The horrible effects of global warming....

[UKResident]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

- 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]

In fact as we are part of the problem perhaps the solution would involve us not being here any more.

Well put. (..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™]

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]

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 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


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




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]

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

[vidcc]

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