A discussion of Global Warming

[Rosbjerg]

Do you believe GW (Global Warming) is true? are we causing the increase in temperature of this planet? comment please..

 

and then my layout of the situation ..

(I found a few websites which I agree on, so I will loosely quote them and copy parts of their text into my own), but to avoid being called a copycat I will link to their sites:

 

[Kaftan Barlast]

IMO, you have to insane(or have some kind of hidden agenda) not to believe in global warming. That's like denying that smoking causes lung cancer.

[Baley]

That's like denying that smoking causes lung cancer.

 

It does?

 

IMO, you have to insane(or have some kind of hidden agenda) not to believe in global warming.

 

conspiracy "

[Rosbjerg]

IMO, you have to insane(or have some kind of hidden agenda) not to believe in global warming. That's like denying that smoking causes lung cancer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not disagreeing that the temperature will eventually rise, and that an iceage will come again .. but I don't think we are the cause of it, since the world has gone from searing hot to balls-falling-off cold several times before we even evovled (were 'invented'/made or whatever rocks your boat) ..

 

I saw a Discovery program about the Cretaceous period, where temperatures where much higher than today .. and the general level of CO

[213374U]

IMO, you have to insane(or have some kind of hidden agenda) not to believe in global warming. That's like denying that smoking causes lung cancer.

Actually, it's a cyclical process that has been going on for millions of years. Ice ages and warm periods in alternation, in a perfectly natural fashion. It's not the first time I hear this.

 

Hidden agenda? Preposterous!

Everyone knows I have no secret plans for world domination. That's right. None at all.

[WITHTEETH]

Ok Ros here i go...

Green house gases are great they make this planet warm enugh for life to be habitable. what they do is block heat from going off into space, so that the heat stays here and warms our planet. Many things cause green house gases, such as landfills make methane, volcano's are one of the biggest contributers but even trees during respiration, and again when we burn them more co2 goes into the air. Humans are the unbalance here. Any amount of CO2 unnaturally made is the problem. we are making the excess amount. the past houndred years our temp has raised 1 degree from global warming, and the hottest years were in the 90's, the next century is going to be between 2-8 degrees raise, (im farienhight.) we are the unblance in global warming, ever since the agricultural and industrial age we've been making more and more green house gases. we need to change our power sources and recycle more.

[Rosbjerg]

Ok Ros here i go...

Green house gases are great they make this planet warm enugh for life to be habitable. what they do is block heat from going off into space, so that the heat stays here and warms our planet. Many things cause green house gases, such as landfills make methane, volcano's are one of the biggest contributers but even trees during respiration, and again when we burn them more co2 goes into the air.  Humans are the unbalance here. Any amount of CO2  unnaturally made is the problem. we are making the excess amount.  the past houndred years our temp has raised 1 degree from global warming, and the hottest years were in the 90's, the next century is going to be between 2-8 degrees raise, (im farienhight.) we are the unblance in global warming, ever since the agricultural and industrial age we've been making more and more green house gases. we need to change our power sources and recycle more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

as I quoted and thus I quote again.. "Even more interesting, but also left unreported, is the fact that from 1946 until 1975, while industrialization expanded and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased, urban surface temperatures actually cooled. At the time, many in the media feared a new ice age"

 

plus there has been a decrease of 0.19 degrees on average 5 miles up .. how do you explain that? when the greenhouse theory states that all of Earth, including the atmosphere, should increase in temperature!

 

and as I stated, and as every biologist will tell you .. if you increase the amount of CO

[kirottu]

Just the thought that we can pollute as much as we want without no consequonses strike me as very wrong... Even if I

[The Great Phantom]

The Earth goes through a natural cycle of freezing and warming. This may be what's going on now, but I do think that we humans (as always) have thrown some little thing out of balance that may exaggerate the normal affects...

[WITHTEETH]

I agree that Pollution should get more attnetion. its a more immediate threat. Americas fresh water source is being used up very fast and being mixed in with the polluted water, and when the population rises more water has top be used and more pulluted water is created until... no more freshwater... as of now desaltation is to expensive and the only other choices are snow that brings in freshwater and glaciers, but the only ones that will be able to afford them are the big oil tycoons in the middle east. ironic. thats a hypothesis by tht e way.

[Rosbjerg]

Just the thought that we can pollute as much as we want without no consequonses strike me as very wrong... Even if I

[Kaftan Barlast]

Ill tell ya what's causing global warming, its Communism!!

[213374U]

Just the thought that we can pollute as much as we want without no consequonses strike me as very wrong... Even if I

[WITHTEETH]

Isn't everything on earth made of carbon?

[LadyCrimson]

I believe in the concept of global warming, and I definitely think the world as a whole (very generalistic comment there) doesn't pay enough attention to pollution - or overpopulation.

