Global Warming

[DungeonMaster6]

Recently in the Washington Post their have been articles about global warming. Last Monday in the Science section, page A10 the caption reads: At The Poles, Melting Occurring At Alarming Rate. Maybe some of you can access it. It's a whole page with pictures of places like Greenland and Anarctica.

Yet, people like President Bush, who denies the "Greenhouse" effect, continue to stubbornly edit any reports that support it. What are we going to do? Wait until a major disaster strikes before acting!

[thrall]

DM........It's not just President Bush who is thinking this.....

I was recently having dinner and was overhearing the men in the next booth talking....and it took everything i had not to jump in and smack them around..

All they could talk about was that Global Warming was a hoax.....that there was no evidence, and it was all just a pile of crap..........that the didn't believe one word of any of it!!!

they then went on to talk about how horrible the weather around the world was........go figure....

[Pertez]

Most People think IMHO if i cant see it It isnt there ,i live in Holland and to be Honest im worried a lot about it we (Dutch) live below the sea Level so if it rises we will be some the first to Vanish

[ladygstar]

Most People think IMHO if i cant see it It isnt there ,i live in Holland and to be Honest im worried a lot about it we (Dutch) live below the sea Level so if it rises we will be some the first to Vanish

I will throw you a rubber ring and one of my duckies to keep you company hon!

[Pertez]

I will throw you a rubber ring and one of my duckies to keep you company hon!

A Lady to the Rescue Thank you * Hugs*

[_ID_]

Not that it's related, but there are people who don't believe we went to the moon.

[Alex Bragi]

Not that it's related, but there are people who don't believe we went to the moon.

Actually, I don't mind put my hand up and telling you I'm one of those sceptics. I've read many articles about it that quite simply made me question whether, or not, it actually happened.

I mean sure it's recorded as an historic event with pictures and such but a lot people, who are a whole lot smarter than me, have put some pretty convincing arguements forward that suggest is was just a giant hoax.

So, I think I prefer to keep an open mind on that one.

And, global warming I agree with Oz, I think I know gobal warming is a fact, but I don't feel certain that it's man-made greenhouse gases that are causing it. Therefor, I'm not certain how urgent, or helpful, is it s that people and goverments take action to reverse carbon emissions.

Again, I've read excellent arguments and again by people who know a whole lot more about it than I do, who say the slight global temperature change detected by scientists is part of a cyclical pattern and more to do with the sun's activities than anything happening on Earth.

[Ozme52]

There's no doubt the earth is warming. We argue too much over the cause... instead of whether we can do anything to help slow it.

But there is very little proof it's mankind's fault, (it's a lot of supposition, I personally think it's more about solar activity...) but that allows the conversation to waver from the issue of what we can do to be prepared.

One issue is... will it actually help the forests and jungles. Hotter won't mean drier, it'll mean wetter, all that extra icemelt will end up in the air as the less saline ocean surfaces evaporate more readily. More rain, more humidty. The big deserts, like the Sahara, might become savannahs again.

On the other hand, the change in ocean salinity can also cause major currents, such as the gulf stream, to "stall." When that happens... we experience ice-ages. Yes my friends, global warming could lead to the next iceage.

[_ID_]

Alex, the same arguments about global warming are being made by the same people that make the arguments about the moon. Those same people make arguments about government involvement in 9/11, as well as the Kennedy assassination. My point is there will always be skeptics to something that happened, and they didn't witness it with their own eyes.

Is global warming a problem, who knows. Our recorded history doesn't give us enough of an accurate background to say for sure. All we can do is put forth theories with the knowledge we have learned from geology studies. Are they accurate? Who knows, but it's all we have, and there isn't anything strong enough to dispute it. So it must be true right? Well history is full of studies that were done by science that were later shown to be less than accurate once the knowledge came to light. As far as I'm concerned, what harm is there is using less of something? All good things in moderation right? Us Americans have difficulty with that concept.

