Global Warning

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Sep 4, 2006.

  1. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #1
    Maybe this belongs in the Pol Forum, but I thought I'd try it out here first.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

    Scary stuff, indeed.


    The last part is a warning to madjew...
     
  2. Dr.Gargoyle macrumors 65816

    Dr.Gargoyle

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
    Location:
    lat: 55.7222°N, long: 13.1971°E
    #2
    Not really a new discovery. Ice-cores have been analyzed for decades and they have yielded the same ominous result every time. All mathematical models show that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is way out of "normal" CO2 variation.
    The thing that scares me more are people that actually claims there are no solid scientific proofs behind the claim we are out-of-path in terms of CO2 in the atmosphere.
     
  3. fatandlazy11 macrumors member

    fatandlazy11

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    Depends on my mood
    #4
    I know, I saw this on the national Geographic Channel lasrt night. It saidf there is like a 50% chance we will have an Ice age in the next 20 years. cuz of what global warmiing does to the gulf current. It IS SCARY.:(
     
  4. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    You catch my drift.
     
  5. bursty macrumors 6502a

    bursty

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Location:
    STL
    #6
    http://news.com.com/2300-11395_3-6111282-1.html

    And I never had to give up my gas-chugging SUVs and sports cars for a tree-hugger hybrid. :cool:
     
  6. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    Maybe because your gas-chugging SUV can't affect the ozone.

    That's a bit like bragging that you don't have to quit being a drunk because it turns out not to cause lung cancer.
     
  7. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #8
    Just watch Al Gore's movie: An Inconvienent Thuth.
     
  8. hmmfe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    #9
    If you take the long-view, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not particularly high. During much of our past, concentrations of 1000-2000 ppm were common. Much below our current 380 ppm. I'm not suggesting that we keep spewing C02 in the atmosphere, but let's not ignore the facts.
     
  9. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #10
    It's very worrying, but as normal nobody will make any noticable difference because hey, we're okay today!

    Take here. Saddleworth. The wikipedia entry for it "Saddleworth is a picturesque...". it's nice up here. But oh dear! the health hippies want to stick up wind generators to make use of the immense amount of wind that travels over the hills! those tossers trying to save the environment.
    In all seriousness, locals don't want the fans up because it destroys the landscape. it destroys the moors. I don't know about you, but vast expanses of brown with fans on the horizon doesn't sound like a local armageddon to me.

    we need better sources of energy. electric cars and more nuclear/renewable energy generators. I'm no hippy, I think dangers like this transcend stereotyping. My hair is cut and I have no facial hair, but I don't want this planet going to pot.
     
  10. Snowy_River macrumors 68030

    Snowy_River

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Corvallis, OR
    #11
    While this is true, it misses a big part of the point.

    The rate of change is what should be feared, not the levels in and of themselves. Sure, higher levels have occurred, and it's believed that they have even been good for plant life. But with this manic rate of change that we're inducing, nothing has the time to adapt or move.

    Imagine a tree that can live in a certain spot. Change the temperature a few degrees and suddenly it can't live there any more. But it can live farther up the mountain slope a quarter of a mile away. So, if that few degree change happens over a thousand years or so, no problem. The "tree" or, more truly, forest would gradually migrate as the temperature changes. But what if that temperature shift happens not in centuries, but years. No time. The forest simply dies.

    Of course, I'm being a bit over dramatic. I am an absolute believer that we are incapable of killing all life on Earth, no matter what. However, what we're quite capable of, and what I see this issue as being all about, is make Earth effectively uninhabitable for US.

    Sure, other life will suffer along the way, but the Earth, in a geologic time frame, will be quite capable of filling any ecological niches that get vacated. Even if everything larger than plankton were to get wiped out, Earth could rebuild.

    It's our environment that's at risk. Our lives. We're not trying to save the spotted owls (or whatever the species de jour is). We're trying to save ourselves.
     
  11. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #12
    we hear this, and we think "oh this is terrible...", but we never blame ourselves for it. Every time we go for a drive, we put carbon dioxide and, even worse, carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. Every time we dry our clothes in the dryer, we chew up s***loads of power, meaning toxic gasses from the power plants go into the air.

    I mention we, because we all do it, me included.

    The hole in the ozone layer is mending, but that doesn't mean we can pump out as many pollutants as we want. We need to continue to reduce our waste output. Driving more fuel efficient cars is a great way to reduce CO2 and CO emissions, and generally, smaller cars are more efficient than large SUVs.

    I heard somewhere that Brazillian rainforests supply us with 1/3rd of our breathable air (by photosynthesis). If those forests are gone, we will need to reduce out population by 1/3rd to survive. Thats almost all of Africa, Europe and North America gone, just so the rest of the world can live. My point is, we need to stop clearing forests, because if we do, we won't be able to get enough oxygen into our systems, and we won't be able to live.
     
