Well, here we are... a good argument (and speech, for the most part) in my opinion, presenting an important topic
You can watch it .
So, what do you choose? Will it be Column A, or Column B, and why?
I for one say column A, for, as presented, though the consequences of A being wrong are dire, they're better than those of B failing, and are much more recoverable. There also seems to be alot more evidence supporting Global Warming than there is against it.
This is something which interests me a lot and I have done a lot of research and looked a lot a lot of figures to come to my personal conclusions. It’s a long one but hopefully it is clear, correct and not boring (tho it probably will be :P )
I personally do not believe in human aided global warming. It is a fact that the mean global temperature is rising which is causing ice glaciers to melt and a change in weather conditions all over the world, but I personally do not believe that humans have had any effect on this, positive or negative. I have posted my reasons for this before, so here is a quote of exactly why I don’t believe global warming is happening:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GST_Nemisis
Global warming facts:
1. In the roman times the temperature was possibly as much as 3 degrees hotter than it is now.
2. We know that we are currently exiting an ice age which means the planet is naturally warming anyways.
3. A considerably large amount of carbon is needed to produce the insulating effect predicted and we do not produce nearly enough to genuinely effect our atmosphere.
4. The vast majority of the "freak weather" can be attributed to known metrological effects. This includes things such as salt concentrations in the ocean as seen in the film, the day after tomorrow, but we know the effect would not be as epic as we see in the film.
5. Flooding can happen in cycles and tends to shift around the world, the Sahara desert was once the Sahara ocean.
6. Most weather and climate changes are gradual and take thousands of years.
7. Recent evidence shows that the planets temperature overall may be DECREASING even with the strange weather we are experiencing, this is disputed however.
8. The total emissions from human influence are less than 0.1% the total global natural emission.
9. Carbon Dioxide is dissolved into the sea and released in what is known as a dynamic equilibrium; this means there is always a constant amount of Carbon Dioxide in the sea as out of it, and no matter how much carbon you add, the sea will always absorb it to balance this equilibrium.
10. The atmosphere is many many times greater in volume than the volume of Carbon Dioxide we release, a few million tons of carbon is nothing compared to a few trillion tons of atmosphere.
*Note I edited it very slightly to make it better presented and include more details.
For these reasons I don’t believe global warming is happening due to humans producing Carbon Dioxide. However it is important to remember that the global temperature is increasing (supposedly) in part of a cycle which causes ice ages to happen and then disappear. This is because our planet is a closed system and it will always move to balance any changes that happen; this is the reason wind exists. Something happened many years ago which caused our planet to plunge into an ice age, this could have been a meteor impact or a super-volcano but it imbalanced the environment and so the planet plunged into an ice age to re-balance it. We are currently coming out of the ice age into a much milder and warmer time. So we should be expecting to have an increased temperature. I believe this process is natural and part of a giant cycle due to the reasons I mentioned above.
The question for me is how hot is it going to get? At some point the temperature will even out and remain stable but it is unknown when that will happen. It is also unknown if the ice caps will stop melting when this happens; potentially, all the horrible events could happen but we would be unable to stop it as it is natural.
An interesting consideration is the idea of a giant cycle of temperature change. Potentially the temperature could keep increasing naturally and melt all the ice caps; this would disrupt the salinity levels in the sea and hence the cycle of hot water which keeps the northern hemisphere warm via the Gulf Stream (and other deep sea currents). If this were to happen the planet would again be plunged into an ice age due to the lack of heat; this is actually the event that happens in the film “The Day After Tomorrow” and it completely possible, however it would never happen quite as fast as it did in the film. If we entered another ice age the planet would then balance itself by warming up which is exactly what is happening to us now. We do not know if we are in an endless circle of ice ages, it is unlikely, but it is still a possibility. To me this basically means we have no control over the temperature of our planet.
It is important to realise that we should be controlling our Carbon emissions, I definitely fall in column A. There is absolutely no reason why we should continue using oil, coal and gas when we have the capability to generate energy by alternate means. Oil is being wasted in cars when it could be used to produce pharmaceuticals, plastics and other useful materials; burning it seems like a bit of a waste when we have other uses for oil and other options for energy. Not only that but burning fossil fuels produces other things apart from Carbon Dioxide. Although catalytic converters have reduced toxic emissions, sulphur and nitrogen compounds which can become acid rain when hydrolysed still exist, especially in developing nations. There will be no need to burn fossil fuels in future years hopefully.
One of the main contributors to global warming is the media. Usually taking scant predictions and blowing them out of proportion until people believe the world will end in a week. Taking the consideration that we are causing global warming I do not even think it will be as bad as it has been predicted. As I have said the planet tries to balance things and it will absorb the change. This isn’t to say that nothing will happen, but it is to say that the world won’t end because the massive increase in heat will result in the complete opposite eventually arising; a massive drop in heat. The planet will never be uninhabitable because of the way it reacts to a change to bring about a balance. It is not an easy way to explain but the planet will always find an even medium, no matter how long it takes. After the worst catastrophes such super-volcanoes, comets and floods the world has persevered and it will always do. Anyways, the new conditions might force us to evolve into something better! Nothing like a global catastrophe to spice up the species list! And I think, even though there are people who strongly disagree, that these changes will take a long time. Not centuries or decades but thousands of years; our planet in fortunately slow in its endeavours.