[Isabelle90]

As far as I'm concerned, what harm is there is using less of something? All good things in moderation right? Us Americans have difficulty with that concept.

There are scientists from both ways of thinking on global warming. That makes it so difficult for us lay people to decide.

ID has a great point! Why not try to do something!?! Why should we sit idly by waiting the powers that be decide whether or not we need to do anything, then what exactly it is we need to do. Surely, even Americans can think for ourselves!

In my classroom I used to give each student a small piece of paper (the size of a small post-it) and had them crumble it up. The could just wad it up, tear it in smaller pieces, or whatever. I would have the first student throw their paper in the middle of the floor and ask the class if that was such a mess. Everyone would, of course, say that one small piece was no big deal. But after the entire class threw in their pieces, the mess was a big deal. It took longer to pick up the mess from everyone, with everyone helping, that it did to throw it down. If that mess would have been disposed of properly the first time, it would have saved us all time and trouble.

That is an extremely simple way of illustrating the combined effect of each of us. We would apply this to lots of different situations, as it does make quite a statement for young children.

My point is, the same is true with adults. This sort of ties in with the thread on manners. We need to set examples for children. We should expect them to demonstrate the same consideration.

[catsclaw-01]

There are scientists from both ways of thinking on global warming. That makes it so difficult for us lay people to decide.

ID has a great point! Why not try to do something!?! Why should we sit idly by waiting the powers that be decide whether or not we need to do anything, then what exactly it is we need to do. Surely, even Americans can think for ourselves!

In my classroom I used to give each student a small piece of paper (the size of a small post-it) and had them crumble it up. The could just wad it up, tear it in smaller pieces, or whatever. I would have the first student throw their paper in the middle of the floor and ask the class if that was such a mess. Everyone would, of course, say that one small piece was no big deal. But after the entire class threw in their pieces, the mess was a big deal. It took longer to pick up the mess from everyone, with everyone helping, that it did to throw it down. If that mess would have been disposed of properly the first time, it would have saved us all time and trouble.

That is an extremely simple way of illustrating the combined effect of each of us. We would apply this to lots of different situations, as it does make quite a statement for young children.

My point is, the same is true with adults. This sort of ties in with the thread on manners. We need to set examples for children. We should expect them to demonstrate the same consideration.

Isabelle90 what a wonderful way to demonstrate the effects we humans have on this great planet of ours. So simple and yet so graphic. I look forward to reading more about your teaching methods. Perhaps I can share my teaching methods with you.

[Isabelle90]

Just a suggestion for this thread and anyone interested. The State of Fear by Michael Crichton is an excellent book on this topic. Yes, it is fictional, but Michael Crichton does his research before he writes, and The State of Fear is no exception. This book stirred up a lot of controversy.

Isabelle90 what a wonderful way to demonstrate the effects we humans have on this great planet of ours. So simple and yet so graphic. I look forward to reading more about your teaching methods. Perhaps I can share my teaching methods with you.

Catsclaw, I've noticed you've been addressing me in a few threads....?

[mkemse]

Recently in the Washington Post their have been articles about global warming. Last Monday in the Science section, page A10 the caption reads: At The Poles, Melting Occurring At Alarming Rate. Maybe some of you can access it. It's a whole page with pictures of places like Greenland and Anarctica.

Yet, people like President Bush, who denies the "Greenhouse" effect, continue to stubbornly edit any reports that support it. What are we going to do? Wait until a major disaster strikes before acting!

Bush denies everything

[_ID_]

Bush denies everything

That's not entirely true. He doesn't deny his own greatness, he doesn't deny his ability to be 'the decider' he hasn't denied that he is the president. There are a number of half truths and make believe stories he came up with that he hasn't denied.

Denying reality, yes. Totally agree.

[mkemse]

That's not entirely true. He doesn't deny his own greatness, he doesn't deny his ability to be 'the decider' he hasn't denied that he is the president. There are a number of half truths and make believe stories he came up with that he hasn't denied.

