EPTGlobal warming could be the main cause, or it could not. It doesn't matter really, because what matters is dealing with the problem before it gets out of hand. It's probably too late now to do anything about it, yet the negative effects can be postponed until a later date in human existence. We'll all die out eventually I think, yet the earth will recover and reclaim the territory that man as so arrogantly taken over with now regard to nature itself, which is the reactor to our civilization. People have to just think more about the repercussions of their actions, and plan accordingly without doing actions impulsively.
NASA: Strange and sudden massive melt in Greenland - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
NeThZOR
South Africa7387 Posts
Global warming could be the main cause, or it could not. It doesn't matter really, because what matters is dealing with the problem before it gets out of hand. It's probably too late now to do anything about it, yet the negative effects can be postponed until a later date in human existence. We'll all die out eventually I think, yet the earth will recover and reclaim the territory that man as so arrogantly taken over with now regard to nature itself, which is the reactor to our civilization. People have to just think more about the repercussions of their actions, and plan accordingly without doing actions impulsively. | ||
|
NeThZOR
South Africa7387 Posts
On August 07 2013 19:48 Acertos wrote: Are you blind? Have you never scene a cloud of brown / yellow gaz on top of big cities? Do you not know that in Australia there is a hole in the auzone film and that's why it's the country with the most cancer of the skin? Glacier that were so big in the 20's have dissapeared in 80 yrs and it's all natural? So you want us not to act? You are not concerned at all with the different gazes we put in the atmosphere. In 100 years we changed the pourcentages of gaz in the air etc... Sorry I won't argue more with retards like you. Oh and this researcher was fake btw, any person with a real brain would not say that. It's impossible for me to comprehend this troll post. We has humans have no effect on planet earth? Right... | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
Though efforts to find new and better sources of energy should be encouraged, at some point it is necessary to be realistic and prepare for the scenario that we may not find anything better in time. I do not believe we are in any danger of becoming like Venus because of human activity, but rather a new, hotter, and somewhat less comfortable equilibirum will be reached at some point. Though this will certainly have negative effects, it seems unlikely that warmer is worse in every possible way. I say let it happen and manage the effects the best we can. Manage water better, have better emergency plans, get some more polar bears in our zoos, or whatever, untill we reach a point where all of humanity is capable of working together to cure the disease and make our existence truly sustainable. The best we can do now is manage the symptoms. Atleast that is my humble opinion. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
Im not sure how much truth there is to that information but it does seem relevant to the discussion. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
We are currently taking billions of tons of carbon from BURIED UNDERGROUND for billions of years and releasing it into the air every day. There's going to be some effect from that and if you're too stupid to connect dots stay the fuck out of the argument. | ||
|
NeThZOR
South Africa7387 Posts
On August 07 2013 20:40 Crushinator wrote: I'm not a denialist. I geuss at some point we have to trust sciency people to make the conclusions. But I'm not so sure we can actually do anything about it. With billions of people living in steadily developing nations, there seems little hope for anything other than an increase in greenhouse gas production by humans. We are not ready to sufficiently decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and cattle, not even close to ready. We are not prepared to take serious steps towards controlling the world population. Though efforts to find new and better sources of energy should be encouraged, at some point it is necessary to be realistic and prepare for the scenario that we may not find anything better in time. I do not believe we are in any danger of becoming like Venus because of human activity, but rather a new, hotter, and somewhat less comfortable equilibirum will be reached at some point. Though this will certainly have negative effects, it seems unlikely that warmer is worse in every possible way. I say let it happen and manage the effects the best we can. Manage water better, have better emergency plans, get some more polar bears in our zoos, or whatever, untill we reach a point where all of humanity is capable of working together to cure the disease and make our existence truly sustainable. The best we can do now is manage the symptoms. Atleast that is my humble opinion. I completely agree. There is no escape from this dire situation, and the best we can do is manage our resources and aim to get as many people as possible to adopt a green lifestyle. | ||
|
Restrider
Germany129 Posts
