph going back 400,000 years is for context. Shame you missed that as it is pertinent because we can influence our CO2 emissions. The warming and cooling trait that's been proven as happening for hundreds of thousands of years is not down to us.

Google is not a substitute for your own ideas.

Snee

01-24-2005, 02:28 PM

No no no no. The high/low temperatures are caused by global phenomena, not the other way around.

It's not a theory I buy into, totally, but if we were to take ilw's graphs as the literal cause of ice ages then releasing more CO2 would seem to help guard against an ice age. Do you see that.

That only works to a certain point.

If it raises temperatures enough, arctic and antarctic glaciers will start to melt, releasing cold water into, say, the gulf stream. If that happens it'll stop it flowing, and since our currently "mild" climes are dependent on certain streams to shift temperatures our average temperatures will drop, if the temps go high enough first.

At least that's the theory.

But it can also be argued that co2 levels have been this high many times without it resulting in an ice-age, volcanic eruptions and massive forest fires and many other natural events has raised our carbondioxide to high levels in prehistoric times without it always resulting in an ice-age, possibly.

EDit: it's not that I want to agree with billy, or that pop science he's posted, but even credible scientists have been known to follow the theory.

UKResident

01-24-2005, 02:31 PM

Well Manker, when PROPER scientists come up with theories that contradict what you're saying l'm inclined to believe them,. What kind of scientist are you, a bank clerk was it? Something with a pen anyway.

Temperatures over time go UP then DOWN then UP then Down. Do you get it now?

Whoever told you that sarasm wins arguments was having you on. :rolleyes:

Snee

01-24-2005, 03:07 PM

Sarcasm is a bit like spelling, really, either you have it, or you don't.

If we have to get personal about it. *sigh*

And like I said, it's possible that temperatures at this level won't be dangerous.
At any rate I'm not sure we should worry as much about this, as we should worry about nuclear winter, what with all the hostile ppl in this world.

Cheese

01-24-2005, 03:09 PM

I'm mostly worried about dinosaurs thawing out and wreaking havoc upon the world.

Apart from that I think the Earth will still be here doing its thing long after we're gone, be nice if certain nations could help reduce pollution but meh...Mother Nature will sort it all out.

manker

01-24-2005, 03:27 PM

That only works to a certain point.

If it raises temperatures enough, arctic and antarctic glaciers will start to melt, releasing cold water into, say, the gulf stream. If that happens it'll stop it flowing, and since our currently "mild" climes are dependent on certain streams to shift temperatures our average temperatures will drop, if the temps go high enough first.

At least that's the theory.

But it can also be argued that co2 levels have been this high many times without it resulting in an ice-age, volcanic eruptions and massive forest fires and many other natural events has raised our carbondioxide to high levels in prehistoric times without it always resulting in an ice-age, possibly.I was following ilw's diagrams so yeah, I understand what you're saying and agree with what you've written; that the temperatures rise, caused by a global phenomena (Co2 levels rising) and then the temperatures fall because of a global phenomena (ice melting) -- Both are global phenomena which have an effect on temperature.

The global phenomena is always the cause and the temperature fluctuation is always the effect, not the other way around. Which is what the UKResident got arse backwards. It's a bit like the chicken and the egg except that we know what came first - the phenomena.

I did mention that I don't fully subscribe to it as I believe that Co2 levels aren't soley responsible for the warming.

As to UKR's considered comeback; but for this simple comment, it's ignored as it contributes nothing.

^not sarcasm.

Snee

01-24-2005, 03:48 PM

The global phenomena is always the cause and the temperature fluctuation is always the effect, not the other way around. Which is what the UKResident got arse backwards. It's a bit like the chicken and the egg except that we know what came first - the phenomena.

The one global mathingie causes the rise in temperature that causes the other globogizmo which causes the drop in temp.

The first change in temperature is thus both an effect, and a cause of a globular phenomena then, I thought. :blink:

Am I going mad at all? :blink:

I'm undecided as to whether an additional catalyst would be required, but it's certainly plausible.

manker

01-24-2005, 04:10 PM

The first change in temperature is thus both an effect, and a cause of a globular phenomena then, I thought. Actually yeah, that's where I fall down a bit. I am willing to conceed there :D

My intention there was to point out that temperatures can never just change without being provoked by something happening whereas phenomena can occur without being provoked by temperature.

However, my initial point was to contend that the graphs were not saying that we're going to have an ice age, merely that the temperature is going to rise if the Co2 rises. I think it would be fair to say that if the graphs are to be taken to their literal meaning, the troughs of the sine wave would not be so low in future if we kept pumping the atmosphere full of Co2.

The Co2 would be warming the earth while the melting ice flows are cooling the earth. While one could argue that it would still cool down, it's logical to say that it wouldn't cool down to the extent it had in the past.

Hence no ice age.

^That's basically what I was trying to get at, however badly I did it.

Edit: Bah! That's not to say I think this would happen, just following through logically from the graphs as if I believed in them 100%.

Personally I think that there are other factors to consider and that an ice age is inevitable at some point in the future because the effects we're having on the climate are not enough to throw nature out of kilter.

Barbarossa

01-24-2005, 05:11 PM

Climate change is much too complicated and misunderstood for us to make any sense of it in with our limited awareness of time.

The facts of the matter are:

The Earth has been warmer in the past than it is now.
The Earth has been cooler in the past that it is now.
The Earth is currently getting warmer.
Mankind has generated alot of air and sea pollution in the last two centuries.
Mankind has destroyed alot of plant life in the last thousand years.

