Print

[gronned]

I just went out for a walk now here in Sweden(no partying tonight dammit!) and it's a little over midnight, and it's like 3 degress celsius outside!!!(about 40 degrees fahrenheit i guess). It's so weird it 's the sixth of december and the grass is really green, not a real sign of winter! As much as i hate snow when not skiing, it truly doesn't feel any good at all lacking it now.

Like 10 years ago we DEFINITELY had snow in the beginning of december, most often it came at around november, but now it's even raining outside! It's so bizarre. I heard it was about 20 degrees celsius in New york yesterday, how weird is that (i think they said it had been the same once in the fifties though)?

I was more wondering if the opinions had turned in the states now. Last time I spoke about it some people seemed really offensive and sure it was a natural change.

I look at it this way: Even if it AMAZINGLY enough would be a natural change, wouldn't it be better we tried our best to reduce the pollution anyway? If you're right then the harm/cost in reducing the pollution would be NOWHERE near the harm/cost if the climate changes are affected by us, right? It's pretty easy to say in 20 years "Oh, we were wrong, it wasn't a natural change.. well it's too late to do anything now...".

I mean it's not that easy to do stuff yourself that'll improve the environment, but buying a SUV hasn't helped the pollution-levels a bit, and it's really egoistical to get one. Fortunately few people can afford buying them due to the gas prices, but that's unfortunately the only reason people seem not to buy them anymore.

I just think it would be great if the general opinion about it changed drastically or no politician would dare to fight the problem. Bush has rejected every attempt to do something about it. He doesn't even want to hear about it. If americans started demanding a change the politicians would have to do something.

[throwingks]

The whole solar system is running a little hot right now. Granted, we are warmer than the norm. But, through fossil records, the most alive our planet has ever been is when it is warm.

I do think we are speeding up the process, but I also think the rise in temperature is cyclical. The 1st thermometer was invented in 1700. That isn't a very long time ago.

[gronned]

Garver: Yeah, that's one the bizarre things, the climate changes so rapidly. The winter has been delayed year by year, so everyone expected snow in mid to late december here, but we all of a sudden got pretty much snow in november over a night and we were all stunned it came so early and very sudden when we were sure it'd be delayed as usual. Though the days after it was like 10 degrees C again. Very very bizarre, and since then we haven't seen the least sign of snow. Considering we need to drop roughly 5 degrees C before rain turns to snow, it seems winter will be delayed for a pretty long time.

Right now it's 41 degrees Fahrenheit here(checked my nearest town on the internet). I saw there's been three pretty big snowstorms in Colorado lately. Should one be scared?

QUOTE

The whole solar system is running a little hot right now. Granted, we are warmer than the norm. But, through fossil records, the most alive our planet has ever been is when it is warm.

I do think we are speeding up the process, but I also think the rise in temperature is cyclical. The 1st thermometer was invented in 1700. That isn't a very long time ago.

So we shouldn't do everything we can to reduce pollution because we haven't been able to measure temperature for more than 300 years? Are you trying to say the affects of global warming are positive for the earth??? So if the gulf stream stops due to the global warming, I should be glad somehow? I don't get your conclusion really.

[BCfosheezy]

No, the point is nobody understands the earth's ecosystem. It is so complex that it is not an easy thing to comprehend. The earth is remarkably resilliant and you must remember that anything exposed to the earth was already here. Gasses were here in the first place. The tools utilized to view things such as the ozone hole have just recently been discovered and the hole has been there ever since we've had the capability to see it. When dinosaurs roamed the earth it is known that the temperatures were constantly much warmer than now. If anything there has been global cooling.

 

Nobody would tell you that pollution is a good thing. We must make a global effort to not be slobs. It will help everyone, but the observations you're making may or may not be directly related. For every scientist that says these phenomenons exist, there are two that say there is simply not enough evidence to support that conclusion and will go so far as to say that there is more evidence disproving it than proving it.

[gronned]

QUOTE

For every scientist that says these phenomenons exist, there are two that say there is simply not enough evidence to support that conclusion and will go so far as to say that there is more evidence disproving it than proving it.

