Arctic Temperatures reach 22 Degrees Celsius

[DrumIntoTheNight]

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3021309.ece
Source: The Independent


Parts of the Arctic have experienced an unprecedented heatwave this summer, with one research station in the Canadian High Arctic recording temperatures above 20C, about 15C higher than the long-term average. The high temperatures were accompanied by a dramatic melting of Arctic sea ice in September to the lowest levels ever recorded, a further indication of how sensitive this region of the world is to global warming. Scientists from Queen's University in Ontario watched with amazement as their thermometers touched 22C during their July field expedition at the High Arctic camp on Melville Island, usually one of the coldest places in North America.

"This was exceptional for a place where the normal average temperatures are about 5C. This year we frequently recorded daytime temperatures of between 10C and 15C and on some days it went as high as 22C," said Scott Lamoureux, a professor of geography at Queen's.

"Even temperatures of 15C are higher than we'd expect and yet we recorded them for between 10 and 12 days during July. We won't know the August and September recordings until next year when we go back there but it appears the region has continued to be warm through the summer."

The high temperatures on the island caused catastrophic mudslides as the permafrost on hillsides melted, Professor Lamoureux said. "The landscape was being torn to pieces, literally before our eyes."

Other parts of the Arctic also experienced higher-than-normal temperatures, which indicate that the wider polar region may have experienced its hottest summer on record, according to Walt Meir of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

"It's been warm, with temperatures about 3C or 4C above normal for June, July and August, particularly to the north of Siberia where the temperatures have reached between 4C and 5C above average," Dr Meir said.

Unusually clear skies over the Arctic this summer have caused temperatures to rise. More sunlight has exacerbated the loss of sea ice, which fell to a record low of 4.28 million square kilometres (1.65 million square miles), some 39 per cent below the long-term average for the period 1979 to 2000. Dr Meir said: "While the decline of the ice started out fairly slowly in spring and early summer, it accelerated rapidly in July. By mid-August, we had already shattered all previous records for ice extent."

An international team of scientists on board the Polar Stern, a research ship operated by the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, also felt the effects of an exceptionally warm Arctic summer. The scientists had anticipated that large areas of the Arctic would be covered by ice with a thickness of about two metres, but found that it had thinned to just one metre.

Instead of breaking through thicker ice at an expected speed of between 1 and 2 knots, the Polar Stern managed to cruise at 6 knots through thin ice and sometimes open water.

"We are in the midst of a phase of dramatic change in the Arctic," said Ursula Schauer, the chief scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute, who was on board the Polar Stern expedition. "The ice cover of the North Polar Sea is dwindling, the ocean and the atmosphere are becoming steadily warmer, the ocean currents are changing," she said.

One scientist came back from the North Pole and reported that it was raining there, said David Carlson, the director of International Polar Year, the effort to highlight the climate issues of the Arctic and Antarctic. "It makes you wonder whether anyone has ever reported rain at the North Pole before."

Another team of scientists monitoring the movements of Ayles Ice Island off northern Canada reported that it had broken in two far earlier than expected, a further indication of warmer temperatures. And this summer, for the first time, an American sailing boat managed to traverse the North-west Passage from Nova Scotia to Alaska, a voyage usually made by icebreakers. Never before has a sail-powered vessel managed to get straight through the usually ice-blocked sea passage.

Inhabitants of the region are also noticing a significant change as a result of warmer summers, according to Shari Gearheard, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre. "People who live in the region are noticing changes in sea ice. The earlier break-up and later freeze-up affect when and where people can go hunting, as well as safety for travel," she said.

Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said: "We may see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes. The implications... are disturbing."



Considering that these figures don't include August and September temperatures, this is really quite frightening.

[recklessrick]

Canadians for global warming.Swimming in Hudson Bay I can't wait.

[ringworm]

its weird, some data suggests that global warming will ultimately cause a drop in temps and could bring an early small ice age, this is of course years after the warming and melting of the polar caps

naked science had a show that predicted a small ice age is impending, and that global warming is actually keeping it from happening, but could not stop it

either way, we have got to change our destructive habits

[Oriah]

I think it may be beyond our control now, all we can do is maybe slow the process down.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

If we're even to blame. It's probably too late to do anything if we are, and if we're not, why bother. Long as everything doesn't go to absolute shi't in my lifetime.

[Kage]

It's all part of a cycle.

[Spiritofmosa]

all we can do now is build a big dome over the ozone layer

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I do hate global warming so. I like dark and cold. Bring on an ice age/eternal night.

[dei]

If we're even to blame. It's probably too late to do anything if we are, and if we're not, why bother. Long as everything doesn't go to absolute shi't in my lifetime.

What a horrible way to think.

[Jharaski]

That can't be good. Are we going to have to go so far north/south in winters and experience 4 hour days just to have comfortable temperatures? 22 C is insane for the arctic.

[BigBadBooDooDady]

It's all part of a cycle.

+1

I'm not buying that my SUV is causing this.

[GreyHam]

the evidence is all there

yes the earth has cyclic hot/cool periods. but there is no denying that since the industrial revolution CO2 emissions and other pollutents are damaging the ozone layer andcontributing to warming. to say that our pollution has no effect at all is just ignorant (and convenient...)

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Just to clarify;

The ozone has **** all to do with Climate Change.

Secondly, it's not a cycle. The planet is a metastable system, with periodic highs and lows. However, anthropogenic forcing can push the system into a new state, from which the planet can't return. Once you look at the long term data, it's pretty bloody obvious we've pushed the earth past this limit.

[Kage]

It's all part of a cycle.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Kage, you're so wrong. Got any expertise in Climatology?

Didn't think so.

I'm glad you seem to know better than all the major scientific institutions in the world. I bet they'll feel silly when you tell them it's just a cycle.

[Kage]

I'll march in there and set things straight.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Haha, rightoh.

[griftadan]

Just to clarify;

The ozone has **** all to do with Climate Change.

Secondly, it's not a cycle. The planet is a metastable system, with periodic highs and lows. However, anthropogenic forcing can push the system into a new state, from which the planet can't return. Once you look at the long term data, it's pretty bloody obvious we've pushed the earth past this limit.

what "limit"?

[DrumIntoTheNight]

The point at which the planet's natural defenses can't return it to it's natural state.

If you take a look at the CO2 concentrations over the last half a million years and further, the atmospheric concentration has never exceeded 310 ppm. It's currently around 390.

[RunAmokRampant]

People who refuse to accept that humans have played a part in global warming just don't want to do anything to change their current lifestyle.

[griftadan]

The point at which the planet's natural defenses can't return it to it's natural state.

If you take a look at the CO2 concentrations over the last half a million years and further, the atmospheric concentration has never exceeded 310 ppm. It's currently around 390.

so why that number? why can't the earth process this?

[DrumIntoTheNight]

There's no specific, measurable point at which you can say that the earth can't cope anymore, it's kind of a blurry line. The evidence suggests we're well past that line now though.

Well, the earth, under normal conditions exchanges some 150 gigatonnes of carbon per year, with a net uptake of approximately 3 gigatonnes. This net uptake is how the planet sorts itself out if there's an event such as a volcano or some sudden CO2 release, but it can only deal with so much.

Anthropogenic sources release 7 gigatonnes annually, but some is absorbed by the planet's uptake. However, this leaves 4 gigatonnes unaccounted for, which accumulates in the atmosphere. So you can see that without our influence, the planet's atmospheric CO2 concentrations would be going down.

The main uptake by the planet is in the surface layer of the sea, where 2.3 gigatonnes is taken out of the air and dissolved into the water. However, recent findings have shown that the Southern Ocean has stopped absorbing this CO2. This is because water can dissolve more gas when it's temperature is lower, so the heating of the planet by us has raised it's temperature to the point that it's stores don't work anymore.

Another case in point is the CO2 stores in the permafrost. Dead vegetation and whatnot from many thousands of years ago are locked into this permafrost, unable to decay because of the temperatures. If left untouched, this biomatter would eventually sink lower and lower down before turning into oil and gas - the planet's second largest store of carbon. But, as the planet warms, the permafrost melts, and allows all the matter inside the permafrost to decay, releasing staggering amounts of CO2 and particularly methane. As methane is 23 times more effective as a greenhouse gas, the equivalent tonnage of CO2 stored within the permafrost amounts to 500 gigatonnes.

Last year, various "thermokarst" lakes (molten permafrost, essentially) in Siberia started to bubble, releasing 100,000 tonnes of methane per day. Equivalent to 2.3 megatonnes of CO2, each day the lake's emissions matched and exceeded that of the UK per annum.

These effects that I've described - lack of disolution in the sea and thermokarsts - are what's known as positive feedback loops, for the simple reason that they are caused by global warming, exacerbate global warming, and then in turn, exacerbate their own functions. These are the clearest indicators that the planet has gone way beyond it's natural tipping point, and thus can't cope. Most scientists agree that, once the positive feedbacks take hold, there's no turning back. Hence the metastable system - we've forced it into a new and unknown state, from which there is unlikely to be a return.

[ashman]

People who refuse to accept that humans have played a part in global warming just don't want to do anything to change their current lifestyle.

I don't really want to end up living in a mud hut :mad:

[guitrguy]

Oddly enough the Antarctic ice levels have reached an all time high. Atmospheric change takes thousands of years as well. Not that I condone pro-actively harming the enviroment for future generations.

[YDload]

why dont we (the world) just reduce our CO2 emissions right now?? the worst thing that could happen is that the earth continues to warm and we learn that it wasn't our fault after all. but at least we have cleaner air with which to enjoy our warm weather :cool:

[Kage]

The weather is beautiful and cool here. I will let the earth run its cycle. :)

[telemore]

I too tend to believe that this is but a cycle and this Global Warming crap is just that.

[Reaganista]

are you guys serious

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I don't really want to end up living in a mud hut :mad:

This.

I am not giving up my comfortable modern lifestyle to try and appease the mysterious and unknowable god of global warming.

[RunAmokRampant]

This.

I am not giving up my comfortable modern lifestyle to try and appease the mysterious and unknowable god of global warming.

wtf? It's not like you have to do a lot to reduce greenhouse gases that will completely change your lifestyle.