It's clear, that Mankind is having a detrimental effect on the enviroment, which has probably accelerated the warming of the Earth.

The bottom line is, nobody really knows what will happen next. Either this bistable equilibrium will be maintained (cooler warmer cooler warmer etc..), maybe slightly more erratically (hotter than before perhaps.. or windier..?) or we'll get a runaway greenhouse effect.. Helloooo, Venus! Nobody knows. All we can do is speculate...

...and hope it's not too late!

Oh, and try to reduce the impact we are making on the environment. Just in case, like, you know?

Oh, and be nice to animals. (Well, we just should be!)

:ermm:

Snee

01-24-2005, 06:04 PM

Oh, and try to reduce the impact we are making on the environment. Just in case, like, you know?

Oh, and be nice to animals. (Well, we just should be!)

:ermm:

Go hug a tree, already.

vidcc

01-24-2005, 08:34 PM

Go hug a tree, already.
That can be dangerous if there is a squirrel collecting nuts. :blink:

If one believes in the global warming theory or not one still can't deny that polution is not a good thing.

Snee

01-24-2005, 09:53 PM

I dunno', I always thought pol was a nice bloke.

Pollution is bad tho'.

j2k4

01-24-2005, 11:06 PM

j2k4, as incredible as it may seem, global warming could well bring on another ice age.

UKResident:

As incredible as it may seem, I am well aware of this odd fact and phenomenon (I am actually reasonably well-versed on the subject), but chose to employ the terribly convenient irony provided thereby to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re.....re-re-re-re-re-re-re-raise the issue, which has been thrashed within an inch of it's life untold times hereabout.

Perhaps you missed this, somehow? :huh:

hobbes

01-24-2005, 11:33 PM

Hobbes: That particular article was indeed based on local conditions, however, it has global consequences. If stress, in the form of drought, or anything else, can cause forests to emit CO2, changing weather patterns, such as El Ninos, could have catastrophic effects in unexpected ways.

When I proposed that plants might pick up the extra CO2 and thus grow more vigorously, you posted an article that a particular forest was emitting CO2, suggesting, I thought, that with excess CO2, the plants were not stepping up their usage.

Upon reading the article I noticed that it was lack of water, not excessive CO2 that was the problem, so my premise might still stand that in the presence of adequate water and sunlight, plants might grow more vigorously than before.

We all know that local weather patterns vary, and there are times of starvation and bounty for plants and animals alike.

Since I see no reason for global warming to cause drought, I'm not sure what point you were making.

I agree that anytime one changes the components of an environment it adjusts to a new equilibrium, with sometimes drastic changes.

I just felt compelled to make my statement because it seemed to me that the original poster was mouthing words he did not fully understand.

Snee

01-24-2005, 11:48 PM

UKResident:

As incredible as it may seem, I am well aware of this odd fact and phenomenon (I am actually reasonably well-versed on the subject), but chose to employ the terribly convenient irony provided thereby to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re.....re-re-re-re-re-re-re-raise the issue, which has been thrashed within an inch of it's life untold times hereabout.

Perhaps you missed this, somehow? :huh:
Busy at the club, no doubt.

j2k4

01-25-2005, 12:43 AM

Busy at the club, no doubt.

No doubt.

UKResident

01-25-2005, 08:37 AM

Barbarossa

01-25-2005, 09:25 AM

Go hug a tree, already.

Can't fucking find one... :angry: :rolleyes:

hobbes

01-25-2005, 02:43 PM

l see, you were just trolling, well that's OK then, after all, you are a Conservative.

Perhaps a 'Trolling' smiley would make your intentions clearer, l shall search for one for you. Here you go -> http://www.rpfuller.com/odp/smileys351/19feb/troll2.gif

Explain? I am assuming that this post is not directed at me since I am NOT a conservative and any claim that I was trolling is patently specious.

My initial post clearly indicted that pollution was a problem.

I went on to say that people not fully vested in the subject were running around like "chiken little's" screaming that the sky was falling.

Where is the CO2 going? To plants. We don't have to wish it away. CO2 is a critical element in the cycle of plant/animal symbiosis. I felt his comments were a bit hysterical.

I was making a point.

UKResident

01-25-2005, 02:48 PM

No lover boy, it was not aimed at you, it was aimed at our resident Conservative.

Patently specious? In future, please use your own turn of phrase.

j2k4

01-25-2005, 09:29 PM

Biggles

01-25-2005, 09:35 PM

I do not troll; there is no need, you see?

It is enough that I am a passionate conservative to make your blood pressure rise.:D

Surely not. :whistling

sArA

01-25-2005, 09:49 PM

I have always felt even though I am not conservative in either my politics or my outlook...that j2k4's posts always verge on the cuddly side of extreme right-wingism....

But then we go back a long way :)

manker

01-25-2005, 10:01 PM

Extreme right-wingism has a cuddly side :blink:

Hang on ... .

J2's posts verge on cuddly :blink:

What's going on :bawa:

j2k4

01-26-2005, 12:40 AM

I am cuddly, and I thank my wonderful friend Sara for noting this (We were once stranded together in an elevator on the way to a forum party; she knows whereof she speaks).

I will state for the record that, were all conservatives struck from the same mold as I, we would be sought out and worshipped by everyone, with the possible exception of the French.:huh:

I am a sterling individual, and this is enhanced immeasurably by my "cuddly quotient".:)

bigboab

01-27-2005, 08:13 PM