Sure and they may be right that there's not enough information, but the earth doesn't wait for scientists to make up their mind whether it's feeling bad or not. It's not really the issue whether it's happening or not. If they find out it's not affected by us, GREAT, but until then it's much better to take action than to wait until it's too late.

QUOTE

The tools utilized to view things such as the ozone hole have just recently been discovered and the hole has been there ever since we've had the capability to see it. When dinosaurs roamed the earth it is known that the temperatures were constantly much warmer than now. If anything there has been global cooling.

Was many years ago I read about it, but I'm pretty sure they saw a dramatic change in the ozone hole they couldn't understand when they observed it once in the late sixties. I'll try and see if I can any information tomorrow.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(gronned @ Jan 6 2007, 09:42 PM)

Sure and they may be right that there's not enough information, but the earth doesn't wait for scientists to make up their mind whether it's feeling bad or not. It's not really the issue whether it's happening or not. If they find out it's not affected by us, GREAT, but until then it's much better to take action than to wait until it's too late.

Nobody is arguing against not being a slob. What we ARE arguing against is the steps that defy logic and are thus far unwarranted. If you're so convnced we're killing the earth rapidly then heed these "scientists" advice and turn off your computer. Ride your bicycle everywhere you go. etc.
To the bolded statement. Yes it IS an issue whether it's happening or not. As history has shown, the climate has cycles. Noticing changes from years past is normal. Crying wolf because you're having a mild winter will get us nowhere.

QUOTE

Was many years ago I read about it, but I'm pretty sure they saw a dramatic change in the ozone hole they couldn't understand when they observed it once in the late sixties. I'll try and see if I can any information tomorrow.

No that's untrue. They discovered it in the sixties. Since they had the ability to see it, it was there. They noticed a change ~20 years later. It's over a continent with no emissions. If you truly believe in all of this ozone hole bs then why haven't you ever asked yourself the question, if we can deplete the ozone, why can't we repair it by the same means? If we can shoot up chlorofluorocarbons that seperate the ozone molecules, why can't we create a device that on a wide scale bonds 3 atoms of oxygen and shoots them up to the ozone much the way our cars and factories and aerosol cans do. The answer is simple. We can/could. We could do it on such a large scale easily that there would be no more use of this talk. It is not politically convenient to take that action. Instead politicians use these natural phenomenons to scare the public so they vote for them because they think they are concerned and going to help the problem. These scared people also dump money into their campaigns and research for things that don't need to be researched.

[gronned]

QUOTE

Well I totally agree that we should do what we can to reduce pollution. I just can't see any reason to be slobs. Where I disagree is when people use these scare tactics of things they say they can prove but cannot. Believe it or not global warming has not been proven. There are many sources that say so, but that claim is not true. I'll tell you why I know how this all works and why I'm so skeptical of the whole environmental political game.



I live in Southern Illinois here in the States. This area is very rich with coal and for decades employed hundreds of thousands of coal miners. Then there was money given to some politicians by some northern coal companies. They got an EPA mandate to put scrubbers on our coal mines because "our coal pullutes more than norther coal." I'm sorry but that doesn't even make sense. Eventually they ran all of our coal mines out of business and left the miners with no work simply becasue of these political games. You need to be careful what you believe. We cannot add anything to the environment that did not exist there before we were present. That's where it came from. It has it's own means of protecting itself and does a very good job.

Hope you're not offended I took it out of the PM(there's nothing peronal in it anyway) I'd just like to continue the discussion here again.

Actually I really agree with you in the sense that I hate when scientists use scare tactics, as I often think they can be counter productive. "The day after tomorrow" is probably the best example of counter productive scare tactics. Because the issue of global warming is one everyone must take seriously, as we're all in it together. Though as much as many scientists are using scare tactics it seems the dystopia may even be worse than they believed. There's a "new" discovery(lately acknowledged but discovered in the sixties by a jewish scientist, I think) called Global dimming. I reckon you've heard about it.

I obviously don't have any knowledge about the coalmining issue you're talking about, though I have no reason to doubt it's true. I can't have an opinion whether they were wrong or not either.