I too tend to believe that this is but a cycle and this Global Warming crap is just that.

It may be a cycle but since the Industrial revolution I don't think the cycle goes that fast. We are speeding up the progress, and even if (a big IF) we aren't impacting that much on GW, it wouldn't hurt to decrease emissions for better quality of the world we live in.

[Kage]

The world is fine quality.

[RunAmokRampant]

Yer, sure it is, you keep believing that.

[Kage]

Keep believing what the government tells you, ****ing sheep.

[RunAmokRampant]

Um, have you ever been or seen cities like beijing? I've seen people wear ****ing masks because of the shitty atmosphere because of emissions. I don't need a government to tell me that. And what's the problem with the government telling us about this? You think its some kind of conspiracy? How the hell would they benefit from something like GW?

[Kage]

Reality is a conspiracy perpetrated by the government.

[Knifeboy]

Keep believing what the government tells you, ****ing sheep.

Stop acting like a crackpot

Global warming is pretty damned real, and what we're doing is accelerating the process... If you believe otherwise, you're an idiot. The only people left in the scientific community arguing that it's cycles, are either paid by Enron, or frauds that use falsefied data to back up their stupid claims

[RunAmokRampant]

Reality is a conspiracy perpetrated by the government.

what was that post supposed to be?

[Kage]

:lol: I've been to Beijing and I didn't have to wear any lousy mask. Ffs, shut the **** up.

[RunAmokRampant]

You're telling me to shut up? Maybe you didn't have to wear a mask, it's your lungs. How far could you see in the distance?

[Kage]

I could see perfectly. Beggars, traffic jams, and suicidal bicyclers as far as the eye can see.

[RunAmokRampant]

Obviously you were there on a good day, perhaps after rain. If a city looks like this

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/4ChinaInMon.jpg

and the citizens wear masks because they fear for their health, then something is wrong.

[Meatplow]

This sounds like a job for.... Captain Planet & The Planeteers!

I seriously feel bad i never followed the advice at the end of each show :(

Well, not really.

[RunAmokRampant]

Earth!
Fire!
Wind!
Water!
Heart!

GO, Planet!

By your powers combined, I am Captain Planet!

Captain Planet, He's our hero
Gonna take polution down to zero
He's our powers magnified
And he's fighting on the planet's side

Captain Planet, He's our hero
Gonna take pollution down to zero
Gonna help him put asunder
Bad guys who like to loot and plunder

"You'll pay for this, Captain Planet!"

We're the Planeteers
You can be one, too
Cuz saving our planet is the thing to do
Looting and polluting
Is not the way
Hear what Captain Planet has to say

The power is yours!

[RIP Ian Curtis]

That show is the reason I stopped merely being passive about the environment and began taking steps to actively damage it.

[GorgeousGabe]

You know what the thing is, though?

People freak out about global warming like it's the end of the world or something.

A good friend of mine brought a very important point to my attention, though.

It's not the end of the world, no matter how much damage we cause.

Worst case scenario, well, Earth is still gonna be there spinning around the sun, hurtling through space... what global warming may spell the end of, is civilization and our lifestyle.
Big ****ing deal. It's not like humans are the most important things in the universe anyway.

Whatever, I'll do my best to stop it though, because I like my life, and I don't believe we should all be condemned to fatten Texaco's wallets.

If you disagree with me, that's your prerogative. The only people who actually CARE how much you litter or how much you drive your SUV are the die hard hippies, and in turn- nobody gives a crap about them.

My point is that, RIP Ian Curtis, you are retarded : / may you get eaten by a polar bear, and may your fossilized remains be used to power some alien civilization millions of year from today.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

This.

I am not giving up my comfortable modern lifestyle to try and appease the mysterious and unknowable god of global warming.

Tough ****, frankly.

Whether you believe in AGW or not, it's completely irrelevant. Every prediction from every survey has come to the same conclusion: global oil production peaked in November 2005. It will halve in 20 years, gas in 30.

We simply cannot maintain our lifestyle, no matter how you look at it.

[GorgeousGabe]

Don't tell Dick Cheney, but umm- the blood of unchristened babies, actually, is an energy source far more potent than crude oil.

So yeah, uh, we CAN maintain our lifestyle? As soon as those damn libbies get off our case about the goddamn baby killing

[Spiritofmosa]

I think we human have come to a point where, work and play is more important that saving the earth because we just dont feel it. There has got to be a solution somewhere.

[Danish]

You know what the thing is, though?

People freak out about global warming like it's the end of the world or something.

A good friend of mine brought a very important point to my attention, though.

It's not the end of the world, no matter how much damage we cause.

Worst case scenario, well, Earth is still gonna be there spinning around the sun, hurtling through space... what global warming may spell the end of, is civilization and our lifestyle.
Big ****ing deal. It's not like humans are the most important things in the universe anyway.

Whatever, I'll do my best to stop it though, because I like my life, and I don't believe we should all be condemned to fatten Texaco's wallets.

If you disagree with me, that's your prerogative. The only people who actually CARE how much you litter or how much you drive your SUV are the die hard hippies, and in turn- nobody gives a crap about them.

My point is that, RIP Ian Curtis, you are retarded : / may you get eaten by a polar bear, and may your fossilized remains be used to power some alien civilization millions of year from today.

Your friend doesn't understand a few things. First, humans aren't the only species affected by global warming. Coral reefs and polar bears, just to name two instance, will likely be gone within 100 years (that's extremely conservative; some are predicting polar bear extinction in 25 years).

And second, those people who will suffer most from the negative consequences are the poorest people in the world.

[WhoDidTheElf]

There's no specific, measurable point at which you can say that the earth can't cope anymore, it's kind of a blurry line. The evidence suggests we're well past that line now though.


Another case in point is the CO2 stores in the permafrost. Dead vegetation and whatnot from many thousands of years ago are locked into this permafrost, unable to decay because of the temperatures. If left untouched, this biomatter would eventually sink lower and lower down before turning into oil and gas - the planet's second largest store of carbon. But, as the planet warms, the permafrost melts, and allows all the matter inside the permafrost to decay, releasing staggering amounts of CO2 and particularly methane. As methane is 23 times more effective as a greenhouse gas, the equivalent tonnage of CO2 stored within the permafrost amounts to 500 gigatonnes.

Last year, various "thermokarst" lakes (molten permafrost, essentially) in Siberia started to bubble, releasing 100,000 tonnes of methane per day. Equivalent to 2.3 megatonnes of CO2, each day the lake's emissions matched and exceeded that of the UK per annum.

These effects that I've described - lack of disolution in the sea and thermokarsts - are what's known as positive feedback loops, for the simple reason that they are caused by global warming, exacerbate global warming, and then in turn, exacerbate their own functions. These are the clearest indicators that the planet has gone way beyond it's natural tipping point, and thus can't cope. Most scientists agree that, once the positive feedbacks take hold, there's no turning back. Hence the metastable system - we've forced it into a new and unknown state, from which there is unlikely to be a return.


Just like to point out somethings...I don't think many scientists are saying we've passed CO2 threshold. I mean the earth has naturally higher PPM's of CO2 in the past. The argument is were just getting to that point much faster than it has before.

Also the permafrost thing is kind of debatable. The earth has gotten hotter before in the past, not many scientists will disagree with this point, I believe, and if the earth has gotten hotter before in the past, surely methane would have released then too from the melting permafrost. Arguably at a slower rate though. And methane is 32x stronger of a GHG than CO2, if I recall correctly. Also the permafrost only contains methane, and no CO2 or very little, though I maybe wrong.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Nah, it contains CO2. Not nearly as much as it does methane though.

Methane is definately somewhere between 23-26 times more effective than CO2, but my particular university seems set on the figure 23 for some reason.

The earth has had naturally high ppms before yes, but they've rarely exceeded 310 ppm. We're currently around 390, IIRC.

You're 100% right about the positive feedback loops kicking in before our influence, and they can to some extent explain the fairly rapid rates of warming we've seen in the past.

Edit: Just found one figure that places methane at 62 times more effective :confused:

Edit 2: Ahh, 62 times more powerful over a 20 year timescale. Makes more sense.

[Danish]

And the rate at which global average temperatures is increasing is totally new.

The idea that the market can reverse this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

[lfantwister]

if you put ridiculous taxes on non-environmentally friendly goods and services i suppose that might work (although arguably its less the market and more gov intervention)

[WhoDidTheElf]

Nah, it contains CO2. Not nearly as much as it does methane though.

Methane is definately somewhere between 23-26 times more effective than CO2, but my particular university seems set on the figure 23 for some reason.

The earth has had naturally high ppms before yes, but they've rarely exceeded 310 ppm. We're currently around 390, IIRC.

You're 100% right about the positive feedback loops kicking in before our influence, and they can to some extent explain the fairly rapid rates of warming we've seen in the past.

Edit: Just found one figure that places methane at 62 times more effective :confused:

Edit 2: Ahh, 62 times more powerful over a 20 year timescale. Makes more sense.

Yeah my prof. said it had CO2 in it but not in enough volume to really worry about it.

Yeah I've been told 32x by a lot of places but idk, either way it's stronger.

And yeah I've heard it's something like 387~8 PPMs.

TBH I think that global warming is just one big cluster **** of events that are hosing us over on a global scale, more so than CO2 levels.

[Reaganista]

It's not like humans are the most important things in the universe anyway.
um of course they are
like
it's not even close

[Danish]

if you put ridiculous taxes on non-environmentally friendly goods and services i suppose that might work (although arguably its less the market and more gov intervention)

There are obviously way more policy options than that.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

And the rate at which global average temperatures is increasing is totally new.

The idea that the market can reverse this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

The only way you can do anything is through the market. Ranting and raving and protesting don't count for shi't. If you can come up with a solution that works via capitalism (like the tax suggestion), then maybe you can affect some change.

And as for the end of oil thing, I'm all for nuke power, all the time.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

The only way you can do anything is through the market. Ranting and raving and protesting don't count for shi't. If you can come up with a solution that works via capitalism (like the tax suggestion), then maybe you can affect some change.

