# Global warming is it really happening

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by some_guy01, Oct 5, 2001.

1. ### DeusSeeker of TruthRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
65

You seem to be pretty hopeless already. I don't believe that it's too late for us to improve the Earth's condition. I just think it will take concerted effort. I know that we are moving in the right direction, I just don't know if it is fast enough.

For instance, five or so years ago the city where I live in built a huge recycling center and started having people separate out glass, plastic, tin, aluminum, and paper for recycling. Within 1 year the recycling center was already too small because of the huge response from the community. My city also has power generators placed around our landfill. They generate a small amount of power...using the methane produced by the landfill.

Hyundai and Toyota have this year released gas-electric hybrid cars that don't have to be recharged; they get 50-60 miles per gallon on the highway.

On the other hand, we also have an increased demand by people for 6 and 8 cylinder jeeps and SUVs. Not to mention that I heard that they are going to put 12 cylinder engines in Cadillacs. Even this does not have to be so bad; the technology is not beyond us to improve the efficiency of these vehicles drastically, yet the car companies do not do it...because of pressure from the oil companies, and because most governments do not require it. Notice that both of the hybrid cars are made by Japanese companies, although BMW has a prototype for a car that runs on hydrogen and Ford has said that they will have a hybrid out soon.

I have to have hope. I have to keep faith. Otherwise why bother at all?

3. ### wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
8,616
That's why...

You have to spread the word. Because Sciforums is a world wide Forum and humans from all over the world are posting here. Including a lot of Americans who have a rotten government which doesn't listen to anybody.

Why did the U$leave the Kyoto convention in the first place? To make money, money, money. That is what they care for. You know how many cars the averidge american has? They don't care about separating glass, paper, iron, batteries and other poluting materials. In the Netherlands they do that yes. Separate trash and have cars with less poluting fuel. They have windmills to make energy and Sun energy and there are a lot of houses connected to these 'new' form of energy. That is a very good sign. I don't see it happen on such large scale in the U$ though and that is the most poluting country on Earth, so they say. I wonder about Russia and India. By my means they are pretty polutive too.

Where do you live Deus? Tell some more about it. Do you have a drivers license? I don't. I prefer to ride my bycicle.

And I am sure you have to keep faith in life. At the same time you can do something for Earth, by keeping your mind on the important things.

Thank you for listening, have a nice day...

5. ### DeusSeeker of TruthRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
65
Re: That's why...

Actually, the American government DOES listen to people, but the people have to take the time to make their voices heard. The trouble is, not enough people care.

Bush said that he would sign the Kyoto Protocol. He lied. I am very angry about that. The fact that Bush and his corporate supporters don't like the Kyoto Protocol doesn't mean that we all feel that way. The average American family has 2 - 2.5 cars per household.

There are quite a few windmills in California, where they can be placed to make it worthwhile. Even in Wisconsin, where I live, there are a few windmills. My aunt has solar panels on her roof.

No, we could certainly do more. You're right, the US is the most polluting country in the world. We use up 25% of the fossil fuels burned each year. That's horrible.

Yes, I have a drivers license. I got it at 18 and I need to drive to get to work. I drive a 3 cylinder compact car which is one of the most efficient non-electric, non-hybrid cars on the road. In the summer I do ride my bike, but in Wisconsin it's not very smart to ride it during about half of the year.

Keep the faith.

Messages:
8
Bottom line is that a radical change in life will be required to save earth as we no it and prevent overpopulation, resource overuse.

We must reduce global polution, and live lifestyles that use far less resources.

This requires that our lives must change a LOT, people don't like, or will not accept that currently, a major catalism will fix this. Nature will force it upon us if we don't do it ourselves.

As sick as it may seem we have to use birth control, we are having WAY to many new babys born every day. I can't remeber the total population to date, over 5Billion i belive, that will go at least 5x in my lifetime, thats 20billion, really can earth keep on supporting that level of growth? No. People will die.

8. ### wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
8,616
Exactly...

That is what is going to happen yes. Earth will take care of Herself if we 'intelligent' humans have bothered Her long enough. And it won't take long now for Earth to do so and get rid of the little pests on Her back who only torture Her with their stupid inventions.

