FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Global Warming Source..





S3nd K3ys
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-01-11T180610Z_01_WRI165185_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-ENVIRONMENT-METHANE-DC.XML

Reuters wrote:
New source of global warming gas found: plants
Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:07 PM GMT164


LONDON (Reuters) - German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are plants.

They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.


Now we have to decide if the rain forest is good or bad for us? Rolling Eyes
SunburnedCactus
That's why once the Russian permafrost melts we're doomed. Doomed!
DX-Blog
Mwuah, if we kill the plants though they won't make any new oxygen for us, so we cant get rid of them all Razz. It's just the balance of life, we're doomed to enter an ice age, no crap about us causing it. It's mother nature!
gonzo
fix your sql server and double posts won't keep happenning

today's hypenhated word is: load-balancing
gonzo
Revvion
yes it;s going to happen anyway, i mean nobody really acts like they shoul (including me) when it;s about the global warming. but i realize something, the oil is slowly running out and i don't know when its depleted but isn't a coinsedents that our fuels are going to be depleted when the warming is at a point like this? (or am i just reading to much in to this Confused )
DX-Blog
Revvion wrote:
yes it;s going to happen anyway, i mean nobody really acts like they shoul (including me) when it;s about the global warming. but i realize something, the oil is slowly running out and i don't know when its depleted but isn't a coinsedents that our fuels are going to be depleted when the warming is at a point like this? (or am i just reading to much in to this Confused )

Our conventional fuel resources will last for about 80 years as far as I know. Global warming has nothing to do with it, global warming is a natural occurance which takes place just before an ice age. The climate changes switfly and sea currances change directions. What exactly happens along with it isn't exactly known but the guess by some scientists is that before the weather would collapse into an ice age temperatures would rise and more tropical storms would occur. Winter would "move" more towards the poles because of the warmer temperatures.

It is all pretty much linked to eachother though, the output of CO2 and such is what causes global warming. Global warming causes the higher temperatures and the winter to be moving away. Due to the climate becoming warmer more forest fires occur, in which even more CO2 goes up into the air. Resulting in more warming. The changing of temperatures like that result into changes with in the sea flowing currents. The changes in the currents of the see will dramatically change the climates from as we know them. In example western Europe would get a temperature drop of about 40 degrees on average.

Not truly too much to worry about, it'll just be rather cold in the currently temperate zones, but the areas which now form the sahara and such will turn into a temperate zone Razz.
SunburnedCactus
DX-Blog wrote:
Not truly too much to worry about, it'll just be rather cold in the currently temperate zones, but the areas which now form the sahara and such will turn into a temperate zone Razz.


Never mind most of Europe being covered in ice many meters thick eh?
DX-Blog
SunburnedCactus wrote:
DX-Blog wrote:
Not truly too much to worry about, it'll just be rather cold in the currently temperate zones, but the areas which now form the sahara and such will turn into a temperate zone Razz.


Never mind most of Europe being covered in ice many meters thick eh?

Nope, we live in an age in which we could be out of here within hours. The process won't be something which would happen within 1 hour or anything so people will be able to get out. There will be time enough to move south. Or north if you live on the southern part of the globe.
Soulfire
Or it's part of a natural cycle that will send us into an ice age.
Revvion
i thought the ice age thing was only a theorie or are they sure now?
Soltair
This is indeed all theorical stuff.

I don't say human causes all the warming processes of earth. Nature already produces a lot of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. On the other hand, one has to consider that these gases were produced before human existed, and also that we add an extra to all these quantities, be it small or big. One would say an augmentation of 3% of CO2 levels on the globe will not change anything. But how can one be sure? Any tiny modification to the fragile balance of this world can have unpredictable results.

In the waiting, in Canada, Vancouver has had some 26 consecutive days of rain. In Manitoba, some native communities can not get any more supplies due to their ice roads being all melt. In Quebec, while the temperatures should turn around -15C, -20C, we have had up to 16C in some more southern regions, and 6C where I live, a bit more north. This is absolutely abnormal.
benwhite
It's been 50 degrees in Boston this past week. Last year it 2 degrees and didn't hit fit for the first time until March.