And as for the end of oil thing, I'm all for nuke power, all the time.

Shows how well informed you are. Nuclear fuel will run out entirely in less than 20 years. In fact, nuclear power plants are already 'burning' their fuel faster than it can be extracted. The deficit is only being filled by decomissioned nuclear weapons.

I realise ranting and raving doesn't change anything. Hence my studying of a degree in Renewable Energy at the world renowned Camborne School of Mines.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I don't actually have a problem with "smart" environmentalists such as yourself. If there's a way to be environmentally friendly without sacrificing climate control and my car, I'm all for it. But I think we can all agree that hippies can get fu'cked.

There's plenty of uranium here in Australia, but our weak-arse government won't let us at it.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Yeah, that's very true actually.

Most of your Uranium is under Kakadu National Park, IIRC? Or places of that nature, at least.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Quite a lot of it is in government protected land yeah. I like the idea of Australia being the next Saudi Arabia. Basically we have two things in massive amounts that most other countries on earth don't have:

1. Uranium
2. Heaps of useless, uninhabitable, empty space.

So I figure we mine uranium, refine uranium, export uranium. And then take in nuclear waste and charge everyone rent to store their cra'p in the middle of our desert. And thus, like Saudi, we'd be fantastically rich (until the resources ran out...).

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Haha, that's actually not a half bad idea. Once the stocks get low, Uranium will be worth such a vast amount that the government would have a hard time resisting it.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

The alternative energy debate around here is fu'cking pathetic. The country is full of pseudo-lefties, who cry and scream about non-coal power. And then when someone actually tries to make a wind farm (perfect because of the empty space and the fact that Perth is the second windiest city on earth), a solar plant (given that its always sunny and again, empty space), or a nuke reactor, they go batshi't. No-one wants solutions because they're in love with having a problem.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

It's sad when people aren't prepared to sacrifice a bit of scenery for the greater good. We get a lot of windfarm applications cut down because people don't want to see them. It's pathetic, really.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

They're not particularly ugly anyway. I think they look mad stylish, in a futuristic way. Man, people here have got them blocked even when they're away from houses and people wanting to view stuff because "omg they might kill birds". Retards.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Haha yeah, we get that too. The dumb thing is, the modern, 5 megawatt turbines that are mostly replacing the older ones have a slower RPM, so less chance of bird killage. Frankly, a few dead Eagles doesn't really figure into the good that those machines do.

I agree with you about their looks; they're sleek and minimalist. I think they look amazing, personally.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

If a bird flies into a 4 story-high, 20 meter wide fan, it's a message from Darwin.

[YDload]

they should put wind farm right outside cities where everyone can see them. it would make me feel safe because they look like mighty guardians :)

[DrumIntoTheNight]

The better place to put them (IMO) is actually deep within major cities. Small ones, obviously, but small scale power generation has to be a major part of our future. It's well known that skyscrapers and whatnot produce microclimates with strong air currents. Although I'm sure there's something completely impractical about it or it would have been done already.

That said, there was a study at the department I'm in as to whether placing a single large turbine between two specially shaped skyscrapers could increase it's efficiency. The results were positive, so I don't know why it didn't go any further :confused:

[RIP Ian Curtis]

And they'd look awesome from the air if you were flying over a massive city like LA or something.

[YDload]

nah L.A.'s best choice would be solar power. it is the Sun Belt after all. but doesnt the city currently get its energy from Hoover Dam? or am I overestimating how much energy that thing puts out?

[DrumIntoTheNight]

I have no idea. Must do some reading around, I don't know much about Hydroelectric schemes tbqh.

Edit: 1.3 Gigawatt capacity. I'm pretty sure that's not nearly enough to cover LA entirely.

[Reigns]

Stop acting like a crackpot

Global warming is pretty damned real, and what we're doing is accelerating the process... If you believe otherwise, you're an idiot. The only people left in the scientific community arguing that it's cycles, are either paid by Enron, or frauds that use falsefied data to back up their stupid claims

qft.

All the "scientists" who are speaking out against global warming are being paid to make false statements. They look for some little way to play with the oposing (right) opinion's words.

global warming is real. It is not a cycle. People think that because the earth is "so big" that we cannot affect it. So therefore it must be a part of the cycle.

Pardon my language, but that is BULLSHIT.

The atmosphere compared to the rest of the earth is so thin, that we CAN over time change it's composition. That's what wee've done, and THAT's what is affecting the rest of the world. I forget where i heard this comparison, but if you were to put varnish on a globe, that's about the relative size of the atmosphere compared to the actual earth.

Co2 levels and temperature are DIRECTLY related, it has been proven. An average increase of just 5* of the earth's temperature is a small increase of 0-1* around the equator, but an astounding 12* at the poles. Not good.

AND, because of the way the ocean conveyor distributes heat, if any rush of fresh water (for example...melting of large bodies of ice..) were to enter the atlantic ocean, the ocean's salty water would become less dense. This shuts off the ocean conveyor, this puts europe into an ice age.

I'm from louisiana. Katrina was a disaster. There is an estimated 374,000 total number of refugees from it.

Now think, this is one hurricane. If just a FRACTION of the land base ice was to melt, ocean levels WORLD WIDE will rise 20 ft.

Think of the effect katrina had, with 374,000 refugees. Imaging the effect of something with 100 million refugees.

So stop saying "it's just a cycle" if you aren't going to post anything else to back up your claim. I don't know if you're trying to be funny, or if you are just really that ignorant, but global warming is very serious, and very real.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I'll stop that when you stop perpetuating the "Global Warming Caused Katrina" bullshi't.

[telemore]

bush caused katrina, everyone knows that.

[Smokey D]

Shows how well informed you are. Nuclear fuel will run out entirely in less than 20 years. In fact, nuclear power plants are already 'burning' their fuel faster than it can be extracted. The deficit is only being filled by decomissioned nuclear weapons.

Dude, what? There's enough uranium for 70 more years at current prices (ie, cost per output), and if it's processed in breeder reactors, we can turn it into plutonium for 10 000 years.

[Reigns]

I'll stop that when you stop perpetuating the "Global Warming Caused Katrina" bullshi't.

global warming did not cause katrina...and i never said anything REMOTELY similar to that..

I was just making a comparison, between the effects of katrina and what the effect would be of a world wide increase of ocean levels.

Posts are there to read, you know.

[GorgeousGabe]

Your friend doesn't understand a few things. First, humans aren't the only species affected by global warming. Coral reefs and polar bears, just to name two instance, will likely be gone within 100 years (that's extremely conservative; some are predicting polar bear extinction in 25 years).

And second, those people who will suffer most from the negative consequences are the poorest people in the world.

So what. In 10 million years, there'll be entirely new and different creatures on earth anyway.

Well anyway...

Alternative energy is here... there is a reason that it's not taking off, and that reason is NOT because it is ineffective. Alternative energy sources can really be terrific- the most promising source to me are the underwater generators that take energy from strong currents underwater... a couple batches of those babies and you can power a city

[Surtr]

Zomgz.

First off, yeah, we need to **** off and stop all this C02 emissions and ****, but come on. If you follow the pattern this is the due time where the earth's climate rises some. So yeah, we've coincided the Industrial Revolution with this Natural Periodic Climate Rise and it's had un-matched Scientific Data.

We also weren't around a million years ago to tell if the same things were happening.

Really we just need to piss off and stop being so wasteful and care a bit more about our earth, and stop going on about this Global Warming ****..It's so dumb sounding.

(Then again perhaps I just wrote that all without much thinking and it'll make no sense whatsoever, and if so, you can go ahead and ignore it.)

[Reigns]

Zomgz.
We also weren't around a million years ago to tell if the same things were happening.

You're right. we have no idea if dinosaurs drove SUV's or not.

They're called ice cores. Measuring concentration levels of it..we can find out how much co2 concentration was in the air at the time that snow fell (which can date alot further back than "a million years ago") and we can also measure the tempurature the air was when that snow fell.

Last 1000 years:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/0_CO2ScienceB2C/images/subject/other/figures/lawdome.jpg

[Surtr]

You're right. we have no idea if dinosaurs drove SUV's or not.

They're called ice cores. Measuring concentration levels of it..we can find out how much co2 concentration was in the air at the time that snow fell (which can date alot further back than "a million years ago") and we can also measure the tempurature the air was when that snow fell.

Last 1000 years:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/0_CO2ScienceB2C/images/subject/other/figures/lawdome.jpg

I meant what it actually looked like. I know we can do all that. But we can't compare it really that accurately or judge that accurately without ever being there for the first part of it.

It's like my friends going somewhere without me, then we go the same place again with me.

I can make guesses on what it was like, and there's what they're telling me happened, but I still can't know for sure.

If you're catching what I'm saying. I hear you though man.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Dude, what? There's enough uranium for 70 more years at current prices (ie, cost per output), and if it's processed in breeder reactors, we can turn it into plutonium for 10 000 years.

http://www.bartlett.house.gov/uploadedfiles/5-2-06%20Oil%20Speech.pdf

Our current throwaway nuclear cycle uses up the world reserve of low-cost uranium in about 20 years

We could do 85 years if extracting high-cost, low-concentration were economical, but it's likely that it never will be.

I've no idea how long breeder reactors could sustain us for, tbqh, but few are being used enough to make an appreciable difference.

The other thing about breeder reactors, is they create a hell of a lot of Plutonium; something no-one wants to deal with, and governments are sure as hell anxious about where the stuff ends up (terrorism, etc). Widescale use of breeder reactors seems unlikely also.

[Smokey D]

The plutonium made in breeder reactors isn't just thrown away. It's used in other power plants. Terrorists wouldn't get there hands on it.

And to be honest, I'd much rather maintain my standard of living than worry about the off chance some crazies might get a tiny bit of plutonium.

[GorgeousGabe]

nuclear power

aah wonderful wonderful nuclear power

I suppose it's better to put things off for, say, 10,000 years, as opposed to for, say, 100 years

[Smokey D]

Pretty much.

Especially if it gives us time to develop fusion.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

The plutonium made in breeder reactors isn't just thrown away. It's used in other power plants. Terrorists wouldn't get there hands on it.

