Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
We... are F@#*ed...
shadow boxer
The Finger Painter & Master Ranter
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp[/url]
Please my friends... go turn something off. Go find a way to reduce your own personally accrued greenhouse gas emissions...
...Or I hunt you down and feed you to some trees and lock your bodily carbon away in its tissues...:)
Please my friends... go turn something off. Go find a way to reduce your own personally accrued greenhouse gas emissions...
...Or I hunt you down and feed you to some trees and lock your bodily carbon away in its tissues...:)
Comments
In reference to global dimming: You realize the ammount of pollutants put off by factories of that type are miniscule in comparison to ash and other similar pollutants put off by volcanoes? And that volcanoes have been putting that stuff off since long before there was life on Earth?
Did you even read the section about contrails ?
When 911 happened and the entire US airfleet left the skies... the temperature went up by one degree. Might not sound like much, but on a contienental and global scale thats massive.
Contrails are 24/7/365. Volcanoes are bursts maybe every few years and the particles concerned are much larger and drop faster...
Did you even read the portions about the tug of war between global warming and global dimming ? The nasty catch 22 between greenhouse gases and particulate pollution ??
Do some more reading, before I insult you upside the head again...
In addition, man-made pollutants tend to be more localized, while these natural events can much more global in impact...
Finally, the answer to man-made pollutants is not less per capita power use, which is a good thing, but given the rate of population growth, and the economic growth in those countries with the greatest population densities, will only slow overall pollution slightly, no reverse. The answer is cleaner sources of power.
Nuclear fission is one answer, thought the by-products are extremely difficult to deal with. One advantage is, though the product of power production is an extremely toxic waste, is that it is highly localized and presents a low likelyhood of a global impact. The bad part is that the waste last for a very long time...
Jake
The real problems are in Central Europe, the US and some other growing nations that use shitloads of fossil fuels to increase or maintain their production rates or fuel their rise to western standards. China comes first to mind of the latter. Mostly the problem's with the governments: As long as they're fighting for their right to pollute, the people won't take heed of what should be done until it's too late.
As stupid as it is, I'm with Freejack on this one as well: We need cleaner sources of power. Nuclear power is just about the most clean at the moment to provide power on the big scale, and if the heat that's created as a by-product could be harvested to produce power in itself as well, we'd at least triple the power production of existing plants. How? That's the problem. Biggest problem is still the disposal of used fuels. One problem of course is, that weapons can be made out of it and simply the fact, that it takes a long, _long_ time to get rid of 'em naturally.
Just out of curiosity: Anyone have any idea of the effects it would have if some more funds would be diverted to the space program, and as a byproduct, a method of hauling the nuclear waste to space and hurling them off to the sun would be invented? Anyone have any idea what sort of reactions could be expected on and off the sun if we'd just 'burn our garbage'? Sure, it's darn costly to haul the shit up there, but in the long run and for the benefit of the space program...? ;)
Granted, the only way to make sure we have even a moderate chance of decent survival in the long run (pressure being on the word decent), some half of the world's population would need to be wiped clean. Clear & simple. We can't do it ourselves without some sort of WWIII, but the good ol' globe can... and it'll deliver at some point.
It's rather funny, in fact. We're all pro-life on most part, but in order to survive as a species I wouldn't mind if half the population would be wiped clean. Even if it would be the northern hemisphere... including myself. Strange, really... people just don't realise the problems until it's too late... in order to learn, we need to have major devastation on a global scale... or severe monetary sanctions.
So, either it's the death of billions or the substantial loss of units of a totally artificial system of trade value that really wouldn't even be necessary if we wouldn't be such assholes.
Sure shows where our priorities lie. :D
In the end, it's the f*cking 'Me, me, me, me, me, me, me!' -mentality that'll kill us, the same thing you see everywhere in the world when you drive a car. The same little annoyance. That'll be the death of us.
However we are constantly putting out aerosols that are much smaller in size that take much longer to come out of suspension in the atmosphere. this means that they will have a larger impact on the worlds climate than the average rate of natural input (baring something like a supervolcanic erruption or an asteroid impact).
A 1 degree rise in temp when the airfleets were grounded doesnt sound like much, but if you were to take that over a long period of time, then it would be enough to cause major changes in the world around us.
if we keep accelerating the greenhouse effect and dont do anything about it, then we're in trouble. i forget the exact figures, but it goes something like this (maybe someone can correct me here) if world global average temp increases by 3-5 degrees (?) it would be sufficient to melt most of the polar ice caps and raise sea level by several hundred meters. (please tell me if ive got that slightly wrong, i wasnt really paying any attention in the lecture:P )
Essentially, until we have *already* dropped greenhouse gas levels... we have to keep producing (and breathing in) nasty particle pollutants, since they help counter global warming.