One last thing I think we need to take into consideration when talking about global warming is the ozone layer. While depletion of the ozone layer may not have a profound effect on global warming, it will have an effect on our planet as a whole. It is one of the few things which is scaleable as a fast acting problem, mainly because of the chemicals the cause the problem being so prolific. CFC emissions causes harmful rays to penetrate the ozone layer and they can damage our skin, as well as cause several environmental problems. While most CFC emissions have stopped in the western world, the ozone damage is clear; one chlorine atom from a CFC can destroy 100 molecules of ozone in the free radical substitution reaction which is why it has such a bad effect. Every molecule is multiplied by 100 which can do a lot of damage. Unfortunately millions of tons of CFCs are still being pumped into the atmosphere each year by developing countries which is very bad.
Ultimately, you can believe in whatever you want, but you have to accept the possibility that any result could happen. While I personally don’t believe in global warming causing massive catastrophe or humans causing it, I still accept it may be true and I think precautions should be put in place. These precautions should be there for more reasons that just global warming too because of the harm they cause in general. So for me I am a column A, but I sceptic column a none the less.
One of the main contributors to global warming is the media. Usually taking scant predictions and blowing them out of proportion until people believe the world will end in a week.
The media seems to do that with anything =/. That's why you can't trust them in opinions, only (usually) if X happened or if it didn't.
In other news --
I'm with you as to the fact that there are other reasons that could equally cause global warming, but I'd say that humans are very likely to be one of several causes.
Also, I'm not saying I'm 100% pro "there is global warming" (though I'm more pro than con), I just thought the video was interesting (that's what brought me to post this in the first place).
Gotta go cook dinner, I'll probably post some more stuff here in awhile.
Oh yeh that bloke definately has a point, I believe it is better to be safe than sorry and that we should spend money lowering carbon emisions, I just dont think that global warming is happening in my personal opinoin. Also I ran up some information from "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson which has a balanced debate on the subject:
Small Microorganisms are accountable for alot of carbon intake by locking it in the structures of their shells. Tiny marine organisms like Foraminiferans, Coccoliths and Calcareous Algae capture atmopsheric carbon and use it to make their shells. This can be seen by the chalk buildups which are the fossilised remains of these organisms. One cubic centementer of chalk can contain one thousand leters of carbon.
Since 1850, it has been estimated, we have released about 100 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
Nature, mostly by Volcanoes, sends about a 200 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere ever year.
Our total yearly release of carbon is an estimated 7 billion tons.
I personally believe that ever since Al Gore (The guy is a great man) took the whole Global Warming thing to the public and the media, it's become a trend now. It's the latest story for the media to latch onto and blow out of proportion.
That's what the media does, and that's what they're doing with global warming.
That's what the media does, and that's what they're doing with global warming.
Among other things...
Anyways, I'd go with GST, but I frankly wouldn't do anything more to stop warming than I'm doing right now. I'm just lazy like that... and I'm 15. No car to stop driving...
Hmmm.... well, as strange as it may sound, it's column B for me. I will disregard the first row in the man's grid, as global warming is taking place. Period. It may not be the result of human interaction, but it still is occurring.
Okay, so, Do Something: We live out our lives in paranoia, we spend tons of money on limiting carbon dioxide/monoxide/etc. emissions just to try to stop something that has occured for the past millions of years as an integral part of the earth's natural cycle. Building up the hopes of people around the world, we slow global warming by an infantescimal amount. Upon finding that our efforts were not enough, the world goes into a state of turmoil, and we still inevitably die as a result of global warming.
And, Don't Do Anything: We go on with our everyday lives, living and loving every second of it. We live in lives of blissful ignorance and apathy, only to find out that the earth will soon be a roiling mass of molten rock. The world goes into a state of political, social economic, etc. chaos, and we all die eventually.
So, die in a state of unrest after a life of paranoia, or die in a state of unrest after a life of enjoyment... I'll take the latter.
=> Ignore this if you take offense to any religious reference of any sort<=
(And besides, I'm Christian, so wars and turmoil, etc. just mean that we're one step closer to the second coming )
So, spread the word: We're all going to die anyway. Why not live our lives in happiness?
Dalaran_Guard you are right in many ways, I would totally agree with you except I think we should reduce carbon emissions for other reasons. Specifically I think soon we will be able to utilise alternative energies in suhc a way to make burning fossil fuels unnecessary. I think that burning them is a huge waste since they can be put to much better use in plastics, pharmasuiticals and much else. Secondly it is known that developing countries are causing massive amounts of Sulphur Dioxide and Nitogen Oxides which get hydrolised in rain to become acid rain. In many parts of the world we don't see this, but in the forests of Scandinavia (spelling?) million of trees have literally been melted away. This hopefully will no longer be necessary when alternative energies become more practicle and implementable around the world. So although I think money should be spent; it should be spent for different reasons.