Denying reality, yes. Totally agree.

I meant denying reality, sorry iI was not more clear on that

[Logic1]

I saw some report on global warming and the effects on economy for us Swedes. The really interesting part was that we as a country would actually GAIN from global warming in the next 100 years..
faster growing crops, trees and wine would be a bonus that would outweigh the cost of raising waterlevels and other things.

there is not doubt in my mind that man created this mess we live in right now though and we need to adress the problems now.

[Ozme52]

I saw some report on global warming and the effects on economy for us Swedes. The really interesting part was that we as a country would actually GAIN from global warming in the next 100 years..
faster growing crops, trees and wine would be a bonus that would outweigh the cost of raising waterlevels and other things.

there is not doubt in my mind that man created this mess we live in right now though and we need to adress the problems now.

You better believe it Logic. If it actually warms, you all will reap great benefits. You think Vikings viked merely to vaction in warmer climes?

Nope, they went aviking because they had plenty of liesure time. Harvested early, and went exploring, gathering trinkets (loot) and even settled the western hemisphere. Think they called Greenland green as a joke?

If it hadn't been for the following mini-ice age(s) we might all be speaking Norse in this hemisphere. But the Viking settlements were too early and too far north to flourish when it turned cold.

The earth's climate is very cyclical. Witness Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. It was so cold ice crystals literally hung in the air. Cossacks froze to death mounted on their likewise frozen horses waiting to ambush the French. It was very very cold.

We've only been keeping detailed weather measurements for a few hundred years. Everything else is anectdotal and we really don't know what to expect next, despite what anyone wishes to claim.

And what is the major concern? That the seas will rise? And what part of nature will suffer the most? Mankind of course... because that's where we build most of our biggest cities.

[/ramble]

[ThisYouWillDo]

Isabelle, how do you think the rest of the class would feel if the child who made the most mess refused to recognise that it was a mess and declined to help clear it up?

TYWD

[Isabelle90]

Isabelle, how do you think the rest of the class would feel if the child who made the most mess refused to recognise that it was a mess and declined to help clear it up?

TYWD

TYWD, You must be talking about Great Britain...

They're responsible for Australia, Canada, India, the USA, and a host of other "misfit" ex-colonials after all.

j/j of course.

TYWD, I was going to say that I would call the child an American LOL!! But then Oz chimed in before I saw.....I would not have "passed the buck." Ha! Ha!

[Ozme52]

TYWD, You must be talking about Great Britain...

They're responsible for Australia, Canada, India, the USA, and a host of other "misfit" ex-colonials after all.

j/j of course.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ozme

Ouch!

I accept what you say in the sense you said it. And I would add that we've left a far bigger mess in Africa.

But if we regard those ex-colonies as Britannia's school-age children in my analogy, then, perhaps, it is the oldest of them that misbehaves the most, environmentally speaking.

TYWD

[Ozme52]

True. I'll only suggest that it is from the momentum of the WWII industrial build-up. "We" don't want to let go of it because of the wealth it creates now.

Prior to that, the European nations were by far the biggest polluters, but the same incident... WWII, took down all that old soot-creating industry... allowing for a wave of modernization. The London Fog was downright deadly for a while there.

Everyone takes a turn. "We" are just having some trouble coming to terms with not being able to play by ourselves, in this arena, anymore.

No one is "free" of all guilt. And the USA is about to be 'put to shame' and demoted to '3rd stringer bench warmer' Newly industrializing nations such as India and China will do whatever is necessary to become world class economies. Do you think they'll set that (and everything it means to their citizenry vis-a-vis standard of living) aside because of world opinion... or even a little smog in their cities?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Strangely enough - and it may be incredibly naive of me - I do believe those eastern countries are strongly motivated to avoid shame and humiliation. But I doubt that's enough to stop their drive for industrialisation, as you say. Unless they all start dying of cancer and other pollution-linked diseases.