 

On the other hand, I leave myself open to the idea that at least part of the noted 'symptoms' could be some kind of cyclic/natural change/influence - perhaps we're greatly speeding it along, but maybe it would still have occured eventually anyway. (Edit - and perhaps we're noticing now it only because we've developed the tech to be able to see it

 

Lastly, I've always had an issue when the news talks about how we're destroying the world or something - when it's really that we're destroying the world for human habitation.

 

The world itself will survive, and perhaps in few billion years, heal itself in some fashion, and a new dominant species will arise. I'd like to be around to see what develops...alas, not possible. :D

[kirottu]

Just the thought that we can pollute as much as we want without no consequonses strike me as very wrong... Even if I

[rick]

Well, carbon dioxide itself may be relatively inert chemically as a gas, high concentration it in solution may not to be so nice. I think I notice someone said the ocean is able to aborb more carbon dioxide if there is more in the atmosphere.

 

That much is true, but here is where the problem begins:

 

Carbon dioxide dissolves in water forming carbonic acid (CO2 + H2O <=> H+ + HCO3-). So more dissolved carbon dioxide in ocean water would acidify the oceans.

 

We are already facing problems with over-fishing, and with more acidic water, ocean life would have an even harder time to survive (added on the pollutions, etc). Besides, coral reefs, which provide shelter for many smaller fish species, are thought to be highly sensitive to acidity of the water. So while the ocean maybe able to help maintaining the atmospheric carbon dioxide level, it isn't the solution.

 

 

P.S.: also, I also recall Rosbjerg made the argument of a temperature increase of 18F for the past 160000 years versus the 1F increase for the last hundreds of years (for the sake of argument, let's take that as 1000 years).

 

Do a quick comparison: 18F/160000years = 0.0001125F/year

and: 1F/1000years = 0.001F/year

 

now that's approximately 10 times difference there.

 

P.P.S: Yes, plants may grow bigger with more CO2, but I still think we're cutting them down WAY faster than they can grow.

[taks]

IMO, you have to insane(or have some kind of hidden agenda) not to believe in global warming. That's like denying that smoking causes lung cancer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, based on what? your extensive scientific background? do you understand the difference between the concepts of correlation and causation?

 

science doesn't work the way you think it does. it's not "well heck, they must be related." no proof that we are causing the climate to change has ever been shown. none. every "model" that has ever shown it to be has been proven flawed.

 

study up on the scientific method a little before you make such obviously ill-informed statements.

 

oh, btw, not everybody that smokes gets lung cancer, either.

 

taks

[Darque]

Isn't everything on earth made of carbon?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No.

[taks]

Do a quick comparison: 18F/160000years = 0.0001125F/year

and:      1F/1000years  = 0.001F/year

 

now that's approximately 10 times difference there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

man, you don't understand math very well. he didn't say it has warmed that much in 160,000 years. it varied 18 degrees in 160,000 years. in other words, it has gone up and down overall about 18 degrees, sometimes several degrees per year. within the last 160,000 years, btw, we have had several ice ages, including a mini ice age in the mid 1800 which resulted in iced over lakes during the summer in the new england area.

 

most people say "oh, it's one degree warmer than it was in 1900" without realizing that if you slide the date out to 1930 and compare, it's actually cooler now. simple science folks. the climate changes, ALWAYS. do we have an effect? probably, though given the size of the earth and the number of climate driving forces there are (think in terms of infinite), measuring our miniscule impact is impossible. we are only responsible for 0.1% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere, btw.

 

the sun varies in the amount of the energy delivered to us by as much as 1% each year. that alone could cause a several degree shift in "global temperatures." also, exactly how do they find out what the "global temperature" is? think about it... we don't have monitoring every three inches. not even every three miles.

 

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the science behind the "global warming" scare is agenda driven. the people that back this idea had their minds made up before even doing research. remember the "hole" in the ozone back in the 80s?... oops, turns out a lot of the same folks were behind that. at least until we figured out that it ebbs and flows, coincidentally in unison with changes in solar activity.

 

taks

[taks]

Isn't everything on earth made of carbon?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

all biological life on earth is carbon based.

 

taks

[rick]

IMO, you have to insane(or have some kind of hidden agenda) not to believe in global warming. That's like denying that smoking causes lung cancer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, based on what? your extensive scientific background? do you understand the difference between the concepts of correlation and causation?

 

science doesn't work the way you think it does. it's not "well heck, they must be related." no proof that we are causing the climate to change has ever been shown. none. every "model" that has ever shown it to be has been proven flawed.

 

study up on the scientific method a little before you make such obviously ill-informed statements.

 

oh, btw, not everybody that smokes gets lung cancer, either.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Err... a few points if I may:

 

First, existence of flaws of a model only means no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from the model. You cannot say, however, that since the model is flawed, the opposing theory is then, by default, true.