And to be honest, I'd much rather maintain my standard of living than worry about the off chance some crazies might get a tiny bit of plutonium.

We had a seminar on Peak Oil yesterday, and had to solve a likely scenario from 3 years in the future, when oil prices have doubled to $150 a barrel, because the world has started to realise that we're running out of fuel.

There is simply no way to maintain our present lifestyle. End of story.

Anyway, Nuclear Power plants have such a vast amount of Carbon Emissions linked to them through extraction and construction, they aren't nearly as 'Green' as people would like you to believe.

[Smokey D]

We had a seminar on Peak Oil yesterday, and had to solve a likely scenario from 3 years in the future, when oil prices have doubled to $150 a barrel, because the world has started to realise that we're running out of fuel.

First of all, I doubt oil is going to reach $150 in 3 years.

And secondly, if prices ever reached that high, other oil sources would become viable and subsequent technological developments would drive prices back down.

And also, even if our present lifestyle can't be maintained, it can be approximated by bringing other energy sources like nuclear and renewable power online.


Anyway, Nuclear Power plants have such a vast amount of Carbon Emissions linked to them through extraction and construction, they aren't nearly as 'Green' as people would like you to believe.

They're greener than coal plants or whatever, and are our best bet going into the future.

[GreyHam]

Pretty much.

Especially if it gives us time to develop fusion.

fusion makes me giggle in anticipation...

itd be nice if it was developed in our lifetime

[Mr. Ron]

Wow, this thread produced some lawlz.


Yes, the Earth goes through natural cooling and warming cycles, but to say that Humans, that have been pumping **** into the air since the industrial revolution somehow doesn't have an effect on the environment, is just plain stupid.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

First of all, I doubt oil is going to reach $150 in 3 years.



It's not an unlikely scenario, and quite probable over the next ten years. 3 years was an exaggeration though, yes. However, remember the 70's? Oil production fell by 5%, and prices quadrupled. We're probably past Peak Oil, so it's only a matter of time.


And secondly, if prices ever reached that high, other oil sources would become viable and subsequent technological developments would drive prices back down.

Yes, if there were other oil sources to extract...

The Arctic will become viable, but that's it. There's simply no way oil prices can go down from here-on-in. Unless some massive reserve is discovered, but then we're only postponing Peak Oil temporarily (although it seems likely that Peak Oil has already occurred).

And also, even if our present lifestyle can't be maintained, it can be approximated by bringing other energy sources like nuclear and renewable power online.

Seriously, my course is all about supplying energy for a future world. And frankly, it's impossible. We won't get close to the lifestyle we have now for many, many years, if ever. There's simply not enough viable, practical energy to be extracted by Renewable Energy devices.

They're greener than coal plants or whatever, and are our best bet going into the future.

Umm, did you miss my last post? Uranium will run out. Soon. Nuclear = not an intelligent option.

[lfantwister]

Seriously, my course is all about supplying energy for a future world. And frankly, it's impossible. We won't get close to the lifestyle we have now for many, many years, if ever. There's simply not enough viable, practical energy to be extracted by Renewable Energy devices.
maybe not now but youre underestimating the power of technology
Umm, did you miss my last post? Uranium will run out. Soon. Nuclear = not an intelligent option.
...why not nuclear?

[DrumIntoTheNight]

maybe not now but youre underestimating the power of technology

...why not nuclear?

It's not about the technology. It's about the practical amount of land we can use that actually has any worth for creating energy. And there simply isn't enough - even if the technology was 100% efficient.

Not nuclear, because we'll run out of Uranium in 20 years at current rates. Faster still if everyone adopts it as some kind of miracle stopgap solution. Plus, few businesses in their right mind would invest in nuclear power - it's just too costly, what with decomissioning and such.

[ringworm]

we shouldnt even be debating the costs of polution free power, no matter how expensive

the pro's alone of alternative clean energy would negate the costs associated with them

[Mr. Ron]

maybe not now but youre underestimating the power of technology

...why not nuclear?

The waste involved is too dangerous.

[GorgeousGabe]

launch it into space!! whoah am I a genius or what

[YDload]

i have always been a strong believer of launching garbage into space. but it's too expensive at the moment :(

[italic zero]

we need a trash chute going up into the sky

[Mr. Ron]

i have always been a strong believer of launching garbage into space. but it's too expensive at the moment :(

How sad is it that we're so wasteful that space has to bare our burden?

[YDload]

i am also apprehensive about sending any of Earth's matter into space. we have pretty much a fixed amount of it on this planet (big picture) and matter that we send away is matter that we cannot recycle or convert into energy later :(

[Smokey D]

It's not an unlikely scenario, and quite probable over the next ten years. 3 years was an exaggeration though, yes. However, remember the 70's? Oil production fell by 5%, and prices quadrupled. We're probably past Peak Oil, so it's only a matter of time.

I doubt even in 10 years it'll get as high as $150, though prices are undoubtedly set to rise.


The Arctic will become viable, but that's it. There's simply no way oil prices can go down from here-on-in. Unless some massive reserve is discovered, but then we're only postponing Peak Oil temporarily (although it seems likely that Peak Oil has already occurred).

Peak oil means the end of cheap oil, not the end of oil altogether.

And there's more oil in the Alberta tar sands than in the whole of the Middle East (or some crazy big number like that anyway) so it'll signifcantly delay the decline of industrial society. Prices will shift up, but I don't think we're going to see a catastrophic decline, especially if other power sources ccan be brouhgt online.


Seriously, my course is all about supplying energy for a future world. And frankly, it's impossible. We won't get close to the lifestyle we have now for many, many years, if ever. There's simply not enough viable, practical energy to be extracted by Renewable Energy devices.

There's plenty of untapped energy left on earth that far exceeds our current dependency on oil.


Umm, did you miss my last post? Uranium will run out. Soon. Nuclear = not an intelligent option.

Did you miss where I said the uranium we have (which is more than 20 years, since that was the prediction for throw-away cost uranium, not uranium in general) can be bred into enough plutonium to last us upwards of 10 000 years.

And uranium can be extracted from sea water.

i have always been a strong believer of launching garbage into space. but it's too expensive at the moment
How sad is it that we're so wasteful that space has to bare our burden?

It's not said at all. It's progress baby. I'm sick of space free loading off our successes.


Not nuclear, because we'll run out of Uranium in 20 years at current rates. Faster still if everyone adopts it as some kind of miracle stopgap solution. Plus, few businesses in their right mind would invest in nuclear power - it's just too costly, what with decomissioning and such.

It's way more costly to not invest and let our infrastructure and entire society as we know it decline.

[Mr. Ron]

Is geothermal energy viable on a mass scale?

[YDload]

no because not every part of the earth's surface allows easy accessibility to vents full of magma

[Smokey D]

Not really. It is in some especially volcanically active places like Iceland and to a lesser extent NZ, but generally it's not viable.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

I doubt even in 10 years it'll get as high as $150, though prices are undoubtedly set to rise.


Peak oil means the end of cheap oil, not the end of oil altogether.



Obviously. But again, we've seen minor fluctuations in supply create enormous price rises. As demand increases and supply decreases, the economic implications will be enormous.

And there's more oil in the Alberta tar sands than in the whole of the Middle East (or some crazy big number like that anyway) so it'll signifcantly delay the decline of industrial society. Prices will shift up, but I don't think we're going to see a catastrophic decline, especially if other power sources ccan be brouhgt online.

That's the point though; they can't be brought online fast enough. You're also missing the point that all the predictions for Peak Oil take into account all the known oil resources, and include any likely finds. They still all put Peak Oil somewhere between 2005 and 2015.


There's plenty of untapped energy left on earth that far exceeds our current dependency on oil.

Sure, but only if these areas meet certain criteria. The standard protocol for assessing a Renewable Resource is to look at these key areas;


Total Resource - ideal conditions
Technical Resource - ideal conditions, multiplied by what is technically possible to extract (for example, Wind Turbines are only 59% efficient at the very most, then you have up to 9% losses in supply)
Practical Resource - as above, multiplied by the amount extractable once geographical and infrastructural limits are taken into account
Accessible Resource - as above, multiplied by the amount accessible without Government legislation limitations
Viabile Resource - as above, multiplied by the amount of that resource which is economically justifiable
Acceptable Resource - as above, multiplied by the amount of resource that socialogical factors limit their development


It doesn't take a genius to realise that, in the end, there's only a slight fraction of the avaliable resource that can be exploited. Once you total up the figures, it's obvious that Renewable Energy supplies, even in ideal circumstances, can't supply our current needs.




And uranium can be extracted from sea water.

Any idea what a ridiculously low concentration that stuff is at? The energy put into extracting it would likely exceed that of it's final output. It won't be economically viable for a very, very long time.


It's way more costly to not invest and let our infrastructure and entire society as we know it decline.

Whilst this is very true, Governments and Corporations tend to be exceptionally short-sighted.

Is geothermal energy viable on a mass scale?

Simply put; no. There's a surprising amount of factors involved, and the geological conditions needed to generate power or useful heat are not as simple as "it needs to be hot". For example, the rocks need to contain enough water to conduct heat more readily, and the water needs to contain no corrosive salts (although this is less of a problem nowadays, but a cost set back for sure).

[Sleep]

wrong thread

[GorgeousGabe]

i have always been a strong believer of launching garbage into space. but it's too expensive at the moment :(

I was only kidding
the reason we don't do it isn't because it's too expensive

it's because
imagine the damage of launching nuclear waste into space
only to end up with another Challenger on your hands

I mean, if nuclear waste exploding in the atmosphere isn't scary to you then I don't know what is

[Unreal]

[QUOTE=GorgeousGabe;15394909
I mean, if nuclear waste exploding in the atmosphere isn't scary to you then I don't know what is[/QUOTE]

nuclear waste isn't going to explode in the atmosphere.

[Smokey D]

If the shuttle or rocket or whatever's transporting the waste into space explodes, it could disperse it over a very large area.

[Mr. Ron]

Plus its the principal of us sending out **** into space just because we're messy little apes.