The world's a dead planet spinning.


<--- Smart-arse.

[Thorne]

Just to throw in my personal opinions, there is no controversy regarding global warming. Global warming is, indeed, a fact. The controversy is in the causes. The so called liberals (for lack of a better term) are quick to blame everything on mankind and the industrial nations. The conservatives (another lack) are just as quick to deny that. The truth, I believe, lies somewhere in the middle.

Let's start with the ozone layer. Heard much about that lately? I can't say that I have. Know why? When scientists found that hole in the ozone layer some immediately started screaming about chlorofluorocarbons destroying the ozone layer. Despite the fact that they had virtually no knowledge of the mechanics of the ozone layer and despite the fact that NO ONE has been able to come up with a valid method for introducing CFC's into an atmospheric level that high. The damned things are heavier than air! They drop to the ground. Then came the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. That one eruption blew a hole in the ozone layer 5 times the size of the one over Antarctica! Mankind's fault?

What about greenhouse gases? True, industry and personal uses of oil and such are contributing. But how much, really? The so-called environmentalists will readily display data showing how many TONS of CO2 and methane are dumped into the atmosphere each year by mankind. What they don't generally show you is how small that total is compared to NATURALLY occurring gases. Again, a single volcanic eruption can put out more CO2 in a single DAY than man does in a year. And a large part of that CO2 is absorbed into the ocean where it is used by marine plant life to produce ... wait for it... OXYGEN!

The planet is warming, no question about it. But the scientists haven't been studying this kind of phenomena for very long, in a geologic sense. Data they have recovered from ice cores and ocean bottom cores shows that what we are seeing now is not that uncommon. So why must we blame ourselves?

I remember when Hurricane Katrina was bearing down on New Orleans, all of the TV reporters where asking any scientists they could corner whether global warming could have caused Katrina to become so strong. EVERY weather expert they asked scoffed at the idea, saying that the increase in surface water temperature was not high enough to cause a SIGNIFICANT increase in wind speeds, not more than one or two MPH. Then someone got the brilliant idea to ask an "environmentalist" and guess what he answered? "ABSOLUTELY! There's no question that global warming made the hurricane MUCH stronger." From that point on the ONLY quote you heard on the mainstream news was that one!

The following year all the "environmental experts" were preaching doom and gloom about the monstrous hurricanes which were going to be heading our way. The weather experts hedged there bets and predicted an above average number of hurricanes. In reality, the total was significantly BELOW average. And remember, the number of hurricanes which are counted to get that average includes ONLY those which were discovered. Before satellite imaging many hurricanes which never came near land went totally unreported.

So, can we do anything about global warming? In all likelihood, damned little if anything. Sure, we can cut back on our consumption of fossil fuels. What shall we use instead? Any kind of energy manufacture is sure to upset someone. By far the cheapest and most efficient is nuclear. Just try getting THAT past the greens! Wind power can provide some energy, but it's unreliable, expensive and nowhere near capable of providing enough power for man's needs. The same goes for hydroelectric. And in the end, chances are it will do precious little good.

Mankind may be heading for it's own version of the KT boundary. Whether through his own doing or through nature's the end may be closer than we think. And to be honest, some days I believe it can't get here soon enough.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I'm left wondering how far from the right the middle is.

That sounds very well-informed, and I'm sure it is. I hesitate before commenting. In any case, I've heard that the world has got hotter than this several times before, and without any help from us.

However, the last I heard, a bunch of scientists who are, perhaps, just as well-informed, consider that mankind has done nothing but harm to planet Earth. Now if it's that's true, then it's just a question of timing; we shall either destroy the world quickly or we'll do it slowly. And if we do it by interfering with nature, it'll be quickly

Let's all sit back and see ...


TYWD

btw - by destroy the world I meant destroy it for mankind. The world will recover after we've all gone, with just a thin layer of oily (or radioactive) material separating one era from the next.

