Does anyone here think that, in their lifetime, the world will end due to global warming? what do you think we can do to stop it?
Global Warming
The world end? No, the world is here to stay for awile, much longer then our life times. But yes, there is a chance that the human race will end within our life times. Yet i suppose it would be from a spesific event (nucular war, collision with an astaroid, things of that sort). I think global warming would be a slow enugh change to allow for the survival of some humans. There are theories tho that global warming could be a quick change. One of thoes theories is the convator. Aparintly the temeture of the ocean (and consiquently the earth) is regulated by a water cycle in the artic; where water is cooled by the ice caps and goes deeper. If it gets to warm and the convator stops, we could get plunged in to another ice age.
So i just looked it up. I didnt explain it right but here is an article to chew on.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
So i just looked it up. I didnt explain it right but here is an article to chew on.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.
when the people who govern the world change, this heating problem also will finish
We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.
when the people who govern the world change, this heating problem also will finish
I think that global warming is definitely occuring but I don't think that it will cause the world to end in my lifetime... Some things that we could do to prevent or at least slow global warming are to find a way to make (efficiently an economically) renewable fuels from plant sources like ethanol. First, less carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere than with normal gasoline. Also, the net carbon output is essentially zero since the plant absorbs CO2 as it grows. I think even if we just mixed ethanol with the gasoline (as they are already doing in parts of the US) it would make a big difference.
there are a couple problems with those suggestions..
first of all, the amount of CO2 produced by internal combustion engines is barely a blip on the screen compared to what plants produce.. plants take in carbon dioxide during the day, but release it during the night.. if we stopped using CO2 producing engines entirely, it wouldn't make any difference in the long run unless we stripped the planet of most vegetation
as far as ethanol fuel goes.. I don't think that makes any difference as far as global warming goes.. even if you subscribe to the unlikely position that manmade CO2 affects the earth's temperature, which is regulated by the 80% coverage of water and sunlight), using ethanol-based fuel offers no real advantage.. first of all, it takes more energy to produce ethanol fuels.. and cars that use it are less efficient, meaning that they burn more of it to do the same amount of work
I personally think that ethanol fuel is manufactured only to keep corn farmers from going out of business
first of all, the amount of CO2 produced by internal combustion engines is barely a blip on the screen compared to what plants produce.. plants take in carbon dioxide during the day, but release it during the night.. if we stopped using CO2 producing engines entirely, it wouldn't make any difference in the long run unless we stripped the planet of most vegetation
as far as ethanol fuel goes.. I don't think that makes any difference as far as global warming goes.. even if you subscribe to the unlikely position that manmade CO2 affects the earth's temperature, which is regulated by the 80% coverage of water and sunlight), using ethanol-based fuel offers no real advantage.. first of all, it takes more energy to produce ethanol fuels.. and cars that use it are less efficient, meaning that they burn more of it to do the same amount of work
I personally think that ethanol fuel is manufactured only to keep corn farmers from going out of business
| danlvincaz wrote: |
| Does anyone here think that, in their lifetime, the world will end due to global warming? what do you think we can do to stop it? |
That's funny, 30 years ago it was global cooling.
FACT is: There's NO PROOF that man kind is to blame for anything but a small (likely insignificant) amount, and there is NO PROOF that man kind can do anything to stop it.
Ermm....hmmmm
OK. If you want some information on this rather than definite sounding answers which are based on nothing I can think of, then you need to do some reading. I will suggest some sources in order of increasing difficulty which link to professional and expert analysis and work in this area.
GW section on the BBC Website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/
Next, here is a new scientist feature on the issue which I found informative:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change
Finally, here is a link to the Hadley Centre (a branch of the UK Met office which specialises in this issue).
http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/
Make your own mind up. These suggestions link to professional analysis, real statistical data, scientific papers and disinterested scientific analysis.
You might, however, prefer the S3nd position on it, which is obviously based on something else.
That line - the position that there is nothing to worry about - is fairly representative of the official US position on the issue but does not in any way represent the work of US climate scientists who have been saying the opposite for years. It represents a political attempt to keep the issue low-key because of the implications for various industries (Oil, car etc) and the potential damage to the US economy. This position is increasingly untenable and even Bush himself has recently backed away from it reluctantly. There are some genuine scientists who question the research and a few who disbelieve the whole thing but the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and related professionals think that AGW is both real and dangerous.