QUOTE

If we can shoot up chlorofluorocarbons that seperate the ozone molecules, why can't we create a device that on a wide scale bonds 3 atoms of oxygen and shoots them up to the ozone much the way our cars and factories and aerosol cans do. The answer is simple. We can/could. We could do it on such a large scale easily that there would be no more use of this talk. It is not politically convenient to take that action. Instead politicians use these natural phenomenons to scare the public so they vote for them because they think they are concerned and going to help the problem. These scared people also dump money into their campaigns and research for things that don't need to be researched.

I think I read somewhere about talks of having future cars doing this, but as with the other thing I said, I heard/read about it a very long time ago. I really doubt it'd be as easy to repair the ozone hole as you say, by just shooting it up in the ozone. Because if it would, the worlds strongest politicians(oil companies and the industries, that stand for the pollution) would do everything they could to fix it. They have no interest in having a bad name, if they could fix the issue they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Why would scientists be interested in saying the global warming is to a big degree caused by us, if it wasn't? What could the possibly win by saying it? On the other hand a scientist can win pretty much on saying the claims are wrong(lots of bribes from oil companies). I'm not much for conspiracies, but there's been scientists in the tobacco-industry bribed to say cigarettes aren't dangerous.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(gronned @ Jan 8 2007, 11:20 AM)

I think I read somewhere about talks of having future cars doing this, but as with the other thing I said, I heard/read about it a very long time ago. I really doubt it'd be as easy to repair the ozone hole as you say, by just shooting it up in the ozone. Because if it would, the worlds strongest politicians(oil companies and the industries, that stand for the pollution) would do everything they could to fix it. They have no interest in having a bad name, if they could fix the issue they'd do it in a heartbeat.

It's funny that so many are quick to believe it's easy to shoot things up there that will destroy the ozone, but are so quick to reject the fact that it is equally as easy send new ozone up there. They are bought and paid for by the propaganda. The politicians won't do everything they can to fix it because there is nothing wrong with it. There has to be a problem to fix something. This issue of acid rain directly contradicts the ozone hole. Gases that come up from earth are caught long before they get high enough to get to the ozone. Moisture in the air catches them and once the moisture condenses it falls back to earth as acidic rain. This rain has no adverse effects such as those that were conveyed that paint was being eaten off of cars and such. This rain simply turns litmus paper a different shade.

When there is a real problem with the earth I will be 100% behind a fix. Big business knows that if it's killing the earth that it needs to change its ways because it makes no sense to kill your consumers. (with the exception of big tobacco. That's actually how they prosper.... by smokers own stupidity.)

QUOTE

Why would scientists be interested in saying the global warming is to a big degree caused by us, if it wasn't? What could the possibly win by saying it?

Donations from concerned organizations and individuals.

QUOTE

On the other hand a scientist can win pretty much on saying the claims are wrong(lots of bribes from oil companies).

No he can't because #1 he doesn't want to cover something up that can kill millions and billions. He wants to be the one responsible for UNCOVERING something big..... not Covering it.

QUOTE

I'm not much for conspiracies, but there's been scientists in the tobacco-industry bribed to say cigarettes aren't dangerous.

Yeah, and everyone saw that and nobody wants to be that guy. It shows that if there are huge problems and you lie about them, the truth is inevitable. How could you not be caught and hated for lying about an ozone hole? If it were as obvious as the select scientists say it is, it would be unanimous. Instead scientists use their "facts" to say whatever they want to outcome to be. Look at the people trying to prove/disprove God. It's ridiculous.

[gronned]

QUOTE

It's funny that so many are quick to believe it's easy to shoot things up there that will destroy the ozone, but are so quick to reject the fact that it is equally as easy send new ozone up there. They are bought and paid for by the propaganda. The politicians won't do everything they can to fix it because there is nothing wrong with it. There has to be a problem to fix something. This issue of acid rain directly contradicts the ozone hole. Gases that come up from earth are caught long before they get high enough to get to the ozone. Moisture in the air catches them and once the moisture condenses it falls back to earth as acidic rain. This rain has no adverse effects such as those that were conveyed that paint was being eaten off of cars and such. This rain simply turns litmus paper a different shade.