If we stopped producing particle pollutants, yet continued producing greenhouse gases... climate would get a double wham.
[B]RC thats the sort of boneheaded ostrich attitude that will get us all dead...
[/B][/QUOTE]
Uh, wrong. You realize that the eruption during the dark ages cooled the earth by up to fifteen degrees for over ten years. Furthermore eruptions go off daily: [url]http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/[/url]
Note that the site I linked to has less volcanoes listed then usual - guess last week was a not very active week.
--------
Now as for greenhouse gasses - yes this is a major problem. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just saying that the particle pollutants that the article talks about are miniscule compared with all particle pollutants in the atmosphere.
Personally I don't know why people always focus on greenhouse gasses as the only major heating culprit. People seem to forget how much raw heat is relaeased into the atmosphere by furnaces, heat pumps, air conditions, high end computers, etc just to keep us comfortable. To me this seems a very large heating component of the Earth's atmosphere.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B][url]http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp[/url]
Please my friends... go turn something off. Go find a way to reduce your own personally accrued greenhouse gas emissions...
...Or I hunt you down and feed you to some trees and lock your bodily carbon away in its tissues...:) [/B][/QUOTE]
Funny thing, all these nasty "greenhouse gasses" that we are putting out, they used to be very prevelant in the atmosphere, until this horrible caustic chemical was released, called, oh what is it, Oh yes, OXYGEN.
As for the contrails and 9/11, There is no way in hell that the temperature changed by 1 degree over that, do you know how much of a global change would have to happen to raise or lower the temperaturea over a large area by 1 degree? that is the sort of change that takes decades if not centuries.
Go look at US average temperature charts, in 1895 the Avg US temp was 52 degrees, in 1999 it was 54.2 degrees, thats 2.2 degrees, in 100+ years, 100+ years of industrilization. (data was taken from NOAA US Average temperature charts) so there is no way that a few weeks of no airplanes cause a +/- 1 degree change.
AND, the planet has gone through periods of drastic temperature change for billions of years, and i'm pretty sure that humans didn't cause it. our planet heats up, our planet cools down. always has, always will.
If you want an interesting fictionalized account of global warming (derived from science fact) read State of Fear by Michael Crichton.
And, in parting, dispite what the environmentalists and Earth Firsters might have to say, Not a single thing we as humans can do is going to harm this planet in any way, It may harm the HUMANS, but the planet will be just fine, it was here before us, it'll be here after us, so this notion that we are "destroying the planet" is ludicris.
Global warming is a natural process, its how life can exist in the first place, however one can not ignore the steadly increasing average temperatures ever since the industrial revolution and the 50 ppm increase of CO2 detected on Mona Loa.
It is currently "unknown" (as science can not prove, only disprove) if the recent sharp rise of average temperature is just one an osscilations or if humans are having a significant impact.
RC: we must not ignore the threshold phenomenon, human activity may be pushing greenhouse gasses past a spicific threshold which will cause larger changes. Also the cause of the Middle Age mini ice age is stull up to debate between volcanism or a decline in sunspot activity during that time, or both.
[B]Entil'Zha: It wasn't a permanant change, it was temporary while the aircraft were grounded. Also, [i]State of Fear[/i] has been widely panned by scientists as being propagandist, and it is. Michael Crichton doesn't think humans are having an effect on global warming, and his book apparently reflects that view. [/B][/QUOTE]
Most of Chrichton's books tend to reflect his views, hence why i refered to it as fictionalized, its still a very fun read.
as for the temperature change, i dont know if there was one posted, but could you post a link to info on it, because a i just dont see how its possible that that effected a 1 degree change, temporary or not, and also i'd like to know how big of an area that it was supposed to have changed the temp by.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Entil'Zha [/i]
[B]AND, the planet has gone through periods of drastic temperature change for billions of years, and i'm pretty sure that humans didn't cause it. our planet heats up, our planet cools down. always has, always will.[/B][/QUOTE]
noone is disputing that in the past there have been greater concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and all. its just that the rate at which they have been dumped into the atmosphere and the other earth systems is unprecedented in the earth's history. the only times things have happened faster are after asteroid impacts and LIP's (large igneous province eg. deccan traps in india ~64-67Ma), and look what they did for life on the earth.
it may well be that the earth's systems cant handle all the additional carbon that is being input. some scientists think that the ocean is already pretty close to its maximum capacity for holding carbon, and if it is then there will be nowhere else capable of holding the carbon, and the results of that are anybodies guess
Or is someone claiming there's new Pinatubo blowing up once in a week?