[big80smullet]

I do not believe in global warming as perpetuated by the media. This is a few reasons why, among several others.

When UV rays from the sun combine with oxygen, Ozone is created, thus absorbing the UV ray. The ozone continues to absorb Uv rays preventing them from penetrating further into the oxygen below that has not been converted to ozone. That is why we have oxygen down here and ozone up there. It is impossible to destroy the ozone layer. To do so would require the removal of all oxygen in the earths atmosphere.

Also there is no scientific evidence that Humans are contributing to global warming. All paleological evidence shows that the earth is in a constant state of flux, moving between cold and hot.

Just because you measure a drop in ozone doesnt mean it will be gone eventually, and just because a rise in temperature is recorded, doesnt mean the temperature will continue to rise indefinetly. Place a stick on the beach marking the edge of the last wave while the tide is coming in, then come back in an hour with another stiick. You'll notice that the tide has come in 10 feet in an hour, but if you predicted that the tide wold come in 90,000 feet in a year, you'd be dead wrong.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Uh, wtf?

The destruction of the Ozone layer is a very real, completely measurable thing that isn't in doubt. And what the hell does it have to to with Global Warming?

We do get Ozone at ground level, fool. It's a very real pollutant.

I don't think you're qualified to comment on such a complex system, frankly, if you fundamentally misunderstand how the Ozone layer works.

[big80smullet]

Uh, wtf?

The destruction of the Ozone layer is a very real, completely measurable thing that isn't in doubt. And what the hell does it have to to with Global Warming?

We do get Ozone at ground level, fool. It's a very real pollutant.

I don't think you're qualified to comment on such a complex system, frankly, if you fundamentally misunderstand how the Ozone layer works.

Uh the whole point of my post is that its not a measureable thing. And yes we have ozone at ground level as a pollutant but thats not exactly part of the ozone LAYER is it. You cant destroy the ozone layer because The act of keeping out UV rays actually creats the ozone.

Its very easy to listen to some scientist saying that the ozone layer is being destroyed etc, but they dont have data readings going back far enought to know if its a permanent reduction, or simply a fluctuation. The earth works in thousands and millions of years as opposed to the time scales we humans work on.

And if you don't know the connection between the ozone layer and global warming then i dont know how you can comment on my post. The destruction of the ozone layer is one of the most commonly quoted sources of global warming due to the increased levels of UV rays penetrating the atmoshpere and causeing the greenhouse effect.

And you're right that i dont completely understand such a complex system. Im pretty sure that noone knows how the ENTIRE EARTHS ecosystem works. Thats why we get so many competely unbacked theories as to why the earth is heating up.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Uh the whole point of my post is that its not a measureable thing. And yes we have ozone at ground level as a pollutant but thats not exactly part of the ozone LAYER is it. You cant destroy the ozone simply a fluctuation. The earth works in thousands and millions of years as opposed to the time scales we humans work on.layer because The act of keeping out UV rays actually creats the ozone.

Its very easy to listen to some scientist saying that the ozone layer is being destroyed etc, but they dont have data readings going back far enought to know if its a permanent reduction, or

And if you don't know the connection between the ozone layer and global warming then i dont know how you can comment on my post. The destruction of the ozone layer is one of the most commonly quoted sources of global warming due to the increased levels of UV rays penetrating the atmoshpere and causeing the greenhouse effect.

And you're right that i dont completely understand such a complex system. Im pretty sure that noone knows how the ENTIRE EARTHS ecosystem works. Thats why we get so many competely unbacked theories as to why the earth is heating up.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

UV light isn't the cause of Global Warming. Infra-Red is. Two very different things, at either side of the spectrum. The Ozone layer has **** all to do with Global Warming.

And yes, we can accurately tell how much the Ozone layer has diminished. It's not difficult. There happens to be an enormous hole over the Arctic, and one of Cornwall, where I happen to be studying.

You seriously need to learn to read. You've completely confused two different issues, and misunderstand both.

[big80smullet]

Your ignorance is astonishing.

UV light isn't the cause of Global Warming. Infra-Red is. Two very different things, at either side of the spectrum. The Ozone layer has **** all to do with Global Warming.

And yes, we can accurately tell how much the Ozone layer has diminished. It's not difficult. There happens to be an enormous hole over the Arctic, and one of Cornwall, where I happen to be studying.

You seriously need to learn to read. You've completely confused two different issues, and misunderstand both.

Its not even a hole. Its a slight thinning. And when i see data going back further than the 70's i might be inclined to believe it.

[ashman]

Its not even a hole. Its a slight thinning. And when i see data going back further than the 70's i might be inclined to believe it.

Well, it acts like a hole :p


Global Warming can't be 100% blamed on one thing or another, the holes in the Ozone can be. Since there is no known natural source of CFCs, the 'thinning' of the Ozone layer is entirely our fault.

[GorgeousGabe]

Global warming is caused by an excess of carbon emissions- carbon dioxide actually helps to replenish the ozone, but like DrumIntoTheNight already said, it has jack to do with global warming.

What IS relevant is the fact that these gasses are getting trapped in our atmosphere and the earth has no effective means of getting rid of them. The excess of CO2 also causes heat from the sun to stay trapped in our atmosphere. Thus the... drumroll... GLOBAL WARMING

OK but in my mind, that's not what's scary. What's scary is the fact that... when there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere... it goes where? The ocean! OK seems like no big deal, right? But actually it acidifies the waters.

DrumIntoTheNight probably knows what I'm getting at here, but I'm going to say it for all of you so stay with me.

Many creatures living in the ocean have calcium exteriors- outer shells which protect them from all the **** in the ocean, right? Now with the waters becoming more acidic, these shells become weaker, especially on the smaller and more vulnerable animals.

Plankton.

OK, now the problem with this... is that the entire food chain in the ocean is based around these little tiny organisms which are becoming weaker and weaker as more carbon enters the ocean.
That sucks.
Take that, Earth.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Global warming is caused by an excess of carbon emissions- carbon dioxide actually helps to replenish the ozone, but like DrumIntoTheNight already said, it has jack to do with global warming.

What IS relevant is the fact that these gasses are getting trapped in our atmosphere and the earth has no effective means of getting rid of them. The excess of CO2 also causes heat from the sun to stay trapped in our atmosphere. Thus the... drumroll... GLOBAL WARMING

OK but in my mind, that's not what's scary. What's scary is the fact that... when there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere... it goes where? The ocean! OK seems like no big deal, right? But actually it acidifies the waters.

DrumIntoTheNight probably knows what I'm getting at here, but I'm going to say it for all of you so stay with me.

Many creatures living in the ocean have calcium exteriors- outer shells which protect them from all the **** in the ocean, right? Now with the waters becoming more acidic, these shells become weaker, especially on the smaller and more vulnerable animals.

Plankton.

OK, now the problem with this... is that the entire food chain in the ocean is based around these little tiny organisms which are becoming weaker and weaker as more carbon enters the ocean.
That sucks.
Take that, Earth.

Win.

Coral Reefs have it bad for this reason, and their sensitivity to temperature changes.

[GorgeousGabe]

But who cares about that ****, right?

[spitfirejunky]

When UV rays from the sun combine with oxygen, Ozone is created, thus absorbing the UV ray. The ozone continues to absorb Uv rays preventing them from penetrating further into the oxygen below that has not been converted to ozone. That is why we have oxygen down here and ozone up there. It is impossible to destroy the ozone layer. To do so would require the removal of all oxygen in the earths atmosphere.

It's caused by catalytic degredation of ozone. Certain chemicals keep ozone at low concentrations in such a way that it requires less energy to break it back down into oxygen.

[Surtr]

Not really. It is in some especially volcanically active places like Iceland and to a lesser extent NZ, but generally it's not viable.

Almost all the power in Iceland is Geothermal. Literally everything you use has some connection to the Thermal Springs and all that. I was just there this summer. It's really cool, and an unreal way to power their stuff without any wastes really. Though it smells like sulfur as soon as you turn on the water lol.

[GorgeousGabe]

There are only a few places, though, where that is even remotely possible

[YDload]

Almost all the power in Iceland is Geothermal. Literally everything you use has some connection to the Thermal Springs and all that. I was just there this summer. It's really cool, and an unreal way to power their stuff without any wastes really. Though it smells like sulfur as soon as you turn on the water lol.

south Florida is like that too and they just use conventional power :(

[Smokey D]

Global warming is caused by an excess of carbon emissions- carbon dioxide actually helps to replenish the ozone, but like DrumIntoTheNight already said, it has jack to do with global warming.

What IS relevant is the fact that these gasses are getting trapped in our atmosphere and the earth has no effective means of getting rid of them. The excess of CO2 also causes heat from the sun to stay trapped in our atmosphere. Thus the... drumroll... GLOBAL WARMING

OK but in my mind, that's not what's scary. What's scary is the fact that... when there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere... it goes where? The ocean! OK seems like no big deal, right? But actually it acidifies the waters.

DrumIntoTheNight probably knows what I'm getting at here, but I'm going to say it for all of you so stay with me.

Many creatures living in the ocean have calcium exteriors- outer shells which protect them from all the **** in the ocean, right? Now with the waters becoming more acidic, these shells become weaker, especially on the smaller and more vulnerable animals.

Plankton.

OK, now the problem with this... is that the entire food chain in the ocean is based around these little tiny organisms which are becoming weaker and weaker as more carbon enters the ocean.
That sucks.
Take that, Earth.

I thought plankton sequestered carbon by absorbing it into their shells and then dying and sinking to the ocean floor.

[GorgeousGabe]

OK well it ****s with their shells and kills them
I think that that's the important part

[Smokey D]

As in, I thought carbon sequestration was the big hope for global warming, since it offers a way out of the trap we've created.

But I don't really know enough about it. I seem to recall there needing to be something else (iron springs to mind) for the process to work.

The way I understand it, sequestration removes carbon from the water, which in fact limits the acidification reaction, but it's true that the effects of significant anthopogenic carbon in (deep) water remain an unknown quantity.