On the other hand, children are the hope of the humans. When the children are raised well and with care for Nature, there'll be hope for Earth. It is case to teach the children well. Most of the times the children are forced into their parents narrow minded kind of view. So make sure you live your own life, not take the easy way out, learn from the mistakes other humans have made before you.

Over population is also a case of letting every human live as long as possible. Artificial garbage to keep humans alive. And why? Because humans are afraid to die. They want to live forever, immortality please, if possible.

Crap, death is a part of Nature, a part of life.

You are right though, there are way to much humans on Earth nowadays...

9. ### DeusSeeker of TruthRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
65
As far as overpopulation goes, I don't know if what you're saying is completely true. I think I read somewhere that the Earth could easily support 20 billion people with our current technological advances if we want to make it work. That means that there is no way that people should be going hungry now, since global population is only around 6 billion. Unfortunately there are people who are hungry.

I do agree that we need to slow down, though. I don't want to see Earth get to the 20 billion people mark in my lifetime because we might not be ready to leave by the time I die. C'mon people, 2 children per pair of consenting adults and the population stays steady. Is that too much to ask?

Messages:
1,098
11. ### DeusSeeker of TruthRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
65
Interesting. Of course, overall temperature changes over Antarctica neither prove nor disprove the existence of global warming.

12. ### wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
8,616

Sandpoint, ID — A small publisher has “tithed” \$30,000 worth of new books entitled Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare to members of Congress and American libraries in support of the “Space Preservation Act of 2001”—legislation that would ban “Star Wars” programs if passed. The book, written by Harvard-trained health science investigator, Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz, discusses the risks posed by space weapons cited in House Bill H.R. 2977, issued by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich. The bill, currently in review committees, and certain to be opposed by the Bush administration, urges a “permanent ban on basing weapons in space.”

Included in the proposed ban are devices capable of directing lasers, chemical or biological sprays, and electromagnetic radiation to inflict “death or injury on . . . biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person.”

Tetrahedron Publishing Group of Sandpoint, Idaho invited the nation’s librarians and congressional representatives to order free copies of the 525-page hardcover, in an effort to inform the public and law makers about the health risks posed by military space programs targeted by the bill. Included here are the latest technologies for population control that H.R. 2977 calls “exotic weapons systems.”

The Congressional Record cites these exotic weapons as—(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons; (ii) chemtrails; (iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems; (iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons; (v) laser weapons systems; (vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and (vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons. All of these were critically examined in Death in the Air, which recently received a scientific endorsement in CHOICE—the nation’s leading academic library journal published by the American Library Association. (See; http://www.deathintheair.com/reviews.html)

According to the House bill, available for review at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery, the term “exotic weapons systems” include those designed to “damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, . . . with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.” This proposed legislation would clamp down on the government’s highly controversial High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) that heats portions of the ionosphere from Alaska. Critics contend that atmospheric heating is related to global warming, jet stream modifications, and weather changes causing more super storms and droughts.

13. ### DeusSeeker of TruthRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
65

Messing with nature is definately not a good thing to do. We know very little about how the weather works, and it is a very powerful thing to be screwing around with. Any project that alters large portions of an environment is in danger of radically changing hundreds of parameters with potentially disastrous effects. Just look what engineers have to deal with when they dam a river for hydro power or a resevoir. It radically alters the surrounding landscape, and that is nothing compared to screwing with the atmosphere. F*cking government/military, trying to play God.

Messages:
1,098

Messages:
1,098
16. ### wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
8,616
The scenario we are heading into is getting clearer when the impact of global warming on genetic changes is considered in-hand with the article below addressing rapid changes at the Antarctic published by Reuters.

Global warming has accelerated rapidly in the 20 years since the first of three consecutive double-peaked solar maximums began. A key question that we need to be looking into is what percentage of global warming the result of cyclic solar changes and what percentage is attributed to environmental degradation. I suggest that a good portion of global warming is the result of cyclic solar changes that are exacerbated by environmental pollutants.

Montana has had an incredibly warm winter and it seems that winters this mild did not occur in the memory of long-term residents before 1980. The current series of double-peaked solar maximums would have started around 1980, with the current one being in 2002 and 2000, the previous one in 1989 and 1991, and the first of the series in 1978 and 1980.