I'm not saying it's not possible, I genuinely have no idea if it's possible or not, but considering I remember reading a short car-article about it, I don't see myself not believing in it. However I seriously doubt it'd be as easy as you make it seem, if it's taken this long to pollute the earth I'd reasonably believe it'd take a very long time "reversing" it (if possible, that is).

"There has to be a problem in order to fix it", of course, and the problem we can see for sure is that the Polar ices are melting and will inevitable flood extremely huge and important land areas. Now, we can continue debating whether the global warming causing this is done by humans or mother nature, but as I've many times said before, if we are the ones causing it we can hopefully try and help reduce the problems as much as possible. And since many scientists are sure it's due to pollution, we could just as well pay the big cost to reduce it now. I think it was in an english report they tried to find out the cost if we don't do anything in time, and it was up at $6.9 TRILLION(that's pretty much money)in a 700-pages report. Now those are speculative numbers of course, but it gives a hint about what needs to be done. Especially when they think it'd only cost 5% of that if we did the job now.

QUOTE

No he can't because #1 he doesn't want to cover something up that can kill millions and billions. He wants to be the one responsible for UNCOVERING something big..... not Covering it.

I'm not saying you're naive, but Hitler had doctors(Mengele) that made brutal experiments on jews, not everyone has moral unfortunately.



There's been major armageddons predicted by lots of people allthrough human history. Not many have been realized as of yet. The cold war didn't kill everyone in a nuclear war, but because it hasn't happened it doesn't mean we shouldn't be cautious. One shouldn't worry too much, but this is a question of not caring much at all. When it comes to nukes (and terrorism) it's pretty hard to do anything, because it's specific organisations/countries that will start it off(if ever), but global warming is something everyone is responsible for and therefore, in some weird way it may actually unite the world, if it means we have to fight it together.(though afetr a while it'll be all about killing eachother again )

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(gronned @ Jan 8 2007, 12:46 PM)

I'm not saying it's not possible, I genuinely have no idea if it's possible or not, but considering I remember reading a short car-article about it, I don't see myself not believing in it. However I seriously doubt it'd be as easy as you make it seem, if it's taken this long to pollute the earth I'd reasonably believe it'd take a very long time "reversing" it (if possible, that is).

Again, I just want to reiterate how easy it is to convince people that it is so easy to destroy the earth, but they refuse to believe repairing it would be the same. Taken this long to pollute it? The industrial revolution was around WWII, but understand that is nothing compared to how it rapidly progressed. All in all, we have not been polluting very long. At what time did we exceed the earth's threshold? Or did we?

QUOTE

"There has to be a problem in order to fix it", of course, and the problem we can see for sure is that the Polar ices are melting and will inevitable flood extremely huge and important land areas. Now, we can continue debating whether the global warming causing this is done by humans or mother nature, but as I've many times said before, if we are the ones causing it we can hopefully try and help reduce the problems as much as possible. And since many scientists are sure it's due to pollution, we could just as well pay the big cost to reduce it now. I think it was in an english report they tried to find out the cost if we don't do anything in time, and it was up at $6.9 TRILLION(that's pretty much money)in a 700-pages report. Now those are speculative numbers of course, but it gives a hint about what needs to be done. Especially when they think it'd only cost 5% of that if we did the job now.

Well let me take you back to your science class in school. They told you that once the earth was covered with glaciers and the landscape was carved from them moving across the land. Where are they now? As best as I can remember there are a few frozen tundras on our populated continents, but for the most part they are to the extreme south and some to the extreme north both at the poles. This all happened long before we were producing any gases. Now the claim has been made that polar ice caps are melting rapidly. Really? we know at the atmospheric pressure at sea level, water freezes and melts at 32 degrees fahrenheit. So it is 32 in antarctica? That IS alarming!!! oh wait.... it's WAY colder than that there..... what gives? You have been duped. The water level would be so much higher if that were the case.

QUOTE

I'm not saying you're naive, but Hitler had doctors(Mengele) that made brutal experiments on jews, not everyone has moral unfortunately.

Why would I have to be naive? I am saying the same thing to you. Not everyone has morals, so that's why you're buying into the lies that those immoral people are selling you.