We've only been keeping track of weather for 100 years or so. No one really knows exactly what normal is. We don't understand long term weather changes well yet.
riv_
This is not a popular idea... but it's my opinion, so I'm going to state it anyways.
The only reason anyone is upset about global warming is because it might be inconvenient for us (people).
We've known for many years now that we are coming out of an ice age. There has been a hole in our ozone layer for hundreds of years. Sometimes it gets big, sometimes it gets small.
There are a few theories out there about causes of these things (global warming, ozone depletion) and the ones that suggest a human causative agent have been the most widely publicized (CFCs, fossil fuels etc)... However, they are not neccessarily the most widely accepted in the scientific community.
This whole debate chaps my ass.
Being environmentally responsible is a good thing.
But getting our panties ina bunch because we're accepting a theory as fact and just generally like to be in a panic about stuff...
OK, sorry, I'm ranting again.
FACT: The earth was cold, it seems to be warming up.
FACT: The earth is a complicated ecosystem
FACT: It's going to change, whether we like it or not

But the plant theory is perfectly interesting all by itself.
DX-Blog
Revvion wrote:
i thought the ice age thing was only a theorie or are they sure now?

Technically, facts do not exist and everything is a theory. From what we actually call facts and theories though, the ice age would be classified as theory. But with the research done they are about 99.9% sure it happened in such an order, the only thing scientists cant agree on is the timespan in which it happened. Some say 100 years, some say over a 1000.
wolfhnd
Anthrogenic warming seems likely but is probably not enough to offset non human factors. We should actually be at the end of a 13,000 year warming or interglacial period which would seem to suggest that the human factors promoting warming would be a good thing. It seems foolish however to make that kind of assumption. Additional research is needed. It also seems foolish to just accept what nature throughs at us without making some sort of plan to deal with climate change be that warming or cooling.
nopaniers
It is pretty clear to that humans are causing global warming. Here are my reasons:

- CO2 is at around 380ppm. That is around 100ppm than it has been in any of the ice-core samples, which are all below 280ppm and represent readings from the past 600,000 years.

- CO2 is steadily rising. If you google the Keeling Curve, you will see the way it increases steadily year in, year out. It's not a dramatic shift, but a gradual one. This rules out (for me at least) things like volcanic erruptions, which would cause abrupt rises.

- The increase in CO2 starts in the past few hundred years. It seems from our records that in the past few hundred years we have changed by the amounts normally which normally take hundreds of thousands of years.

- You can look at abundance of the isotopes of Carbon in the atmosphere, and from these studies it is estimated that 1/4 of the CO2 in the atmosphere was produced in industry. That amount, approximately corresponds to the excess we see in the atmosphere.


I think anyone looking at the evidence with an open mind will see that man-made global warming is a reality. I did not always feel that way until I took the time to look up this type of information myself, and looked at the hard facts rather than the polical spin. For anyone interested can I humbly suggest you do the same?

This article is interesting, in that our estimates of how much re-growing forrests will reduce the greenhouse effect. Certainly we know that cutting down forrests increases greenhouse gasses significantly. Replanting forest may not be as beneficial as we first thought, and therefore reducing the damage may be harder than we first thought.
atomictoyz
nopaniers wrote:

I think anyone looking at the evidence with an open mind will see that man-made global warming is a reality.


Well analyzing 1/1,000,000,000 of the total data will never give you a accurate trend. It's narrow minded for scientists to ignore the cataclysmic events of earths past trends. The earth used to be a hot ball of molten rock, then it was pretty frozen in certain regions...then it warmed up a tad. Mt. St Helens annual output of toxins dwarfs the quantity of toxins humans output. There is alot of data showing that other regions of the plant are cooler and wetter than previous years so the warming cannot be "global".

One point often ignored by scientists... humans are natural, anything a human does is obviously natural. Pollution is natural because people do it. If aliens were doing it maybe there could be a logical discussion but there aren't any... If evolution is true then everything that happens would be a "natural" consequence of nature. The only way to prevent nature being natural is to be unnatural. Then we'd be aliens Smile

Do you part to be unnatural and hold your breath for 2 minutes per hour.

Peace,
Atomic
LeviticusMky
Methane is a GREATER greenhouse gas than CO2, but comprises less than a hundredth of a percent the density that CO2 does. of course plants produce all the methane.

That article is a blatant misrepresentation of data. Plants produce almost all of the methane in the atmosphere, but that amount is so low that it contributes almost nothing to overall global warming. The dark color of the plants warms the Earth more than their methane emissions.

As far as CO2, we don't need to look at "trends" to know that global warming caused by humans is taking place. All we need to do is look at the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and look at how much of it is put there by humans.