And volcanoes have been erupting much longer than there has been life on this rock so if they are reason for global warming why Earth isn't like Venus then?
Maybe it's because they're part of nature's balance, while certain geological processes release greenhouse gases there are other geological processes which absorb them.
[img]http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/IceCores2.gif[/img]
So how is this current CO2 level "natural"?
It's hundred ppmv above it's highest level in previous 400 000 years... and in that time climate has been real roller coaster of ice ages and warmer period but even then it never was that high!
And according some calculations CO2 concentration might rise to 400 ppmv inside next 50-100 years.
So mankind is pointing pistol to own head and pressing trigger without knowing is there round in chamber or even when it goes of.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]raw heat is relaeased into the atmosphere by furnaces, heat pumps, air conditions...[/B][/QUOTE]Are you really trying to prove you don't think?
That heat energy "released" to atmosphere by air conditioners is [b]ALREADY[/b] in system!
[B]Most of Chrichton's books tend to reflect his views, hence why i refered to it as fictionalized, its still a very fun read.[/b][/quote]
Yeah, fun like [i]The Day After Tomorrow[/i]. :p
[quote][b]as for the temperature change, i dont know if there was one posted, but could you post a link to info on it, because a i just dont see how its possible that that effected a 1 degree change, temporary or not, and also i'd like to know how big of an area that it was supposed to have changed the temp by. [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't actually remember if it was a 1 degree change or not. All I remember for sure was reading about how they had noticed a significant change, but I think it might have been related to cloud formation. This may lead on to different than usual temperatures.
[B]Yeah, fun like [i]The Day After Tomorrow[/i]. :p
I don't actually remember if it was a 1 degree change or not. All I remember for sure was reading about how they had noticed a significant change, but I think it might have been related to cloud formation. This may lead on to different than usual temperatures. [/B][/QUOTE]
are you saying The Day After Tomorow wasn't fun? lol, i loved it, it was total BS, but still fun.
[B]RC: we must not ignore the threshold phenomenon, human activity may be pushing greenhouse gasses past a spicific threshold which will cause larger changes. Also the cause of the Middle Age mini ice age is stull up to debate between volcanism or a decline in sunspot activity during that time, or both. [/B][/QUOTE]
Croxis: There is pretty good evidence that Krakatoa erupted during the period I am talking about. Chineese records indicate a massive explosion in that part of the world. So do some other old records. Ice core samples from antarctica indicate that there was a significant increase in dust in the atmosphere at that time as well. What is missing is clear empirical evidence that Krakatoa erupted - and that only becuase funding hasn't been provided to do the necessary research.
[B][COLOR=red][SIZE=5]That heat energy "released" to atmosphere by air conditioners is [b]ALREADY[/b] in system! [/B][/QUOTE]
Uh, that is wrong. No thermodynamic effect is 100% efficient. Air conditioners release significant quantities of heat into the atmosphere becuase of the law of Entropy.
[B]are you saying The Day After Tomorow wasn't fun? lol, i loved it, it was total BS, but still fun. [/B][/QUOTE]
What I found so amazing was the complete lack of storms coming from the south pole :D
[B]What I found so amazing was the complete lack of storms coming from the south pole :D [/B][/QUOTE]
They wanted to have storms coming from he south pole, but they got stalled in contract negotiations.
Let me ask you something: How, any way what so ever, can you prove a link between the grounding of airplanes and the 1 degree drop? Recall that a LOT of things effect atmospheric conditions: Sun spots, solar cycles, systematic wobbles in the Earth's axis, changes in human emisions (including airplanes), ocean cycles, global cloud cover (ok, so this is an atmospheric condition, but it does effect temperature), volcanism, hot air spouted in this thread (oh, sorry!), etc.
So how do you prove that change was not natural? Temperature fluctuations occur all the time - look at the chart ET posted.
---------
P.S. - I'm trying to be the devil's advocate here becuase I think some of what's being spouted in this thread is the quick and simple "propagandist" method of "THIS IS TRUE! YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH IT BECUASE DOOMSDAY IS COMING!"