 

Second, the assertion that "smoking causes lung cancer", should read "a smoker has a statistically significant increase of the tendency to have lung cancer." And this doesn't rule out the possibility that there could be a smoker who doesn't get lung cancer.

[rick]

Do a quick comparison: 18F/160000years = 0.0001125F/year

and:      1F/1000years  = 0.001F/year

 

now that's approximately 10 times difference there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

man, you don't understand math very well. he didn't say it has warmed that much in 160,000 years. it varied 18 degrees in 160,000 years. in other words, it has gone up and down overall about 18 degrees, sometimes several degrees per year. within the last 160,000 years, btw, we have had several ice ages, including a mini ice age in the mid 1800 which resulted in iced over lakes during the summer in the new england area.

 

most people say "oh, it's one degree warmer than it was in 1900" without realizing that if you slide the date out to 1930 and compare, it's actually cooler now. simple science folks. the climate changes, ALWAYS. do we have an effect? probably, though given the size of the earth and the number of climate driving forces there are (think in terms of infinite), measuring our miniscule impact is impossible. we are only responsible for 0.1% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere, btw.

 

the sun varies in the amount of the energy delivered to us by as much as 1% each year. that alone could cause a several degree shift in "global temperatures." also, exactly how do they find out what the "global temperature" is? think about it... we don't have monitoring every three inches. not even every three miles.

 

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the science behind the "global warming" scare is agenda driven. the people that back this idea had their minds made up before even doing research. remember the "hole" in the ozone back in the 80s?... oops, turns out a lot of the same folks were behind that. at least until we figured out that it ebbs and flows, coincidentally in unison with changes in solar activity.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

alright, and even if I give the benefit of the doubt and double the variability of the temperature change for the past 160000 years, that still amount to approximately 20% of the rate of change for the past 1000 years or so.

 

Oh, and let's focus on discussion on the issue, not the posters' intelligence.

[213374U]

Carbon dioxide dissolves in water forming carbonic acid (CO2 + H2O <=> H+ + HCO3-).  So more dissolved carbon dioxide in ocean water would acidify the oceans. 

 

We are already facing problems with over-fishing, and with more acidic water, ocean life would have an even harder time to survive (added on the pollutions, etc).  Besides, coral reefs, which provide shelter for many smaller fish species, are thought to be highly sensitive to acidity of the water.  So while the ocean maybe able to help maintaining the atmospheric carbon dioxide level, it isn't the solution.

That is chemically correct. However, carbonic acid is a very weak acid, which means that the chemical balance you posted would be very tipped towards the left member. I honestly don't know what is the tolerance of oceanic life with regards to changes in the pH of the water (I suspect it's quite low), but I think that given the size of the oceans, you would really need to dissolve a lot of CO2 in order to significantly change its acidity. In addition, I think I heard that the oceans have their own mechanisms to control acidity changes.

 

I am by no means an expert, and all of that is based on my rather limited knowledge of chemistry. That, added to the fact that I lack any figures to back it up, makes me wonder why am I writing this reply at all...

[rick]

Carbon dioxide dissolves in water forming carbonic acid (CO2 + H2O <=> H+ + HCO3-).  So more dissolved carbon dioxide in ocean water would acidify the oceans. 

 

We are already facing problems with over-fishing, and with more acidic water, ocean life would have an even harder time to survive (added on the pollutions, etc).  Besides, coral reefs, which provide shelter for many smaller fish species, are thought to be highly sensitive to acidity of the water.  So while the ocean maybe able to help maintaining the atmospheric carbon dioxide level, it isn't the solution.

That is chemically correct. However, carbonic acid is a very weak acid, which means that the chemical balance you posted would be very tipped towards the left member. I honestly don't know what is the tolerance of oceanic life with regards to changes in the pH of the water (I suspect it's quite low), but I think that given the size of the oceans, you would really need to dissolve a lot of CO2 in order to significantly change its acidity. In addition, I think I heard that the oceans have their own mechanisms to control acidity changes.

 

I am by no means an expert, and all of that is based on my rather limited knowledge of chemistry. That, added to the fact that I lack any figures to back it up, makes me wonder why am I writing this reply at all...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thanks for your input 213374U, I definitely agree to most of what you said. But I would like to clarify that while direct effect of acidty of ocean water would probably be very small, it still make the ocean envirionment slightly less suitable for marine life (and marine life in general is very sensitive to pH changes). But I think the biggest concerns though, is that the over-fishing, pollution, oil-dump, oil-spills, etc already put enough stress onto the ecosystem already, we do not need acidified ocean water to make it even more difficult to cope with the current challenges.

 

 

EDIT: oh, and I think the main cause for ocean acidification is from acid rain, which is formed from the sulfur in burning fossil fuels.