FACT: CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.

FACT: CO2 levels are rising faster than the Earth can deal with it.

FACT: Human combustion of fossil fuels are the reason for this rise.

These are facts, not stipulations or inferences. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that global warming caused by humans is real.
Marston
The irony of this is just sickening...
Soulfire
LeviticusMky wrote:
Methane is a GREATER greenhouse gas than CO2, but comprises less than a hundredth of a percent the density that CO2 does. of course plants produce all the methane.

That article is a blatant misrepresentation of data. Plants produce almost all of the methane in the atmosphere, but that amount is so low that it contributes almost nothing to overall global warming. The dark color of the plants warms the Earth more than their methane emissions.

As far as CO2, we don't need to look at "trends" to know that global warming caused by humans is taking place. All we need to do is look at the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and look at how much of it is put there by humans.

FACT: CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.

FACT: CO2 levels are rising faster than the Earth can deal with it.

FACT: Human combustion of fossil fuels are the reason for this rise.

These are facts, not stipulations or inferences. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that global warming caused by humans is real.


Your "facts" are disputed, especially the third one. This is not to say that we aren't speeding it along, but we are not the sole reason for global warming, we are not "the reason for this rise."

Scientists have enough prior knowledge to believe that this is a natural cycle (again, which we may be speeding up). They theorize that the heating could melt the ice caps and put too much fresh water into the ocean.

The salt/fresh water balance in the ocean is what keeps the currents moving, the rising and sinking of the water, and too much fresh water could shut the currents down, thus sending the world into an ice age. It's possible, but it probably won't happen in our lifetimes.
S3nd K3ys
Your "Facts" are not facts. Please stop trying to inject your opinion as fact.

Quote:


FACT: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

FACT: CO2 levels are rising.

FACT: Human combustion of fossil fuels are a reason for this rise.



I fixed your "facts"
riv_
LeviticusMky wrote:

FACT: CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.

FACT: CO2 levels are rising faster than the Earth can deal with it.

FACT: Human combustion of fossil fuels are the reason for this rise.

These are facts, not stipulations or inferences. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that global warming caused by humans is real.

Maybe not a rocket scientist, but a scientist just the same.
Good science is based on the scientific method. Good scientists go to great lengths to ensure that their data is observable, repeatable, and that variables in their experiments are reduced so that causative factors are clearly defined.
It is absolutely deplorable that the results of good science are then used willy nilly to "deduce" theories, that are then stated as fact.
THere is absolutely nothing wrong with the hypothesis that human activity may be the most significant contributor to greenhouse gases, and therefore, to the problem of the hole in the ozone layer and global warming trends.
IT's a perfectly good hypothesis.
As an indisputable fact it's incredibly dangerous. It means we're not thinking about the problem objectively anymore. It means scientist face political pressure, rather than being able to perform really good science and just study the problem.

1)As for your facts. CO2 levels ARE higher than they were 50 years ago. TRUE. (Don't know about 1,000 years ago, nobody checked)
2)Rising faster than the Earth can deal with it. FALSE (We don't know how the earth will deal with it)
3)Humans caused it. (FALSE We just don't know. Core samples of permafrost at the north pole have shown that CO2 levels, temperatures at the pole, and the integrity of the ozone layer have been fluctuating for thousands of years.
Someone said earlier:

Quote:
It also seems foolish to just accept what nature throughs at us without making some sort of plan to deal with climate change be that warming or cooling.

I think that's the wisest thing I've heard on the subject in a while.
I'd just like to see a little more science and a lot less panicky politics!
Jordan
Hmmmm this is a subject that I have been listening too for a while on TV programs and the radio, I'm not a scientist but I have heard that global warming can be stopped by pumping some kind of gas into the big gaping hole over our planet. Why aren't we doing it?? Maybe someone knows.

Jordan
Texas Al
Well, people like the original poster are as much a part of the problem as the tree hugging freaks. Between those two fanatical camps the issue has gotten so politicized that it's going to be hard to get any unbiased science on it for a long time to come.

Right up there with other interesting questions ruined by politics/confrontation addicts like economics and the genetic mechanisms of intelligence.

Maybe there is global warming and maybe there isn't. Maybe oil will become unaffordable faster than the economy can adjust and maybe it won't. But people don't prepare for stuff they believe can't happen, or that they believe someone else will fix for them.