(For interest and transparancy I should add that my own position is that yes, there is a problem with AGW (Anthropomorhpic - caused by man - distinguishes from natural GW). There are some elements of uncertainty in the overall picture but the balance of evidence is clearly supporting that view. I took my time analysing various sources before reaching this conclusion and I would advise others to do the same.)
There is a lot of 'info' on the web on this issue but beware and use sensible caution when surfing. In general sites of proper meteorological and climate science institutions is obviously going to be more informative and accurate than a site run by Mobil or Exxon.
In addition, Exxon fund and have setup many sites and bodies who are specifically there to refute global warming. I don't generally go in for conspiracy theory and I'm not some crank with a theory, so, as usual the links to proper sources on this are here:
UK Guardian (quality UK newspaper with slight left-wing bias) article on this here
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html
and then check out the exxonsecrets site here
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
I hope this is helpful
Regards
Chris.
OK. If you want some information on this rather than definite sounding answers which are based on nothing I can think of, then you need to do some reading. I will suggest some sources in order of increasing difficulty which link to professional and expert analysis and work in this area.
GW section on the BBC Website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/
Next, here is a new scientist feature on the issue which I found informative:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change
Finally, here is a link to the Hadley Centre (a branch of the UK Met office which specialises in this issue).
http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/
Make your own mind up. These suggestions link to professional analysis, real statistical data, scientific papers and disinterested scientific analysis.
You might, however, prefer the S3nd position on it, which is obviously based on something else.
That line - the position that there is nothing to worry about - is fairly representative of the official US position on the issue but does not in any way represent the work of US climate scientists who have been saying the opposite for years. It represents a political attempt to keep the issue low-key because of the implications for various industries (Oil, car etc) and the potential damage to the US economy. This position is increasingly untenable and even Bush himself has recently backed away from it reluctantly. There are some genuine scientists who question the research and a few who disbelieve the whole thing but the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and related professionals think that AGW is both real and dangerous.
(For interest and transparancy I should add that my own position is that yes, there is a problem with AGW (Anthropomorhpic - caused by man - distinguishes from natural GW). There are some elements of uncertainty in the overall picture but the balance of evidence is clearly supporting that view. I took my time analysing various sources before reaching this conclusion and I would advise others to do the same.)
There is a lot of 'info' on the web on this issue but beware and use sensible caution when surfing. In general sites of proper meteorological and climate science institutions is obviously going to be more informative and accurate than a site run by Mobil or Exxon.
In addition, Exxon fund and have setup many sites and bodies who are specifically there to refute global warming. I don't generally go in for conspiracy theory and I'm not some crank with a theory, so, as usual the links to proper sources on this are here:
UK Guardian (quality UK newspaper with slight left-wing bias) article on this here
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html
and then check out the exxonsecrets site here
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
I hope this is helpful
Regards
Chris.
Generally plants take up more CO2 than they produce, but I found this interesting article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269066.stm
So what do you think is causing global warming? Nothing that I know of has happened to the oceans or sun to cause the temperature to rise..
More energy than what?
Also, Ethanol may have lower efficiency but it has higher octane rating which increases hp per engine cycle. That probably won't matter as much to most people but thought I would throw it out there
Last, ethanol can be made from things other than corn (sugar cane, grasses, agricultural residues), the process has been just optimized for corn.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269066.stm
| JoeFriday wrote: |
|
as far as ethanol fuel goes.. I don't think that makes any difference as far as global warming goes.. even if you subscribe to the unlikely position that manmade CO2 affects the earth's temperature, which is regulated by the 80% coverage of water and sunlight) |
So what do you think is causing global warming? Nothing that I know of has happened to the oceans or sun to cause the temperature to rise..
| JoeFriday wrote: |
| first of all, it takes more energy to produce ethanol fuels |
More energy than what?
Also, Ethanol may have lower efficiency but it has higher octane rating which increases hp per engine cycle. That probably won't matter as much to most people but thought I would throw it out there
Last, ethanol can be made from things other than corn (sugar cane, grasses, agricultural residues), the process has been just optimized for corn.