This method, too, has potentially dangerous environmental consequences. The carbon dioxide does react with the water to form carbonic acid, H2CO3; however, most (as much as 99%) remains as dissolved molecular CO2. The equilibrium would no doubt be quite different under the high pressure conditions in the deep ocean. The resulting environmental effects on benthic life forms of the bathypelagic, abyssopelagic and hadopelagic zones are unknown. Even though life appears to be rather sparse in the deep ocean basins, energy and chemical effects in these deep basins could have far-reaching implications. Much more work is needed here to define the extent of the potential problems.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

James Lovelock came up with a theory a week or two back about placing 100-200 metre long tubes into the sea, to increase top layer/bottom layer mixing and increase carbon sequestration. So far, it's the only really viable method for sequestration, tbh.

[Mr. Ron]

So I hear there is evidence that 90-something percent of Earth's glaciers are actually growing. Anyone else have any info on this?

[DrumIntoTheNight]

I don't think so somehow. There's glaciers in Greenland moving at 12 km a year. That's insane.

[Mr. Ron]

Well I was listening to this author on the radio and he has measurments of various glaciers in America and elsewhere growing. Weird stuff. I'm not sure how credible he is though. His book is called "not by fire, but by ice" or something of that nature.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Hmm. No idea, tbh. I've heard various people say over the years how glaciers are growing, yadda yadda. I tend to shrug it off as biased, local data. I know for a fact that Greenland's ice sheets are retreating mega fast, along with various other places.

[Mr. Ron]

Oh, I agree. I have to look into this guy more to see if he is credible or not. He believes that we are approaching an iceage.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Could be.

[DxRocker]

People who refuse to accept that humans have played a part in global warming just don't want to do anything to change their current lifestyle.

Did you get that straight from Al Gore's film?

Maybe go back and look at when and how this theory was sent into the public...

It started with Margaret Thatcher. When she came into the picture, the previous government collapsed largely due to the big strifes of the mine workers. Margaret didn't want that to happen to her. She also didn't want to depend on the middle east, because she didn't trust them.

So, Brittain needed to be self sufficiant in terms of power and not dependend upon fossile fuel. Nuclear energy was the answer. She needed arguments to push this agenda and sell it to the public.
Some (very shallow) science point out the "possibility" of a relation between global warming and CO2 emission. When hearing of this, she appointed a team of scientist, threw a bucket load of money at them and told them "bring me proof of that theory". It is obvious that they were not looking to see if the theory actually made sense. They just went out to collect data that corresponded to the theory.

Today, this global warming has become a business. Thousands of jobs depend on it. If you're a scientist and want a grant to study something, it's best to include in your report "...and see how this is related to and/or is caused by global warming". Include that sentence and you'll get your grant, no matter what the subject is.

Scientists that come forward with alternative theories (excluding human behavior) are cast aside. They don't get a chance of getting heared.

It's total bullocks that human CO2 emission causes global warming. It's RIDICULOUS.
Total emission of CO2 either directly or indirectly by humans doesn't even come close to 2% of global CO2 emission. The biggest emission comes from the oceans.

Furthermore, climate has been changing and unstable on this planet since the very beginning. The last ice age was only 10.000 years ago. In fact, today the earth is STILL warming up as a result of that ice age. And the inescapable result of this warming is a change in ocean flow, wich will result in yet another ice age and it will start all over again.

It's the earth's winter and summer if you wish, wich lasts thousands of years.

About this whole CO2 charade...
The best way to draw conclusions about climate change is to investigate it over LONG periods of time, and not just 150 years (wich is when we started keeping climate data). Ice Cores are the answer. In there, we can go back 100s of years to see how the air was composed back then.

Result of this research: the amount of CO2 lags years behind temperature change. In other words: change in the amount of CO2 in the air does NOT cause warming/cooling. It's actually the warming and cooling wich is changing the amount of CO2 in the air!!!

When it is cold, oceans hold on to CO2. When it gets warmer, oceans release that CO2. Human behavior has nothing to do with it at all.

Wich does not mean of course that we can go on polluting. Pollution has its own (grave) consequences, but global warming/cooling is not one of them.

In the end, the whole "global warming" hype is nothing more or less then an attempt to get the world to move on away from fossile fuel. Not for the environment, but to become self sufficiant and not be dependend on oil. It has economic reasons. They really don't care about the environment.

[Mr. Ron]

lmao. ^^^


Global warming wasn't started by humans, most likely. Its only strengthened by our pollution.

[DxRocker]

Its only strengthened by our pollution.

Ok. How exactly?

[Mr. Ron]

Ok. How exactly?

Read a high school environmental text book.

[guitrguy]

Volcanoes for one. Pollution is really how the earth even formed an atmosphere.

[DxRocker]

Read a high school environmental text book.

No, I prefer you to explain it to me.

[Mr. Ron]

No, I prefer you to explain it to me.
Actually, before I even do that, I want to know where you get your info from. It sounds like you read some sort of conspiracy website.

[guitrguy]

Or he could read my post, then research it further. I'm sure you don't want to write an essay.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Actually, the theory of Global Warming came about in 1896. So you're wrong there.

Temperature and CO2 levels are linked, and one neither lags nor leads the other. One triggers the other. So you're wrong there too.

The oceans don't emit anything, they actually absorb 92.3 gigatonnes of atmospheric CO2 per year, with a net intake of 2.3 gigatonnes. So that's false.

Human annual carbon emissions from fossil fuels alone approximate to 0.8% of the total atmospheric carbon. Yes, you're right. It's not a lot. But over the course of the last 150 years? That's a buttload. It's undisputable that CO2 levels have increased, and blindingly obvious that we're to blame for that.

It's also not even remotely under debate whether or not CO2 has a 'greenhouse effect'. This was proved in the lab in the mid 1800's. In fact, you can buy lab kits for children that show the exact same results. It's pretty bloody obvious that increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere will raise temperatures.

Your point about us still warming up since the last ice age? False. We've reached the peak of the interglacial, and should be returning to an ice age. So you're wrong again. Equally, our place within various planetary cycles dictates that we should be experiencing cooling, and this is having a damping effect on the current warming.

And I'm not going to dissect the rest of your post, because I've said it all before in this thread, and you sound like you're blindly regurgitating a Martin Durkin documentary.

[DxRocker]

Actually, before I even do that, I want to know where you get your info from. It sounds like you read some sort of conspiracy website.

Science magazines and National Geographic, among others. And I don't think I ever mentioned something about a "conspiracy" theory. One could maybe see it as such, but I don't.

It's really just a misunderstanding wich then suddenly had millions of dollars poured into it. At this point we are kinda in a fase of "who cares if it is true?? I'm making millions!"

There's plenty of good science sites and books out there that tell you in detail what is going on.

Fact: CO2 amounts change as a result of cooling/warming, not the other way round.

Ever bothered to look up in the sky? See that big ball of fire there? It's called the sun. The climate on this planet is in direct relation with what happens in that ball of fire.
If there are changes in activity of that fireball, then we see those changes on this planet translated in nice weather, storms, change in temperatures etc...

When solar activity warms the earth up, then the oceans will emit more co2 then previously, so CO2 goes up.
So again: temperature controls CO2 amounts, CO2 amounts do NOT control temperature.

Did you know that the cows on this planet actually emit more co2 then all means of transportation (cars, trucks, boats, airplanes etc) put together? Think about that for a second.

[Mr. Ron]

the more CO2 there is ------> the more heat gets trapped in the atmosphere -------> and the warmer it gets.


Pretty simple concept guys.

[guitrguy]

So again: temperature controls CO2 amounts, CO2 amounts do NOT control temperature.


:lol: You obviously failed elementary science.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

It's really just a misunderstanding wich then suddenly had millions of dollars poured into it. At this point we are kinda in a fase of "who cares if it is true?? I'm making millions!"

The investment you describe is the direct result of the 70's oil crises. The investment was in place long before there was a 'Green' market for environmentally friendly anything.

Fact: CO2 amounts change as a result of cooling/warming, not the other way round.

You're an idiot.


Ever bothered to look up in the sky? See that big ball of fire there? It's called the sun. The climate on this planet is in direct relation with what happens in that ball of fire.
If there are changes in activity of that fireball, then we see those changes on this planet translated in nice weather, storms, change in temperatures etc...

Yeah nice one, genius. I'm sure all 3000 of the scientists in the IPCC completely forgot the fact that the sun has an effect on global temperatures.

Solar activity hasn't increased in the last 70 years. So that's not the cause.


Did you know that the cows on this planet actually emit more co2 then all means of transportation (cars, trucks, boats, airplanes etc) put together? Think about that for a second.

*Equivalent CO2. Cows produce little CO2.

This figure is often pulled out of the hats of AGW skeptics, and completely false.

Will you please stop making a fool of yourself now? You really aren't informed enough to make a comment on such a complex system, which you completely misunderstand.

[DxRocker]

Actually, the theory of Global Warming came about in 1896. So you're wrong there.

I said that margerat threw the theory in our face, I didn't say that it was given birth then.

Temperature and CO2 levels are linked, and one neither lags nor leads the other. One triggers the other. So you're wrong there too.

Listen to yourself... If one triggers the other, then they don't happen at the same time. Hence, one has to lag behind the other.
And this is not me saying this. It's scientific fact.

The oceans don't emit anything, they actually absorb 92.3 gigatonnes of atmospheric CO2 per year, with a net intake of 2.3 gigatonnes. So that's false.

Oceans DO emit Co2. And they emit MORE when it's warmer.

Human annual carbon emissions from fossil fuels alone approximate to 0.8% of the total atmospheric carbon. Yes, you're right. It's not a lot. But over the course of the last 150 years? That's a buttload. It's undisputable that CO2 levels have increased, and blindingly obvious that we're to blame for that.

At one point, CO2 levels were about 18 times higher then today. No cars or any kind of history then. So while one could say that humans "artificially" created more CO2 then was "naturally" possible, one could by NO MEANS say that humans pushed it towards unprecedent proportions wich will have cataclysmic results! And it's exactly that what they are trying to push down our throat.