So here's what we'll do: I'll go ahead and prepare, while you lot go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la, I'm not listening except to stuff I already agree with". Whoever survives will be the one who's right, and I won't be helping anybody who wasn't trying to help themselves all along. Because I don't believe in handouts either.

Hence, this debate is moot. Time will decide, and I sure hope I'm wrong.
nopaniers
Quote:
1)As for your facts. CO2 levels ARE higher than they were 50 years ago. TRUE. (Don't know about 1,000 years ago, nobody checked)


Here is the CO2 record for the last 400,000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
S3nd K3ys
Texas Al wrote:
Well, people like the original poster are as much a part of the problem as the tree hugging freaks. Between those two fanatical camps the issue has gotten so politicized that it's going to be hard to get any unbiased science on it for a long time to come.


If you paid any attention to any of my posts over the last several months, you'd realize I'm not fanatically against the thought that humans are causing global warming, nor am I for it.

I don't know either way, so I don't make judgements except for those based on what I do know.

What I DO know is that I AM preparing and doing things to help prevent it and or deal with it "just in case". Just like I do when I prepare for an armed entry to my home, or an earthquake, or anything else.

So don't be so quick to pass judgement on someone you obviously know very little about.

kthks
mota
Global warming is dangerous for the world, especially for the islands in Pacific and Indian...
Dante
Firstly facts are hard to pin down: The deveil is in the detail and how you interpret the evidence.

However recent studies do indicate that CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been for 600,000 years

see: http://laps.fsl.noaa.gov/albers/las/globalwarming.html
bottom of page

This indicates that we are in an unprecidented phase in human history, this has never happened for humans before.

We know that if the global mean temperature rises by more than 2 degrees, it is likely that the rate at which organic matter (mostly dead plants) in the soil breaks down will increase so much that the soil over much of the planet will start releasing CO2 rather than absorbing it. This is particular the case for arctic pete bogs.


In other words we don't know how the planet will respond, but there is a real risk that a rate of change in CO2 and temperature not seen before in human history might well be accellerated.

If we look at a 5 to 6 degree rise in temperature, not impossible under the climate models, we can track similar events in ecological history. The last time we had a rise in temperature of that much, the vast majority of livign species on the earth were wiped out. So we know the results are potentially very dangerous.

Couple that with the huge population we have and tiny food reserves we operate with (60-90 days of food stored, based on global rate of food consumption) we see how dangerous a change in temperature could be: We are dependent on very specialised agriculture now, that will tolerate little change in conditions without a huge slump in productivity. It is easy for a population of 6 billion to go into food deficit, and this can spark off conflicts.

There is a lot of evidence that this is human induced, partly because there is little else to explain the sudden rise in CO2 levels accompanying a sudden rise in temperature, at levels unprecidented for 600,000 years.

Human induced or not, it is something we have to deal with.
Texas Al
Normal person: "Oh no, there's a huge asteroid headed right at the Earth!"
Dittohead: "Typical liberal hysteria."
Normal person: "We gotta build some more shuttles. Or at least bunkers. Deep ones."
Dittohead: "And I bet you want to raise taxes to do it."
Normal person: "We could try launching some nukes at it. Anything's worth a try."
Dittohead: "Nukes!! Yes! Wait a minute... you're just looking for a sneaky excuse for getting rid of the world's nuclear stockpile. You muslim-loving commie."
Normal person: "Umm... right. Anyway, in the real world that I live in we're having a problem, so I gotta go. Good luck!"
Dittohead: "Yeah, run you coward. I hope your asteroid kills lots of gays."
sciondestiny
Guys should we seriously be blaming the plants? I mean the scientists said that the plants make about 10 to 30% of teh methane. So where is the other 70% coming from, oh and who also put these plants inside the greenhouses. If we were not stupid enough to go ahead and bring in cars when we should have researched the side effects of them first I doubt we would have had these problems today.

I mean is it not funny how it is right away that we blame God for everything, yet when we need Him we always call on Him!!!
Related topics
"global warming" questions... please share your an
Cow-Made Global Warming
Global Warming
Apocalypse Now? Global Warming Hotspots
Global Warming
Founder of Weather Channel Opposes Global Warming
Global Warming article - critique and pointers
Has global warming.....cooled?
The Global Warming Scam
Global Warming Proof (Secrets Unveiled)
Dem's Global Warming Debacle
Global Warming Suicide Pact
The Alarming Issue of Global Warming [Pt.3]
Acid rain & global warming deniers...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.