Antarctic Island Called a Unique Climate-Change Lab
Last Updated: January 24, 2002 02:04 PM ET
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An unexpectedly rapid warming of lakes on a desolate Antarctic island provides compelling evidence of the environmental impact wrought by rising global temperatures, scientists said on Thursday.

Writing in the journal Science, British and Canadian scientists said a 20-year study has revealed dramatic changes in Signy Island's lakes caused by a 1.8-degree Fahrenheit rise in air temperature.

This increase has triggered a series of changes in the lakes on the island, located 435 miles northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula. The scientists consider polar lakes to be early detectors of change wrought by global warming.

The gain in winter lake temperatures was three times higher than that of local air temperatures, the scientists said. The amount of time during a given year that the lakes were completely frozen over declined by more than four weeks.

This decline allowed the lake water and sediments to absorb solar energy that normally would be reflected away by the ice.

Nutrient levels in the lakes rose, most likely because streams ran over thawed ground rather than ice. Algae and phytoplankton in the lakes also increased.

'ALMOST A BEACON GOING OFF'

"This is almost a beacon going off saying, 'Look, we've gone through this threshold at this point on the planet, and it's an indicator that the environment is changing rapidly,"' researcher Lloyd Peck of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge said in a telephone
interview.

"The main finding of our work is that the ecology and the ecosystem in the lakes that we've looked at have changed really dramatically fast. ... What we're seeing is an amplification of the larger-scale environmental change signal," Peck added.

Signy Island, in the South Orkney Islands, is named for the wife of a whaling ship captain who had a station there in the early 20th century. It is about four miles long and three miles wide. There is permanent ice cover over a large part of the island.

But in summer, extensive areas of moss and some grasses are exposed, and there are numerous freshwater pools and lakes.

Researchers say the island's isolation allowed them to come up with measurements not affected by local pollution or heating associated with cities.

"In the Northern Hemisphere, where they're seeing fast changes in lakes, they've often been associated with large human centers of population," Peck said.

"So it's hard to say whether it's a global change ... or whether it's something to do with extra heating and pollution from big cities, like Chicago and the Great Lakes. Whereas here, we're in an island that is several thousand miles away from the nearest big city," Peck added.

The study was published just two weeks after other researchers reported in the journal Nature that temperatures had dropped since the mid-1980s in Antarctica's arid and inhospitable desert valleys. Those researchers noted that the climate is warming up on average globally, and that Antarctica's Dry Valleys region represented an exception.

Peck said his team's findings and the seemingly contradictory results from the Dry Valleys illustrate that regional variations exist in the global warming phenomenon.

He also noted that the Dry Valleys are about 4,000 miles from Signy Island.

"You would not expect to get the same message from every point on the planet of warming, or whatever, during a changing environmental scenario. It just doesn't work that way," he said.

John Turner, also of the British Antarctic Survey, said a complex picture has emerged of temperature change over the whole Antarctic continent. He noted that while the Antarctic Peninsula region experienced one of the largest temperature increases on Earth over
the last 50 years, the South Pole has experienced a modest cooling.

"However, what we can say with certainty is that Antarctica is extremely sensitive to environmental change," Turner said.

17. ### thoughtsRegistered Member

Messages:
7
Hello there I am from Canada and would like to say a few things about this post that i have tried to read. I have lots of things to say and the flow may not be to coherent.

First off, there is no way that we can say without a doubt, be able to claim global warming is really happening. We as people have not been following weather patterns(globaly) long enough to determine that a global warming pattern is happening.

This is exactly why the large coorperations support the reasearch into global warming. They know as well as all the scientists in the world, that no study can say without a doubt that "it is not a natural cycle of the earth to warm and then cool". It is far to large of scale to predict with such a small study isolated in small region around the globe.

All of the studies put out will contradict each other because the time lines are far to short,

"just because i have walked 5Km on a road does not mean i know where the road will go"

what i mean by that is, we have only been following global patterns for a very short period of time! sure we have watched the weather but not on a global scale.