QUOTE

There's been major armageddons predicted by lots of people allthrough human history. Not many have been realized as of yet. The cold war didn't kill everyone in a nuclear war, but because it hasn't happened it doesn't mean we shouldn't be cautious. One shouldn't worry too much, but this is a question of not caring much at all. When it comes to nukes (and terrorism) it's pretty hard to do anything, because it's specific organisations/countries that will start it off(if ever), but global warming is something everyone is responsible for and therefore, in some weird way it may actually unite the world, if it means we have to fight it together.(though afetr a while it'll be all about killing eachother again )

I don't have much to add here. All I will say is that I commend you on your politeness and respect in this thread even though we obviously disagree. It's nice having a peaceful discussion.

[justgreen363]

I am not sure what brought me to this thread, but I read it and just wanted to comment on the global warming flooding problem. The majority of the ice in the polar regions is under water, and because of the way ice is, when it melts the water level will actually be lower. Ridiculous sounding, I know, but do this experiment in your home. Get a glass of ice water and mark the water level, then wait till it melts and mark it again, and you should find that is is lower (not by much but it is). Transferring this observation to the rest of the planet and the same conclusions should happen. Granted this is all speculation, as I am no scientist, but if anything I do not think the water will rise enough to cause many major issues (with the exception of Venice being screwed). Other than that I agree with both of you, that "global warming" is just a cycle of the earth, but that pollution is still bad and we should still try and reduce it. But I need my 4x4 SUV to go mudding...

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(justgreen363 @ Jan 8 2007, 01:42 PM)

I am not sure what brought me to this thread, but I read it and just wanted to comment on the global warming flooding problem. The majority of the ice in the polar regions is under water, and because of the way ice is, when it melts the water level will actually be lower. Ridiculous sounding, I know, but do this experiment in your home. Get a glass of ice water and mark the water level, then wait till it melts and mark it again, and you should find that is is lower (not by much but it is). Transferring this observation to the rest of the planet and the same conclusions should happen. Granted this is all speculation, as I am no scientist, but if anything I do not think the water will rise enough to cause many major issues (with the exception of Venice being screwed). Other than that I agree with both of you, that "global warming" is just a cycle of the earth, but that pollution is still bad and we should still try and reduce it. But I need my 4x4 SUV to go mudding...

Yes you are correct. Water expands when it freezes. So when it melts it takes less space than when in it's frozen form. The water level would be offset regardless, because ice floats which is why around 1/3 of icebergs are above water. This is not changing the water level presently. So when you combine the fact that water takes less space than ice, but that you'd be adding more water, you would see not much change at all.

The bottom line is, it's all bs. It's easy to see once you look at the facts instead of run scared. I'm willing to do my part as far as not polluting, but I don't think we should listen to these environmentalists that say our factories and vehicles are ruining the world. There is simply no proof of that.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jan 8 2007, 09:02 PM)

Yes you are correct. Water expands when it freezes. So when it melts it takes less space than when in it's frozen form. The water level would be offset regardless, because ice floats which is why around 1/3 of icebergs are above water. This is not changing the water level presently. So when you combine the fact that water takes less space than ice, but that you'd be adding more water, you would see not much change at all.

The bottom line is, it's all bs. It's easy to see once you look at the facts instead of run scared. I'm willing to do my part as far as not polluting, but I don't think we should listen to these environmentalists that say our factories and vehicles are ruining the world. There is simply no proof of that.

Water increase in volume by 9% when it freezes.  So when you say that 1/3 of the icebergs are above water.  There will be an increase of 26% by volume when the iceberg melts.  

1/(3*(1+.09)^3)=.257

Give and take the amount of ice that is melted, the sea level would at least raise by a few inches, no?

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jan 8 2007, 04:34 PM)

Water increase in volume by 9% when it freezes. So when you say that 1/3 of the icebergs are above water. There will be an increase of 26% by volume when the iceberg melts.

1/(3*(1+.09)^3)=.257

Give and take the amount of ice that is melted, the sea level would at least raise by a few inches, no?

 

Well thank you for that information. The 1/3 is just a rough estimate, although it remains to be seen how much is actually there to determine how much it would displace. I don't really think that matters, since there's no proof of them actually melting.

[throwingks]

That is only if all the icebergs melted. There is more frozen water than that.