[Thorne]

However, the last I heard, a bunch of scientists who are, perhaps, just as well-informed, consider that mankind has done nothing but harm to planet Earth. Now if it's that's true, then it's just a question of timing; we shall either destroy the world quickly or we'll do it slowly. And if we do it by interfering with nature, it'll be quickly

I get very tired of hearing this kind of argument. Generally, those who put it forward forget that mankind is a part of nature. ALL life does harm in some way or another. Nature has ways of balancing things out. If a group grows beyond the capacity of its food source the weaker members of the group die off. the group gets smaller until there is once again enough food for the group. Mankind is no different, except that: #1, we eat virtually everything, not just one particular food; and #2, we have devised ways to increase our food supply to match our population growth. At least so far. It's a zero sum game, though. Eventually there won't be enough to go around. Then the weaker individuals, families, tribes, populations, will die off, reducing the demand.

btw - by destroy the world I meant destroy it for mankind. The world will recover after we've all gone, with just a thin layer of oily (or radioactive) material separating one era from the next.

This is the key thing to remember. We are not destroying the earth, we are destroying the parts of the earth where we live. We are making it less habitable for ourselves. Just as I noted above, eventually the population will decline, through famine, war, disease, those "natural" processes which have been with us for millennia. Understandably, no one wants to be part of that decline, but those who live through it will find a much different world than we live in now. Just as our world is much different from the world of the Neanderthals. Will it be better? Who knows? It WILL be different, though. That's guaranteed.

I'm reminded of a comment by George Carlin (I think): Perhaps mankind was Nature's way of getting Styrofoam. Now that she's got it she doesn't need us anymore.

[Ozme52]

I agree. The biggest negative impact of the icecaps melting is the inundation of the coastal areas where mankind lives. Forty percent of us are in coastal cities.

It'll displace all the myriad city people... where will they go. Inland... to where we tend to grow the food.

It'll be a nightmare of logistics... and we might go down in proverbial flames.

But the world will survive. It's done this before. And myriad species go down with each cycle and new ones arise. The real reason we're upset is we can see it coming and it's going to change how mankind lives.

[Alex Bragi]

I agree. The biggest negative impact of the icecaps melting is the inundation of the coastal areas where mankind lives. Forty percent of us are in coastal cities.

It'll displace all the myriad city people... where will they go. Inland... to where we tend to grow the food.

...

Well, my understanding of it, Oz, is that it's not so much ice melting and water encroaching and eventually submerging large areas of land, but the fact that it's fresh water and therefore will severely impact on everything that lives in salt water, that has scientist so concerned.

[Thorne]

I agree. The biggest negative impact of the icecaps melting is the inundation of the coastal areas where mankind lives. Forty percent of us are in coastal cities.

Actually, I think the biggest impact is what the fresh water will do to the oceans currents. This was poorly explained in the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow" with Dennis Quade. As I understand it, the flow of the major oceanic currents, particularly the Gulf Stream, depend upon the temperature and salinity of the water at the poles. As the ice melts the salinity drops. This could cause the Gulf Stream, among others, to stop flowing. This will cause much of northwestern Europe, in particular, to experience MUCH colder temperatures than they are used to.

[Ozme52]

Actually, I think the biggest impact is what the fresh water will do to the oceans currents. This was poorly explained in the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow" with Dennis Quade. As I understand it, the flow of the major oceanic currents, particularly the Gulf Stream, depend upon the temperature and salinity of the water at the poles. As the ice melts the salinity drops. This could cause the Gulf Stream, among others, to stop flowing. This will cause much of northwestern Europe, in particular, to experience MUCH colder temperatures than they are used to.

Yes. Something I mentioned myself earlier up above. My comments about salinity and how it will affect species was only to that point. The far larger issue is if the Gulf Stream and other warm water currents "stall" or change course. Then we will likely experience another northern hemisphere ice age.