As a Canadian I am concerd with the enviroment! but if it gets a little warmer up here I won't be complaining!

Secondly

The US pulled out of the summit because the developing countries were not having to follow the rectrictions that were going to be imposed on the developed nations. Thus not helping the global enviroment. can't restrict some and let the other go nuts with polluting the globe!

lastly

Global warming is not the problem we face today, the real problem is the imediate enviroment around the very houses we live in! we all the world looking at global warming the companies continue to poison the water supply! Bad water is a far worse problem to tackle.

Not sure if any one is aware of the problem here in Canada right now, here is a brief note. A town's (which i won't mention) water treament facility was neglagent in there job. Several people died from the contaminated water pumped into there houses!(this is happening in more than just some towns)

Is the water so bad now, if we drink it we DIE! think of EVERY LIVING CREATURE THAT DRINKS FROM THAT WATER. DEAD

Move the presure from global warming(which i don't know if we can EVER prove) back to the companies that pollute are back yards! Think back a few years and see if you can remember all topics of concern we use to have. Notice how they don't seem to be at the for front now, I wonder why and how?

that for letting me rant and lending your eyes.

18. ### Bambiitinerant smartassRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
309
Would the greenhouse effect deniers explain the following (and please note the exponential nature of the ongoing increase):

Note that no 10,000 year old ice age can possibly even begin to explain the exponential rise that occurred in the last couple of centuries. Also note the correlation between C02 and average global temperature over the past 160 thousand years. Notice the graph above ends with C02 ppm concentration of under 250. Notice the graph below shows current C02 ppm concentration of ~350 and rising exponentially. Finally, note that in the graph above the total range of variation of C02 concentration is about 100 ppm, corresponding to a temperature range of about 12.5 degrees.

Now, would someone please deny all of the above so that we can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go about our normal daily business of screwing our children over?

Last edited: Feb 3, 2002
19. ### wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
8,616
I agree that the fresh water all over the world is in great danger. There is a lot more salt water available on Earth then fresh water. The human race is screwing up, big time, in all kind of ways.

So, why don't we take a collective breathe and go on with our daily screwing up business...

We'd better stop screwing up right away. Than again, guess it is already to late. Oh what a joy to be human.

It makes me sick, literally. And I don't need bad water for that. I can see for myself how terrible irresponsible the human race is behaving. It shows in everything.

Sorry for this post, I am real ticked off about this. We are not here on Earth to screw Her up you know.

20. ### Bambiitinerant smartassRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
309
Yeah, and...

thoughts,

I'll tell you why you should care about global warming. Because when the polar glaciers melt, all those great expanses of low-lying Canadian land will be drowned under the rising ocean. Because the Gulf Stream could be halted by decreased salinity of arctic water, which would plunge Canada into another ice age even while the rest of the Earth warms up. Because the dislocation and misery it will cause throughout islandic and third-world nations will impact you no less directly than the Arabic plight with respect to the U.S. Imagine hundreds of millions of very pissed off people looking to wreak revenge upon all those who fattened and gorged at the expense of their land and future.

21. ### wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
8,616

Antartica Becomes Too Hot For
The Penguins - Warning To World
By Geoffrey Lean
The Independent - London
2-4-2