Regardless of my own stance on this topic - which I would sum up as cautious, when it comes to all the cataclysmic headlines and computer models (for the record, I work in a scientific field, where simulations that are far less complex are done, and these simulations are still sometimes crap) - everyone should take a deep breath before discussing this topic. And a simple help for this kind of discussion is to make sure it does not deviate too much. Ask the following questions and locate the actual main point of discussion. Hopefully, this avoids the typical vigor and hatred. 1) Is there a climate change and what type (hotter/colder)? 2) Is the climate change anthropogenic/To what extent is it anthropogenic? 3) Why is it anthropogenic (CO2, urbanization, CFCs, nuclear winter,...)? 4) What are the consequences and in what timeframe? 5) How can these consequences be prevented and what are the risks of these preventive actions (i.e. energy saving light-bulbs contaminating your homes with mecury, etc.)? 6) Would it be better to just adapt to the consequences/Are there benefits (one thing I wanted to mention: + Show Spoiler + I've never understood the assertion that increasing temperatures will cause more and more powerful storms. Since most of the turbulent atmospheric effects are caused by the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles, the fact that the poles heat up faster than the equator should actually lead to weaker/less storms (I heared that from a meteorologist). Of course I know the idea that more water evaporates etc., but the difference in temperature are the main engine for storms. Now, I hope these questions can moderate this discussion a bit. I am really tired to see a few people discuss the legitimacy of CFCs contributing to climate change, when suddenly someone starts to argue that the government is doing the wrong thing to save energy, shortly followed by someone claiming that the sea level will rise 10 km in 10 years and others postulating that 5000 years ago, the earth was warm enough that you could just wear fig leaf... | ||
|
Acertos
France852 Posts
Yes it has huge problems due to the radioactive rejects (be it solid or in the water used to cool) and the risks of explosion. But the coil powerplants (who produce masses of CO2 and other gazes) dominant in the developing countries and rising in numbers especially in China are worse if we take a look at the global warming. It would be replacing an evil by a lesser evil. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On August 07 2013 20:42 NukeD wrote: Not to say that global warming caused by humans is false (as I dread being called a retard by Velr, lol) but how does it fit into that picture the notion that all planets of the solar system are currently undergoing a global warming? Im not sure how much truth there is to that information but it does seem relevant to the discussion. We know that man-made global warming is heating up the planet. We also know that, absent of feedback effects, this warming will heat up the planet 1 degree celcius for every effective doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. What we _don't_ know is the magnitude or the direction of these feedback effects, such as cloud cover, how much CO2 is stored in the ocean, and so on; for instance, if more CO2 concentration increases cloud cover, that would mitigate the warming- if it decreased cloud cover, it would compound warming. Considering the possible range of feedback effects, each doubling of CO2 could cause less than 1 degree celcius of warming; this is the negative feedback effect scenario, where the world is a stable system and which despite the "consensus" myth, many serious climatologists defend; look up scientists like Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer for their views- or more than 1 degree and up to 4 or 5 degrees celcius of warming if you believe the crazy computer models from the IPCC which have consistently and greatly overshot warming in their predictions; this is the positive feedback effect scenario- it is the upper estimates (which are almost certainly wrong) that cause global warming alarmism, where the world is an unstable system and a much stronger greenhouse effect would end life as we know it. The lower estimates of positive feedback effects are certainly plausible though. To put this into perspective, global warming alarmists claim that an increase from 320 ppm to double that, or 640 ppm, could have catastrophic effects- when a couple hundred million years ago, we've had CO2 levels of 3000 to 6000 ppm, naturally caused: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere To be fair, for the past few hundred thousand years, CO2 levels have fluctuated between 300 ppm and 200 ppm. | ||
|
Restrider
Germany129 Posts
On August 07 2013 21:07 Zato-1 wrote: We know that man-made global warming is heating up the planet. We also know that, absent of feedback effects, this warming will heat up the planet 1 degree celcius for every effective doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. What we _don't_ know is the magnitude or the direction of these feedback effects, such as cloud cover, how much CO2 is stored in the ocean, and so on; for instance, if more CO2 concentration increases cloud cover, that would mitigate the warming- if it decreased cloud cover, it would compound warming. Considering the possible range of feedback effects, each doubling of CO2 could cause less than 1 degree celcius of warming; this is the negative feedback effect scenario, where the world is a stable system and which despite the "consensus" myth, many serious climatologists defend; look up scientists like Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer for their views- or more than 1 degree and up to 4 or 5 degrees celcius of warming if you believe the crazy computer models from the IPCC which have consistently and greatly overshot warming in their predictions; this is the positive feedback effect scenario- it is the upper estimates (which are almost certainly wrong) that cause global warming alarmism, where the world is an unstable system and a much stronger greenhouse effect would end life as we know it. The lower estimates of positive feedback effects are certainly plausible though. To put this into perspective, global warming alarmists claim that an increase from 320 ppm to double that, or 640 ppm, could have catastrophic effects- when a couple hundred million years ago, we've had CO2 levels of 3000 to 6000 ppm, naturally caused: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere To be fair, for the past few hundred thousand years, CO2 levels have fluctuated between 300 ppm and 200 ppm. This is a similar stance that I have, too. Relying solely on computer models is just not real science. Especially if the complex interactions of CO2 and other parts of the atmosphere/oceans and biosphere are not understood. Typically, a correction factor is used to fit the prediction to what actually is measured later on and thus "correcting" the model. However, using polynoms with enough variables, I can plot EVERYTHING with perfect accuracy. As far as I know, this has been tried with stock markets. The fit was perfect, but the prediction was still worthless, because the underlying interaction was not understood and taken into consideration. | ||