It's also not even remotely under debate whether or not CO2 has a 'greenhouse effect'. This was proved in the lab in the mid 1800's. In fact, you can buy lab kits for children that show the exact same results. It's pretty bloody obvious that increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere will raise temperatures.

A report in the journal 'Science' showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and co2 levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile attempt in fighting global warming! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored. CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, but it's far less powerfull then represented here.
To make the earth 1 degree warmer, we would need to emit FAR FAR more then what we are doing now.

Your point about us still warming up since the last ice age? False. We've reached the peak of the interglacial, and should be returning to an ice age. So you're wrong again. Equally, our place within various planetary cycles dictates that we should be experiencing cooling, and this is having a damping effect on the current warming.

There was no ice on the poles before the ice age. So what makes you think we reached the peak? Now it is warming (still). It might sound illogical, but an ice age is indeed the result of a to warm climate. It's because ocean flows regulate our climate. When it gets to warm, the current changes. This change causes a sudden drop in temperature wich gives birth to an ice age. It IS a cycle. The only thing speeding or slowing that cycle is the sun.

And I'm not going to dissect the rest of your post

I'm not gonna pretend to be error-less. I just consider it proven that changing of CO2 is caused by a change in temperature, wich is caused by solar activity.
Not the other way round.

[DxRocker]

Yeah nice one, genius. I'm sure all 3000 of the scientists in the IPCC completely forgot the fact that the sun has an effect on global temperatures.


Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians

This comes from those very scientists themselves. And thanks for proving my point as well: thousands of jobs depend on global warming. When tomorrow we get revelation that CO2 does not cause global warming, the next day 10.000's of people lose their job. And that is what's really going on here.

[guitrguy]

I like how you down talk the IPCC for being a government agency then use a NASA scientist as a source to make a counter point.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

The IPCC reports are the most heavily peer reviewed pieces of research ever produced. It's safe to say they're accurate.

In fact, most would say the opposite to you - the politicising of Climage Change by various governments has watered down the reports, and made them highly conservative. No politicians want to face up to the fact that they actually have to do something.


Listen to yourself... If one triggers the other, then they don't happen at the same time. Hence, one has to lag behind the other.


Further proof you fundamentally misunderstand the earth's systems. Heating can trigger CO2 release. Fact. CO2 release can trigger heating. Fact. They're linked. End of discussion. You are wrong.



Oceans DO emit Co2. And they emit MORE when it's warmer.


Yes they do. They also absorb it. The net effect is an absorbtion of 2.3 GtC. End of discussion. You are incorrect.


At one point, CO2 levels were about 18 times higher then today. No cars or any kind of history then. So while one could say that humans "artificially" created more CO2 then was "naturally" possible, one could by NO MEANS say that humans pushed it towards unprecedent proportions wich will have cataclysmic results! And it's exactly that what they are trying to push down our throat.

Whilst I doubt those figures, you could be right. However, present atmospheric CO2 levels are a third higher than they've been for at least half a million years. This happens to be the period during which Ice Ages and Interglacials became a regular pattern. The earth is used to a stable-ish climate. We're only going to ruin it by Anthropogenic Forcing.



A report in the journal 'Science' showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and co2 levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile attempt in fighting global warming!

This is a line often used by climate skeptics too. It's wrong. The link between CO2 and Temperature is not clear cut and defined, and far too complex for you, it seems.


What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored. CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, but it's far less powerfull then represented here.

You idiot. Methane emissions featured highly in the IPCC report, and are well up there with scientist's concerns. They're not stupid, dude.

Yes, water vapour is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect. The point is, it's a touchy system. Adding more of anything won't do us any good.


To make the earth 1 degree warmer, we would need to emit FAR FAR more then what we are doing now.


Frankly, that's bollocks. We're already over 1 degree warmer than we were during pre-industrial times. Oddly enough, we've been burning billions of tonnes of hydrocarbons since, and atmospheric CO2 has gone up by a third. Blindingly obvious link much?



There was no ice on the poles before the ice age. So what makes you think we reached the peak? Now it is warming (still). It might sound illogical, but an ice age is indeed the result of a to warm climate. It's because ocean flows regulate our climate. When it gets to warm, the current changes. This change causes a sudden drop in temperature wich gives birth to an ice age. It IS a cycle. The only thing speeding or slowing that cycle is the sun.

You, again, show a fundamental lack of understanding. I'm not even going to bother with this one.

I'd just like to point out; you are not a climatologist.

So you can stop being so arrogant as to think that you know better than all the climatologists out there.

[guitrguy]

The IPCC reports are the most heavily peer reviewed pieces of research ever produced. It's safe to say they're accurate.

I was just pointing out a flaw in his argument.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

I was just pointing out a flaw in his argument.

It was a moronic arguement frankly. It's pretty bloody obvious that the various governments involved were going to attempt to water it down. China and America's officials spent hours agonising over the phrasing to make things seem less urgent.

It's not in any government's interest to admit to Climate Change (in the short term, obviously).

[guitrguy]

Thinking short term rarely results in a positive consequence. I personally don't buy into the apocalyptic rhetoric of Al Gore. We know what we do to the atmosphere is bad and will only get worse for future generations. It will only do good cut back on emissions. It not as if fresh air and cooler temperatures will cause mass extinction.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Heh, personally, I buy into the "we're ****ed in the next 50 years" thing. Too many positive feedback loops are in place.

I'm not saying it'll be the end of the world, but it will be the end of our comfy lifestyle, for sure. Economic upheaval ftw.

[guitrguy]

Heh, personally, I buy into the "we're ****ed in the next 50 years" thing. Too many positive feedback loops are in place.

I'm not saying it'll be the end of the world, but it will be the end of our comfy lifestyle, for sure. Economic upheaval ftw.

Maybe thats what we need.

[DiesIrae]

Um, have you ever been or seen cities like beijing? I've seen people wear ****ing masks because of the poopty atmosphere because of emissions. I don't need a government to tell me that. And what's the problem with the government telling us about this? You think its some kind of conspiracy? How the hell would they benefit from something like GW?


Beijing uses masks mostly because they burn coal for heat in the winter.

[ringworm]

all you have to do is google LA to see what needs to be changed

there was a show on last night (Dis Chnl I think) regarding the rapidly declining glaciers in the N & S poles

i dont see why global warming has to be the main focus of why cleaner fuels should be implemented, it should be everyones common goal to live WITH nature

[guitrguy]

there was a show on last night (Dis Chnl I think) regarding the rapidly declining glaciers in the N & S poles


I saw that and thought Disney Channel for a second.

[GorgeousGabe]

Human annual carbon emissions from fossil fuels alone approximate to 0.8% of the total atmospheric carbon. Yes, you're right. It's not a lot. But over the course of the last 150 years? That's a buttload. It's undisputable that CO2 levels have increased, and blindingly obvious that we're to blame for that.

I'm gonna quote this here and then state something that's very important.

A lot of people say that this isn't a large increase, but an increase in CO2 emissions, in many ways, creates a positive feedback loop. For example, there is lots of methane stored in the ground and ice. By so drastically changing the climate, you run the risk of releasing more methane gasses- thus exacerbating the problem.

CO2 emissions also damage plant life... with less trees and plant life, less oxygen is released into the atmosphere and less carbon absorbed... thus exacerbating the problem

Fact: CO2 amounts change as a result of cooling/warming, not the other way round.

Oh great. You are so blind that you can SEE that the two are obviously related, and still can't understand that humans are making the situation worse.

Did you know that the cows on this planet actually emit more co2 then all means of transportation (cars, trucks, boats, airplanes etc) put together? Think about that for a second.

Other than the fact that it's not true, it's a pretty cool argument

There was no ice on the poles before the ice age. So what makes you think we reached the peak? Now it is warming (still). It might sound illogical, but an ice age is indeed the result of a to warm climate. It's because ocean flows regulate our climate. When it gets to warm, the current changes. This change causes a sudden drop in temperature wich gives birth to an ice age. It IS a cycle. The only thing speeding or slowing that cycle is the sun.

We're not trying to say that ocean flows DON'T regulate the temperature. We're also not trying to say that the sun DOESN'T regulate the temperature.
We're just saying, that there are MANY things linked to the earth's temperature, and by changing one of them, you create a lot of problems, as I've stated above

[Lizparker]

its weird, some data suggests that global warming will ultimately cause a drop in temps and could bring an early small ice age, this is of course years after the warming and melting of the polar caps

naked science had a show that predicted a small ice age is impending, and that global warming is actually keeping it from happening, but could not stop it

either way, we have got to change our destructive habits

This tbh.
The ice will melt, the water temperature will drop and we'll go in another ice age.
You can't really stop it from happening though, slow it down yeah but this is just a process the planet goes through i believe :C

We had an ice age already and there weren't any of this stuff, and pollution and whatever so yep k, even if there were other reasons for it.

The planet will be all clean and ready to go once it's done :C

[Relmar]

what "limit"?

Suppose Є > 0. Then there exists a δ> 0 such that 0<|x-a|<δ => |f(a) - L|< Є

[WhoDidTheElf]

Heh, personally, I buy into the "we're ****ed in the next 50 years" thing. Too many positive feedback loops are in place.

I'm not saying it'll be the end of the world, but it will be the end of our comfy lifestyle, for sure. Economic upheaval ftw.

The thing about the feedback loops is that they can go both ways. As ice melts it puts more water in to the oceans, and less energy is reflected and more is absorbed. The temperature rises on the planet causing more evaporation. As more water evaporates, more clouds are formed. Clouds are among the largest forms of energy reflection on the planet. More reflection less energy makes it to the planet, cooler the planet gets and so fourth and so on. Yeah.

While things will change eventually the loops will catch back up.

This is all theory of course.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Well, there's massive debate over whether clouds limit or exacerbate global warming, and the answers aren't particularly clear. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many negative feedback loops =/

[ashman]

Solar activity hasn't increased in the last 70 years. So that's not the cause.


Bit offtopic here, but the Sun goes through an 11 year cycle where it's mean temperature peaks on the 11th year year, then drops until the 5th year, then increases again. Strange thing is, this cycle is exactly the same as the Sun Spot cycle.