Penguins are starting to desert parts of Antarctica because the icy wastes are getting too hot.
The numbers of adelie penguins on the Antarctic peninsula the most northerly part of the frozen continent are falling as global warming takes hold. And experts predict that, as the climate change continues, they may abandon much of the 900-mile-long promontory altogether.
The archetypal "tuxedoed" species like the cold even more than other penguins. And the peninsula has been warming up faster than almost anywhere else on earth, with temperatures increasing at least five times faster than the world average. Scientists believe this is disrupting their food supplies.
Global warming is also causing them grief in another of their strongholds, the Ross Sea. Two giant icebergs have broken off the Antarctic ice sheet and are blocking the way from their breeding colonies to their feeding areas. As a result they have to walk 30 miles further to get food no small matter when they can manage only one mile per hour. And, on the other side of the continent, thousands of emperor penguin chicks drowned near Britain's Halley base after the ice broke up early, before they had learned to swim.
Like miners' canaries, the dinner-jacketed penguins of Antarctica are providing an early warning of danger to come. For global warming is heating up the frozen continent faster than the rest of the world, and the penguins are among the first to feel the effects.
Flightless, and so unable to escape like other birds, they are affected by what happens both on land and sea. And, because they are easy to spot and count, they provide an early indication of what may be happening to other species.
They are feeling the heat most strongly on the Antarctic peninsula, which juts out from the polar land mass towards South America. Studies of air temperatures around the world over the past half-century suggest that this is one of the three areas on the planet along with north-western North America and part of Siberia warming up fastest. The British Antarctic Survey says flowering plants have spread rapidly in the area, glaciers are retreating, and seven huge ice sheets have melted away.
As the peninsula has warmed up, the numbers of adelie penguins have been dropping. Scientists suspect that the rising temperatures affect the small fish and other marine animals on which they feed, though they are not yet sure how.
Professor Steven Emslie, of the University of North Carolina, believes that if the warming goes on the penguins "would continue to decline in the peninsula, and may completely abandon much of it". Studies of fossilised remains that he has carried out near Britain's Rothera base show that the numbers of the penguins have sharply declined during warmer periods in prehistory.
On at least one occasion, the decline in the peninsula was marked by a rapid increase in the penguins in the Ross Sea more than 2,000 miles away. But in recent months global warming has been causing them trouble there too. Researchers for the US National Science Foundation said that one colony of adelies at Cape Royds will "fail totally" this year. And scientists at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography add that a colony of emperor penguins at Cape Crozier has also failed to raise any chicks.
Global warming also threatens the food supplies of emperor penguins. When there is less ice in the sea, populations of krill a staple in their diet fall.
Despite all this, penguins are not in danger of extinction; there are millions of them still in Antarctica and one species the chinstrap penguin seems to be thriving in the warmer weather. But they still provide a warning. In the words of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the world's leading conservation body: "Things happening to penguins are a foretaste of things to come."

22. ### goofyfishAnalog By Birth, Digital By DesignValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,331
These guys make a pretty good case that global warming isn't proven, though they are definately on the anti side of the fence.

Things we know:

We know that the weather varies.
We know about seasons, El Nino and Ice ages.
We know that the temperatures have varied considerably in the past 1000 years. (More info here.)
We know that we have relatively recently come out of a "little ice age" (from 1560-1890.)
We know that volcanoes can have large effects.
We know that the Sun's output varies by a few percent.

Given all this, it seems fair to say that we DON'T know:

a) if global warming is actually occurring
b) if the weather is getting worse than it used to be
c) if it's our fault if (a) or (b) are happening
d) if we can, or should, be doing anything about it

What we should be doing is more RESEARCH. Trying to find the answers to these questions. Instead we seem to be implementing policy based on flimsy evidence.

Unfortunately "the environment" has become so politicized that it's impossible to have a sensible public debate on it at the moment. On one side are the ultra-environmentalists who are the heroes of their own worldview, fighting against the evil rest of the world. On the other are the backlash movements - rabid anti-environmentalists who wouldn't believe the sky was blue if an environmentalist said so. Finally there is the press, who will always print "We're All Going to Die!" in preference to "There's Nothing to Worry About".

Peace.

23. ### DeusSeeker of TruthRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
65
I agree. I think that I may have come in my earlier posts as being someone who is adamant that we are causing an increased greenhouse effect which is causing global warming. We do know that the average temperatures on Earth since the industrial revolution have been getting higher. So global warming IS happening. The question is really whether we are causing it, or whether it is just part of a natural cycle. Either way, I think it is a good idea to err on the side of caution. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't develop more efficient appliances and engines, why we shouldn't strive to conserve more and pollute less. We may not know for sure that we are making the Earth warmer, but we do know about emissions and smog. We also know about the carbon-dioxide/oxygen cycle, and we know that if we cut too many trees down then they're won't be as many large plants to take in carbon-dioxide and release oxygen.

Anyone who's ever been in the Boy Scouts (such as myself), knows that the rule is that you should try to leave your campsite as clean as you found it, if not better. I think it might be a little too late to do that for the Earth, but at least we can make a better effort. It's not only good for other living things, it's good for our health too.