[B]They wanted to have storms coming from he south pole, but they got stalled in contract negotiations. [/B][/QUOTE]
:D
[B]:D [/B][/QUOTE]
And i've figured a great way to remove vast amounts of Methane from the atmosphere.... :)
[B]P.S. - I'm trying to be the devil's advocate here becuase I think some of what's being spouted in this thread is the quick and simple "propagandist" method of "THIS IS TRUE! YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH IT BECUASE DOOMSDAY IS COMING!" [/B][/QUOTE]
But.. it is! It must be! I mean, we humans are all powerful! Surely global warming is all our fault! We should all live like in the dark ages because they were energy efficient then! We must deny ourselves the comforts of the modern world because they will destroy the planet, causing it to blow up just like how it did in Titan AE, with all the glowing and the red and the booms and the big rocks destroying half the moon and blowing up all the little space ships!
Yes, nature is the major source of the cycle of difference. When you have vast forests scrubbing the air of CO2 you get a rise in O2. Now the pendulum swings the other way. Volcanoes release their noxious gas, and we see it go the other way. Creatures of the Earth absorbe the O2, and emit their own CO2.
There is though, a certainty about the fact that we have contributed that 2% to whatever part of the cycle we are in now.
Let's put aside the vast amounts of methane gas released from the sea beds of the Atlantic, as one theory suggests (explaining very well the events of the Bermuda Triangle by the way), which would add to whatever other sources of unfriendly gas emissions from other geologic sources.
Our contribution to the equation is no little thing. 2% on a global scale is HUGE!!!
We talk about Nuclear Fission as a solution. We strive to one day use Nuclear Fussion as a source.
Here I have to stop and say we already have one... ;)
Our star, the Sun (SOL) is a ready made fusion reactor. Solar power is the ultimate efficient use of this reactor for the purposes of electricity. We also have hydro and aero equivalents in the appropriate settings.
What do we need then? People who are willing to take the steps, and spend the money to invest in it.
A radical change in how we live day to day at the personal level.
And sad to say, the person who mentioned the destruction of the Northern hemisphere and it's population is probably correct. Population needs to go down, and/or be severely controlled.
or...
we need to get the fuck out into space and start new colonies...
I suspect this is a repeating process that is embedded in our molecular memories. We need to remember the lessons of our past planets... ;)
[B]Global warming is a natural process, its how life can exist in the first place, however one can not ignore the steadly increasing average temperatures ever since the industrial revolution and the 50 ppm increase of CO2 detected on Mona Loa.[/B][/QUOTE]
_Natural_ global warming is a natural process. Artificially induced global warming most certainly is not. That's the definition of _artificially_ induced (i.e. by human actions).
[B]We keep talking about a "1 degree change" over the several days when US airplanes were grounded.[/B][/QUOTE]
Calculate the volume of the atmosphere. Calculate the energy required to raise the temperature of that atmosphere by 1 degree F uniformly throughout the atmosphere. Calculate the number of typical aircraft that would need to be running at typical operating thrusts to dump that energy into the atmosphere. Shake your head at the immense number. Lather, rinse, repeat.
[B]Our star, the Sun (SOL) is a ready made fusion reactor. Solar power is the ultimate efficient use of this reactor for the purposes of electricity. We also have hydro and aero equivalents in the appropriate settings. What do we need then? People who are willing to take the steps, and spend the money to invest in it.[/B][/QUOTE]
Solar power isn't terribly efficient these days. Then, there are plenty of mechanical losses in naturally generated air and water power. I doubt they would do the job without some sort of nuclear power to generate the lion's share of energy we need, and I wonder how long it will take to get to the point where safe, commercially viable fusion power is available...and what the downside will be.
Efficency has increased in similar numbers...
~~~~~~~~~~
The contrails from jets create clouds, those clouds reflect humungus ammounts of sunlight back out into space = degree drop in temp.
That temp drop is a drop in RANGE, not highest temp... its a fact. It's over the continental USA where the humungus fleet of domestic aircrafts ususally fly.
Read the f%#$ing links.
~~~~~~~~~~
Do you guys want to take a punt and NOT do anything about greenhouse gases ?
Do you want us humies to die out as a failed species who brought about our own extinction event ?
To you guys who like a sort of willful ignorance of our effects on this planet.... do what good lemmings do, find something tall to fall off and leave this rock to the people who actually give a damn...
Harsh ?
I dont think so.