|
Napoleon53
Denmark167 Posts
On August 07 2013 21:06 Acertos wrote: Imo nuclear powerplants should be the way to go for the next 100 yrs in the countries that can't afford "green" powerplants. Yes it has huge problems due to the radioactive rejects (be it solid or in the water used to cool) and the risks of explosion. But the coil powerplants (who produce masses of CO2 and other gazes) dominant in the developing countries and rising in numbers especially in China are worse if we take a look at the global warming. It would be replacing an evil by a lesser evil. You do realize that nuclear power plants also emits considerable amounts of CO2 ? I do not think your plan has any long term vision. In my eyes we should change our life styles and invest alot in green science. Not that I believe it is ever going to happen. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
Would anyone actually make any changes or will the first world countries just break down into a finger pointing contest and continue to emit greenhouse gases the same way we always have been. | ||
|
Douillos
France3195 Posts
Let's all cross fingers for planet earth and hope that "we" arrive soon. | ||
|
StreetWise
United States594 Posts
On August 07 2013 19:33 StatixEx wrote: still a believer in that global warming and climate crap is all crap, the earth is its own engine it will do what is pleases. We are insignificant. I sat a seminar (not to do with school or college or uni) where this lead researcher said we(humans) make no difference to the planet at all. Life seems to go through periodical mass extinctions, 6 i bleieve have happened since the birth of the planet. As far as im concerned, noone should be concerned. we are becoming to be a very adaptive race but we simply cant stop the earth/suns/moon - other contributing bodies cycle and evolution. Sorry guys its just facts, we mean nothing to this planet, she will do with us as she pleases. I think this is only partly true. We humans do effect the earth and are contributing to climate change. But our slogan should not be 'Save the Earth' it should be 'Save Humans'. Eventually the earth will shed the blight upon her, via things like storms, earthquakes, possibly ice ages and restore the balance of nature. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On August 07 2013 22:06 Douillos wrote: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure." Let's all cross fingers for planet earth and hope that "we" arrive soon. The Matrix was a fantastic movie and this is a great quote if you don't think about it too much :p | ||
|
autoexec
United States530 Posts
On August 07 2013 22:17 Zato-1 wrote: The Matrix was a fantastic movie and this is a great quote if you don't think about it too much :p I agree it is a great quote as it really puts things into perspective, but I think I would rather live than be exterminated by somebody else. Call me selfish, but I like living  | ||
|
Phael
United States281 Posts
We are the apex predators on Earth, the entire world is subject to human whims and needs. Earth will never be infinitely sustainable, entropy dictates that sooner or later, we will run out of fuel and resources on this planet. Why bother putting effort bailing out the sinking Titanic with a bucket when you could turn that money and energy over to more important matters involving the survival of our species, like space exploration? I find all this environmental preservation nonsense to be backwards and useless. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
On August 08 2013 03:04 Phael wrote: I don't see why the world absolutely needs to be unchanging. Thousands of years ago, we had the ice ages. Maybe we'll get the heat ages a few years from now, whatever, but it's not as if everything was perfectly stable and sustaining before we got here. Any effort to preserve the current environment may or may not have disastrous consequences (see: how the park service attempted to keep Yellowstone the same and all but destroyed its ecology ... multiple times.) Nature is never in balance, it's always changing. We are the apex predators on Earth, the entire world is subject to human whims and needs. Earth will never be infinitely sustainable, entropy dictates that sooner or later, we will run out of fuel and resources on this planet. Why bother putting effort bailing out the sinking Titanic with a bucket when you could turn that money and energy over to more important matters involving the survival of our species, like space exploration? I find all this environmental preservation nonsense to be backwards and useless. Because you need the Titanic to stay afloat long enough for people to get into the lifeboats. | ||
|
Phael
United States281 Posts
| ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On August 07 2013 20:31 Drake wrote: yep venus is outside the green zone for life, also the achse isnt in the right position and its move to slow so thats one of the horror reasons there ^^ (we have 24h day they have 243 days day so 243 times longer days ^^) on the +1 meter thing, no it would not help make the dams 1 m higher ... its 1 meter everywhere even on the beaches. so every beach would be gone bye bye, there are not everywhere dams etc it would have an horrible effect ... This has to be a joke. "every beach would be gone bye bye". Oh god ......... The beach would just ...... move further inland 1 meter high oceans would not have a horrible effect, building damns 1 meter higher would help ... you don't have to build everywhere obviously, just at the area that would be submerged, the other areas remain above sea level. I think this is actually the first time a German poster has made me facepalm. | ||
| ||