Adding to the list of informative sites on global warming, I particularly like
http://www.realclimate.org/
It's written by climate scientists, and makes fascinating reading.
http://www.realclimate.org/
It's written by climate scientists, and makes fascinating reading.
| kcw1304 wrote: |
| Also, Ethanol may have lower efficiency but it has higher octane rating which increases hp per engine cycle. That probably won't matter as much to most people but thought I would throw it out there |
that is incorrect.. octane ratings do not determine horsepower.. a common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.. the higher the octane rating, the higher the compression the fuel can stand before combusting.. which means that the engine can run hotter without too much worry about detonation.. ie, having the fuel explode due to pressure and heat while the piston is still coming down on the air/fuel mix.. detonation in small amounts isn't serious.. but if it is a regular occurance, the engine will be damaged
that said, the octane rating doesn't determine horsepower.. however, the higher the octane, the safer the engine is at higher outputs.. but your car can't determine what octane the fuel is, so it can't adjust it's timing to boost power.. I have to run high octane in my car because I've got a turbocharger that increases compression higher than what 89 octane gas can handle.. but most cars are optimized to run on 89 octane.. if you put in higher octane, the car actually loses efficiency
My synaptic jury is still out on the causes of global warming. I do not dispute that it is happening; however I cannot with 100% certainty attribute it to human activity. Maybe humans are causing all of it, maybe none of it, or maybe it’s a combination of natural cycles and human activity. I tend to think we have nothing to do with it, to be honest. But, humans are arrogant.
I give my following reasoning for delaying judgment upon mankind:
We just recently emerged from the Little Ice Age, which ended around 1850. That natural cycle coincidentally ended with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Of course the earth is warming, because it is in the middle of a warming cycle. Is it warming more than it would normally?
Despite recent claims that the earth is hotter now than it has ever been in a million years, I do not see English wines competing with French wines. (i.e. I do not see vineyards thriving in England.) This was the case during the Medieval Warming, when temperatures were so high that England had a temperate climate, much to the chagrin of French winemakers.
Climatologists have trouble explaining The Ice Age and the other afore mentioned warming and cooling.
Finally, there is no such thing as an unbiased person or opinion. Everyone, whether scientist, philosopher or politician, is biased by their experiences, personal beliefs, and goals. I see it all the time in anthropology and archaeology, for example. Evidence is thrown out because it does not fit the currently most popular theory or the particular scientist's own paradigm. As an example in climatology, a German climatologist recently dismissed the Little Ice Age as insignificant because it only affected Western Europe. That was an outright lie. (One need only look at the journals of Europeans exploring the Americas during this period to realize that.) However he had to dismiss it to reinforce his and others opinions that humans are solely responsible for the current warming trend.
I give my following reasoning for delaying judgment upon mankind:
We just recently emerged from the Little Ice Age, which ended around 1850. That natural cycle coincidentally ended with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Of course the earth is warming, because it is in the middle of a warming cycle. Is it warming more than it would normally?
Despite recent claims that the earth is hotter now than it has ever been in a million years, I do not see English wines competing with French wines. (i.e. I do not see vineyards thriving in England.) This was the case during the Medieval Warming, when temperatures were so high that England had a temperate climate, much to the chagrin of French winemakers.
Climatologists have trouble explaining The Ice Age and the other afore mentioned warming and cooling.
Finally, there is no such thing as an unbiased person or opinion. Everyone, whether scientist, philosopher or politician, is biased by their experiences, personal beliefs, and goals. I see it all the time in anthropology and archaeology, for example. Evidence is thrown out because it does not fit the currently most popular theory or the particular scientist's own paradigm. As an example in climatology, a German climatologist recently dismissed the Little Ice Age as insignificant because it only affected Western Europe. That was an outright lie. (One need only look at the journals of Europeans exploring the Americas during this period to realize that.) However he had to dismiss it to reinforce his and others opinions that humans are solely responsible for the current warming trend.
I honestly believe that global warming will have no large-scale affect on the earth in my lifetime. The thing I think we should be worried about is the ozone being depleted by chemicals that are used in spraycans.
I would like you to use the search function.
-close-
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-24956.html&highlight=global+warming
+ the 300 other topics mentioned in that topic
-close-
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-24956.html&highlight=global+warming
+ the 300 other topics mentioned in that topic
 |