About the cloud's reflected heat away, I was under the impression that they also reflect heat back inwards as well as outwards, so it cancels itself out. Common sense would say it reflects more out into space, but science stop following common sense about 100 years ago :p

[WhoDidTheElf]

Well, there's massive debate over whether clouds limit or exacerbate global warming, and the answers aren't particularly clear. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many negative feedback loops =/

Well high clouds raise the earths temp, while low "rain" clouds lower the earths temp. The rain clouds are the ones that would be formed by the evaporation and would prolly end up lowering the earths temp.

Eventually it will balance out, and things will progress back to what they were. Also a lot of scientists say that this current warming trend is only putting off the next ice age that we are do for soon.

[Smokey D]

All clouds are water, so I don't know if only rain clouds would be formed by evaporation.

But other forces might kick in to overpower the cloud effect anyway.

[WhoDidTheElf]

The thing is though, as you increase the % of water in the air the closer it gets to the due point, and once it hits due point it rains. Granted it may not being only rain clouds but it will prolly be the majority of them.

[Smokey D]

I thought pressure and temperature and **** affected cloud formation, as well as bunch of other variables.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I thought pressure and temperature and **** affected cloud formation, as well as bunch of other variables.

They do, but pressure systems are caused by temperature (They mostly affect cloud formation rather than "rain" clouds vs. high clouds) changes, and temperature changes affect AH. Once the air is completely saturated (due point) it starts to rain. The higher the temp, the more water the air can hold, but that's irrelevant if the air is constantly being saturated with water.

[DxRocker]

Further proof you fundamentally misunderstand the earth's systems. Heating can trigger CO2 release. Fact. CO2 release can trigger heating. Fact. They're linked. End of discussion. You are wrong.

End of discussion? Indeed it is. Primarily because you just described an endless loop. If you are correct, then the earth would have been fried long ago. Have some common sense please.

If A makes heat up the earth, and if the heating up of the earth produces more A... Well, then, do I need to draw a picture of this obvious flaw in logic?


The earth is used to a stable-ish climate. We're only going to ruin it by Anthropogenic Forcing

Where did you get that idea?? It's in fact the exact opposite. The "calm and stable" climate the earth has known for the past 10.000 years is totally abnormal. Before that it was total chaos. Extreme storms, earthquakes, floods, etc were everyday business on this planet.


The link between CO2 and Temperature is not clear cut and defined, and far too complex for you, it seems.


Well, then you need to study up on extensive research done on ice cores. There is no doubt about what I said (that the amount of CO2 is defined by the temperature and not the other way round). It's been proven. More then once.


Yes, water vapour is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect. The point is, it's a touchy system. Adding more of anything won't do us any good.

No, that is not the point. The point is to find the REAL cause of global warming (wich in this case is simply more intensive solar activity). Not just conclude "it's a touchy system" and "guess" that it's CO2 wich is causing it all. It takes a tiny bit more then 2% extra CO2 to warm up the earth for more then 1 degree C...


We're already over 1 degree warmer than we were during pre-industrial times.

And about 15 degrees warmer then during the Ice Age, so what's your point?


Oddly enough, we've been burning billions of tonnes of hydrocarbons since, and atmospheric CO2 has gone up by a third. Blindingly obvious link much?

Actually, in pre-industrial times, we all went to church every sunday!!! Wow! It's not because of CO2, no, not at all... It's just the Lord who's pissed at us because we all left our faith!! Blindingly obvious link much?

In summary: it's not because two things happen at around the same time, that they are linked. Furthermore, the temperatures have been going up slowly, going down, back up, etc for thousands of years. Why should we be at fault now all of a sudden?
There is absolutely nothing unnatural going on here (when we talk about climate that is...)


I'd just like to point out; you are not a climatologist.
So you can stop being so arrogant as to think that you know better than all the climatologists out there

You are a climatologists?
And you speak as if I sucked all my info out of my thumb and just spew it on here... I only repeat what I here scientists of various fields say. I just repeat what I read in Science Magazine, see on National Geographic, Discovery channel and some other documentaries.

I would also like to note that I find it funny how you find it necissary to consistently call me an "idiot" etc. Global warming is no longer a science theory... It's more like a fundamentalist religion. Anyone not believing it is immediatly branded a heretic and called a morron. There is no room for discussion, even though there is not a single shred of hard down to earth evidence of the theory. In fact, the best evidence that exists, points to the opposite of the theory...

Funny.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

^^^

Remember that the first widely publicised anti-global warming research was by a statistician, rather than someone whos career and livlihood depend on the existance of global warming. Also someone who deals in something real, hard and quantifiable.

[Smokey D]

And you speak as if I sucked all my info out of my thumb and just spew it on here... I only repeat what I here scientists of various fields say. I just repeat what I read in Science Magazine, see on National Geographic, Discovery channel and some other d0cumentaries.

Bad plan right there.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

End of discussion? Indeed it is. Primarily because you just described an endless loop. If you are correct, then the earth would have been fried long ago. Have some common sense please.,

Okay, this is getting stupid now. You're making a fool of yourself.

It's not an endless loop, there are both positive and negative feedbacks that kick in once the earth crosses certain thresholds. Hence why we go from ice age, to interglacial, and back again. The earth self-regulates.

This doesn't get away from the fact that more heating, releases more carbon, which forces more heating. It's a fact. Provable. Repeatable. Undisputable. So you can stop being ignorant now and go and read some research on positive and negative feedbacks. Then you'd understand how CO2 content and temperature are linked entirely.


Where did you get that idea?? It's in fact the exact opposite. The "calm and stable" climate the earth has known for the past 10.000 years is totally abnormal. Before that it was total chaos. Extreme storms, earthquakes, floods, etc were everyday business on this planet.


Our 'calm and stable' climate that you describe has existed for around 3 million years. And abnormal against what? The planet has been slowly cooling for millions and millions of years. As it's cooled, it's become more and more stable. Most would argue the contrary; the Glacial/Interglacial stage is usually considered 'normal'.

Secondly, yes, the planet has had much more unstable climatic condition than it does today. That doesn't take away from the fact that we've forced the climate into a new stage; the Anthropocene.


Well, then you need to study up on extensive research done on ice cores. There is no doubt about what I said (that the amount of CO2 is defined by the temperature and not the other way round). It's been proven. More then once.

Link please? You're utterly wrong on this. Completely and utterly wrong. Accept it.



No, that is not the point. The point is to find the REAL cause of global warming (wich in this case is simply more intensive solar activity). Not just conclude "it's a touchy system" and "guess" that it's CO2 wich is causing it all. It takes a tiny bit more then 2% extra CO2 to warm up the earth for more then 1 degree C...


Do everyone a favour and read the IPCC report. Then, throw disregard everything they've concluded and go and tell them you know better.

You arrogance is unfathomable.


And about 15 degrees warmer then during the Ice Age, so what's your point?

No. Global averages put our last Ice Age at 5 degrees colder than we are now. So 1 degree of extra warming is substantial, and especially over such a short timescale.


Actually, in pre-industrial times, we all went to church every sunday!!! Wow! It's not because of CO2, no, not at all... It's just the Lord who's pissed at us because we all left our faith!! Blindingly obvious link much?

Don't be such a faggot.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/co2-and-temp-trends_013007_092528.gif

Blindingly obvious link, much?


You are a climatologists?

I'm studying a degree in Renewable Energy at Camborne School Of Mines, paired with Exeter University. We have one of the best reputations in the world for environmental studies, and indeed Exeter has long been a centre for Climate science. The Hadley centre (do you even know who he is? What a Hadley Cell is? Didn't think so) isn't in Exeter for no reason.

My course features quite heavily on the topic of Climate Change, and some of my lecturers are world experts. Similarly, I've been reading books from leading scientists and scientific journalists in the field for years. Note, I've been reading and researching on both sides of the arguement. Frankly, the arguement you're upholding doesn't make sense.

My knowledge and expertise far outweighs yours; you aren't dealing with some Hippy here. You are, in fact, just another misguided fool who believes that watching a documentary makes him able to comment on systems he doesn't understand. You've shown your ignorance of very basic, fundamental science several times in this thread, and refuse to accept that you're wrong.

Epic fail, on your part.

[DxRocker]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Here you go dude. The conclusion is plainly obvious.
Even though humans might accelerate the process just a wee tiny bit, global warming is BY NO MEANS at all "caused" by us. With or without your SUV, that warming is coming anyway and there is virtually nothing you can do about it.

I feel compelled to add that I wouldn't use this argument to continue pollution. Pollution is always bad and the less we "interfere" with the ecological system, the better. But global warming "caused" by humans? Get real.

The fraction of CO2 we "artificially" launch in the atmosphere really isn't gonna make that big a difference. The "apocalyptic period" that's awaiting us is really really really not caused by burning some fossile fuels. Accelerated a little bit? Maybe, but it's very neglectable at best.

Global warming certainly is real. But lieing about the origin of it isn't helping anyone.

[DrumIntoTheNight]

Wait, I don't get what you're trying to prove with that article? It hardly ratifies your point.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

There you go. CO2 is released by warming, and in turn amplifies the effect. Meaning more warming. Positive feedback loop.

Doesn't that suggest that releasing 65 million years worth of nature's second largest store of CO2 into the atmosphere is a really, really bad idea?

[Knifeboy]

If A makes heat up the earth, and if the heating up of the earth produces more A... Well, then, do I need to draw a picture of this obvious flaw in logic?


If you drew a picture, you'd only make yourself look like even more of an idiot. (which is hard to imagine).
How is that a flaw in logic in any way? It's all about balance..

[ringworm]

Here is a good video discussing how politics are being blurred with actual scientific data.
It debunks many of the facts that Al Gore professes to, and he declined to counter any of the facts, because, after all, he thinks the debate is over. :/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FI0U5JOtoo

[GreyHam]

at the end of the day, the increase in industrialisation has led to more emmisions being released into the atmosphere. yes, lots of stuff gets released anyway. But as its been said, the scales have been tipped, the balance has changed, and its important that people are at lease considering the consequences of their actions and are ready to take responsibility if those actions lead to a general ****ing up of the world as we know it