Ya, basically the combustion engine is our downfall. Though many swear by it, it is really one of the most detrimental aspects of our society today. First, its maximum efficiency is just around 30%, meaning that we can only utilize 3/10 of the energy available in substances like gasoline. But the world has grown so accustomed to life centered around this, and we have grown comfortable with mediocre technology.
People just aren't looking for alternatives, because they have been living the same way for the past near-100 years, and they are perfectly happy with that life. People complain about gas prices worldwide and still persist in buying Hummers and SUVs for families of 3 or 4 individuals. They complain about pollution, etc. and yet still refuse to take the bus or ride a bike to work.
So, with all this criticism of society/the world, what is my solution, right? Well, I answer electricity. Whats the matter with wind power, or with hydroelectric power, or with solar energy, sources occur naturally and indefinitely. There will always be wind and sun and flowing water, and we need to harness and utilize those inexaustable sources.
And in addition, we need to utilize such new developments as fusion. The world's scientific community spent years working toward fusion, and after a few crises, work was, for the most part, halted. But with any great thing comes great sacrafices. So what if a couple test sites are obliterated? We rebuild. So what if we waste a couple billion dollars in testing? The money isn't real anyway, being only a number on some computer screen 5000 miles away. So what if one man dies? Another will take his place eventually (any contentions to these last two sentances can be addressed in a PM so that I can explain to you my 'ant theory' as relating to society). All this, and more, for progress, something that the world has been lacking in the past 50 years...
For me the future is Hydrogen fuel cells, Fusion (fission may well become outdated soon) and Solar power satellites if they can be properly implemented.
And I think I read somewhere that when considering the maximum energy inside an atom, combustion would be much less than 30% efficient because nuclear fission is only 1.5% efficient, while antimatter is 100% efficient. I think i read it in Angel and Demons by Dan Brown (of Da Vinci Code fame) but it may well be true unlike most of his writings :P . This is however comparing it to the maximum energy in an atom, of E=MC^2 relation, when considering energy use from maximum bond enthalpy change then the combustion engine would be about 30%.
Also, going back on what i quoted from Bill Bryson's book, here is some more number crunching that I did myself to aid my argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GST_Nemisis
Since 1850, it has been estimated, we have released about 100 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
Nature, mostly by Volcanoes, sends about a 200 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere ever year.
Our total yearly release of carbon is an estimated 7 billion tons.
Just to add another dimention to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5,000 trillion metric tons
that means we have put 100,000,000,000 in 5,000,000,000,000,000 (5 Quadrillion) which is 1 ton for every 50,000 tons of atmosphere or 0.002% which is virtually nothing. And that is taking into the consideration that the carbon has just stayed static for the last 157 years; so it hasn't been in any photosynthesis and it hasn't been absorbed into the sea and it hasn't been taken in by sea creatures to make their shells. Even thinking that it has just sat there doing nothing for over a century then we still have only put an extra 0.002% of carbon in the atmosphere, which is really too little to even consider realistically.
If that doesn't persuade you, I don't know what will.
__________________
Last edited by GST_Nemisis; 06-24-2007 at 10:15 PM..
And in addition, we need to utilize such new developments as fusion. The world's scientific community spent years working toward fusion, and after a few crises, work was, for the most part, halted. But with any great thing comes great sacrafices. So what if a couple test sites are obliterated? We rebuild. So what if we waste a couple billion dollars in testing? The money isn't real anyway, being only a number on some computer screen 5000 miles away. So what if one man dies? Another will take his place eventually (any contentions to these last two sentances can be addressed in a PM so that I can explain to you my 'ant theory' as relating to society). All this, and more, for progress, something that the world has been lacking in the past 50 years...
Yeah, but sadly, that's not how society works.
They'll keep using current energy sources for awhile, most likely, because 2 people die and everyone else freaks out. I mean... look what happens with other things - people freak out about "Nuclear Reactors" because of "Nuclear Bombs", and "Radiation" because of radiation from nukes, even though Nuclear Reactors are one of our better energy sources, and radiation such as Microwave Radiation isn't really harmful in the quantities of it you'll ever get.
Hmmm, I just think it's funny we will use the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which could destroy the universe, but we won't use tested, proven and releatively safe (these days) methods of enegery production.
The problem with nuclear fall out tends to arise due to the release of a fair amount of gamma radiation that we do not experience in nature. This radition is perhaps the most effective DNA shredder there is and it is that which causes all the cancers and related illnesses. Fortunately (sort of) this radiation is spread over massive areas so it is never really strong enough to be noticed unless you are at the explosion site, because the wind spreads the nuclear dust. Nuclear energies do not have this problem as much because even in a meltdown (e.g. