Global "Warming"

[Pr0d1gy]

Can we just call it what it is now?



Agenda 21

 

[Fern]

I always thought this was interesting:

An indication of the types of climate changes is the finding that 13,000 years ago the Sahara desert was actually a swamp and jungle. The Sahara is on a 20,000 year cycle in which it switches back and forth from desert to jungle. (This is suspiciously close to the 26,000 year cycle during which the tilt of the earth rotates a circle that encompasses 3 stars – the current North Star being Polaris.)

http://www.drsheedy.com/early-humans/up-to-12-000-years-ago.php

The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variations between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years.[41] This is due to a 41000 year cycle in which the tilt of the earth changes between 22° and 24.5°.[42] At present (2000 CE), we are in a dry period, but it is expected that the Sahara will become green again in 15000 years (17000 CE).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#History

Who do we blame for that climate change? And if we tax it enough can we stop it?

Fern

 

[smackababy]

I always thought this was interesting:


http://www.drsheedy.com/early-humans/up-to-12-000-years-ago.php


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#History

Who do we blame for that climate change? And if we tax it enough can we stop it?

Fern

This is the exact kind of information that makes me skeptical of any meaningful human involvement in climate change.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Who do we blame for that climate change? And if we tax it enough can we stop it?

Fern

I don't quite buy into this as an argument against anthropological global warming. Earth has a climate which has been subject to changes over its history, the vast majority of which humans haven't been around for. Fine. Earth also has a long history of extinction, both as a general background process and in punctuated cataclysmic events (such as the Permian-Triassic extinction event). For the vast majority of this, humans weren't around. Yet we can still document a meteoric rise in extinctions after humans industrialized in the 19th century, and scientists generally accept that this is primarily due to human involvement (destroying habitats of species that are endemic to very small ranges, for example). It seems silly to me to simultaneously think "we're too insignificant to really do anything to Earth's climate" and "we sure have killed off a shitload of species completely unintentionally."

Yes, climate change will exist with or without human interaction, as will extinction. But that doesn't indicate that we don't play a role. We may be overstating our impact on Earth's climate and realize our foolishness down the line, and that would be great. But if the cost of trying to prevent global warming is a generally cleaner environment for us to live in, even if manmade global warming turns out to be false, isn't that something we should be trying for? Aren't you glad our air doesn't look like Beijing's? That's the thing I don't get about people who want to prove global warming isn't within our control; it's always done to justify further pollution. Who is in favor of that?

 

[bradly1101]

I keep telling you guys that we're warming ourselves into the next Ice Age.

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp

In the tropical Atlantic, the sun's heat evaporates large amounts of water, creating relatively warm, salty ocean water. This warm, salty water flows westward toward North America, then up the East Coast of the U.S., then northeastward toward Europe, forming the mighty Gulf Stream current. As this warm, salty water reaches the ocean regions on either side of Greenland, cold winds blowing off of Canada and Greenland cool the water substantially (in Figure 2, these regions are marked with white circles labeled, "Heat release to the atmosphere.") These cool, salty waters are now very dense compared to the surrounding waters, and sink to the bottom of the ocean. Thus, the oceanic areas by Greenland where this sinking occurs are called "deep-water formation areas". This North Atlantic deep water flows southward toward Antarctica, eventually making it all the way to the Pacific Ocean, where it rises back to the surface to complete the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt. It takes about 1000 years for the water to make a complete circuit around the globe.


Since the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt is driven in part by differences in ocean water density, if one can pump enough fresh water into the ocean in the key areas on either side of Greenland where the Gulf Stream waters cool and sink, this will lower the ocean's salinity (and therefore its density) enough so that the waters can no longer sink. As a result, the Atlantic conveyor belt and Gulf Stream current would shut down in just a few years, dramatically altering [cooling] the climate.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Aren't you glad our air doesn't look like Beijing's? That's the thing I don't get about people who want to prove global warming isn't within our control; it's always done to justify further pollution. Who is in favor of that?

No, no it's not.

I'm concerned about pollution in the oceans/seas in general and heavy metals in particularly. I think these are being overlooked because of what I feel is undue focus on CO2.

Fern

 

[MongGrel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpEPyhqjRGg

Both are pretty much related.

 

[mrjminer]

No, no it's not.

I'm concerned about pollution in the oceans/seas in general and heavy metals in particularly. I think these are being overlooked because of what I feel is undue focus on CO2.

Fern

This.

I'd rather go after problems that we know exist than ones that don't

 

[Incorruptible]

Global warming isn't a real problem. Just another way for leftists to give the government more power.

 

[HOSED]

Newell Steamer apparently the Army Corps and Governor Christie agree with you. They keep wasting tax money to replenish beaches in NJ... NO long term plan to abandon all development near the shore (if climate change is a viable theory), just put the homes up on stilts and pray Sandy II is not as powerful as the original.

 

[zinfamous]

No, no it's not.

I'm concerned about pollution in the oceans/seas in general and heavy metals in particularly. I think these are being overlooked because of what I feel is undue focus on CO2.

Fern

Uh, CO2 is an ocean problem and yes--the shit we are directly pumping in to the seas, as well as forcing the sea to act as a sink for the shit we pump into the air (CO2) is a very real problem.

Further, to say that human activity can have no meaningful impact on the earth's climate is to be geologically naive.

Consider the Great Oxygenation Event, one of the largest extinction events on the planet, driven exclusively by new biologic actors--cyanobacteria--constantly pumping out their poison into the atmoshpere...which was toxic to some 95% of existing life, and forever changed the earth's atmosphere.

Fucking Oxygen....

 

[mrjminer]

Uh, CO2 is an ocean problem and yes--the shit we are directly pumping in to the seas, as well as forcing the sea to act as a sink for the shit we pump into the air (CO2) is a very real problem.

Further, to say that human activity can have no meaningful impact on the earth's climate is to be geologically naive.

Consider the Great Oxygenation Event, one of the largest extinction events on the planet, driven exclusively by new biologic actors--cyanobacteria--constantly pumping out their poison into the atmoshpere...which was toxic to some 95% of existing life, and forever changed the earth's atmosphere.

Fucking Oxygen....

How about proving global warming, or climate change, or whatever name it goes by? Tossing out inarguable blanket statements like people have an effect on their environment doesn't constitute proof.

Great Oxygenation Event? Please. Using one theory, that's also largely speculative, to argue another doesn't constitute proof either. There's a reason none of the sources on the Wikipedia page are pre-2000 except for one that's not dealing with the event itself. Because it's in a constant state of revision because they can say shit for sure. All that's really known regarding the "GOE" is that the Earth somehow got a lot of oxygen if it didn't have it before at some point. Sounds like some breakthrough stuff. Sort of like the only thing that's really known about "climate change" is that sometimes it's hot and sometimes its cold.

Maybe you can be the one. You can be.. the hero of the climate alteration! All you have to do is prove the theory. Good luck!

 

[Paratus]

Whether or not the hypothesis is right or wrong...we don't know. But please do explain this "equilibrium" before the Industrial Revolution.

We don't know yet. Data indicates that it is. More observations will confirm it or require a modification to the hypothesis.

Assuming you are being serious, the equilibrium and the temperature profile since the industrial revolution are two separate things.

The equilibrium they are talking about is thermal equilibrium. Every time the earths climate has changed appreciably the energy coming into the earth has been out of equilibrium with energy leaving. If more energy is being received then temperature must eventually rise until equilibrium is met. If more energy is leaving then temperature must fall until equilibrium is met. This is fundamental heat transfer theory, on the order of F=MA in physics. It's also why your oven works.

The industrial revolution was used as our use of fossil fuels increased exponentially from that point, we have decent temperature data and models, and most of our cities and farms were the places they are now.

That last point is important for the point Fern brought up. The Sahara was once swampy nows it's one of the driest places on Earth. What's the financial cost of that? For the Sahara 13k years ago, obviously not much, but what if that driest place wasn't the Sahara but Kansas 50 years from now. What would the financial impact of that be?

 

[Paratus]

Global warming isn't a real problem. Just another way for leftists to give the government more power.

 

[SoleAnne]

"Global Warming" Human should be rethinking

 

[IGBT]

it's an alarmist hoax. east anglia university leaked emails clearly indicate the profound collusion and collective fraud the eco-KOOKS have "cooked" up.

 

[R0H1T]

it's an alarmist hoax. east anglia university leaked emails clearly indicate the profound collusion and collective fraud the eco-KOOKS have "cooked" up.

Funny how the multi trillion $ oil barons don't look like saints to us, ever wonder how bigoted that lobby is & how they always manage to downplay the effects of climate change, as it's quite clear & evident here!

 

[Matt1970]

Let us know when China and India buy into your little plan....this is a global issue, right???

Yep. We will regulate the hell out of the US and if that doesn't make the cost of goods go up enough we will just slap emissions taxes on them. No worries, we will just turn around and buy our stuff from countries that have no regulations or emission taxes cause, well you know, it's cheaper.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Assuming you are being serious, the equilibrium and the temperature profile since the industrial revolution are two separate things.

The equilibrium they are talking about is thermal equilibrium. Every time the earths climate has changed appreciably the energy coming into the earth has been out of equilibrium with energy leaving. If more energy is being received then temperature must eventually rise until equilibrium is met. If more energy is leaving then temperature must fall until equilibrium is met. This is fundamental heat transfer theory, on the order of F=MA in physics. It's also why your oven works.

This is what thermal eqilibrium looks like prior to the Industrial Revolution.

 

[thraashman]

Yep. We will regulate the hell out of the US and if that doesn't make the cost of goods go up enough we will just slap emissions taxes on them. No worries, we will just turn around and buy our stuff from countries that have no regulations or emission taxes cause, well you know, it's cheaper.

Yes, yes and we should also get rid of building codes because China and India don't have them and it's cheaper to build there. And we should eliminate workers' rights because China and India don't have them and thus labor is cheaper there.

 

[Matt1970]

Yes, yes and we should also get rid of building codes because China and India don't have them and it's cheaper to build there. And we should eliminate workers' rights because China and India don't have them and thus labor is cheaper there.

I think you missed the point.

 

[Atreus21]

What is the difference between the blue and red lines?

 

[Newell Steamer]

What is the difference between the blue and red lines?

Blueberry and Fruit Punch. I am not sure why we don't get Grape when they intersect though,...

 

[glenn1]

So which is the future of urban transportation in our Global Warming, automobile free world?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What is the difference between the blue and red lines?

Temperature change (blue) and carbon dioxide change (red).

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html