  12. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #13
    I'd like to see your sources. For one, CO is not an overly important greenhouse molecule (H2O, CO2 and O3 are).

    Rainforests are much too mature to be major carbon sinks, so I believe your "1/3 of our breathable air" figure to be nonsense also. North American forests are much more critical for absorbing carbon. Mature forests are often net oxygen consumers.

    Do you have any sources?
     
  13. hmmfe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    #14
    Perhaps I just don't get the "out-of-path" thing? Either way, I get the point of the article. I was actually just correcting the good doctor's (percieved) inaccuracy.
     
  14. After G macrumors 68000

    After G

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #15
    I've heard (perhaps incorrectly) that we are currently planting more trees than we destroy in North America. Doesn't help the rainforest, but it helps ...

    And it's good to reduce as much as possible, but there comes a point where an individual just can't do more than what they're alread doing.

    Just my $0.02.
     
  15. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #16
    That is true. We have many more trees now than we used to.

    Yes, but I don't think we've come to that point yet. ;)
     
  16. Dr.Gargoyle macrumors 65816

    Dr.Gargoyle

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
    Location:
    lat: 55.7222°N, long: 13.1971°E
    #17
    You have to look at the CO2 level in context. There is a natural, and yet unexplained, variation in CO2 level. The change in the CO2 level the last decade clearly indicates that something very significant happened on earth about 100 years ago (read industrialization).
     
  17. Snowy_River macrumors 68030

    Snowy_River

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Corvallis, OR
    #18
    "out-of-path" = not where we ought to be if these things were governed by strictly natural forces.

    Of course, anytime humans muck around we will be "out-of-path", but the question is are we dangerously out-of-path? More and more evidence is pointing to "YES". Not only that, but, the evidence is pointing to the possibility of there being a point-of-no-return from which, once reached (if we haven't already), it would be impossible to pull back to a state that was closer to being "in-path".

    Of course, I don't like the word impossible. There are possible means to get back "in-path" even if we pass the point-of-no-return. They just aren't very pretty. Hit the Earth with a comet, for example.

    So, what was the "perceived" inaccuracy that you were correcting?
     
  18. hmmfe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    #19
    Wow. I must have missed that day in class where they taught what "out-of-path" meant. I guess now my question would be what does "strictly natural" mean? Seems to me that we are every bit as natural as a turtle. I suppose if you are religiously inclined you can think of man as distinct from nature.

    If by out-of-path what was meant was man-cause carbon dioxide concentration levels, then I understand and agree that the actions of man are adding C02 to the atmosphere that in the absence of man would probably not be there. Of course, before man C02 levels fluctated wildly (despite indications of recent stability) so I am not sure where that leaves us.

    To answer your question, the correction was that I perceived that out-of-path simply meant out of the ordinary. I responded that current C02 levels are actually on the low side in historic terms.

    You really don't have to preach to me about this stuff. I am all in favor of reducing C02 emissions and am not ignorant of the science. I guess where I depart company is that I am not all that certain that climate scientists have it figured out just yet. Either way, I think it is still a good idea to hedge our bets and take the worst case scenario off the table.
     
  19. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #20
    Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 years

    independent

    emphasis mine, for those who are still in denial that 1) this is outside the normal cycles, and 2) it's not manmade.
     
  20. j26 macrumors 65832

    j26

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Location:
    Paddyland
    #21
    I read this in the newspaper yesterday and it frightened the crap out of me.

    We are putting the world under intolerable pressure, and need to change what we do before it's too late (unless it is already).
     
  21. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #22
    sorry, i got a bit worked up there.
    I've had sources over the years, but i wouldn't be able to find them now. With that said, i probably shouldn't have gone on with figures and statistics.
    From what i've been taught, CO is a toxic gas which can quickly kill someone. Thats why they put the canary down the mineshaft; to test for CO levels. It's more to do with us being able to breathe rather than the ozone depleting.

    Still, i believe my point remains that trees are great at using CO2 and giving out oxygen as part of their respiration. The fewer trees we have available, the less oxygen we have around.

    Even if all my points were nonsense, i think we can all agree that pumping the amount of pollutants as we do into the atmosphere can't be a good thing.
    Pollutants are naturally formed through rice paddies, farts, etc., and they are required to keep the Earth at a stable temperature. If all pollutants were gone, the earth would freeze.
    The problem on hand is that too many pollutants are being released. We need to lower our greenhouse gas emissions.

    I hope im making sense and reason this time round :p
     
  22. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #23
    You know, don't flame me (and I do not doubt Global Warming), but I still doubt the absolutely accuracy of predicting exact climatic conditions nearly a million years ago.
     
  23. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #24
    I'd personally prefer to play on the safe side and not risk the lives of millions of people on the off chance that the predictions are wrong...
     
  24. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #25
    Of course not. We've chopped the sodding rain forests down!!

    Duh!!

    :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page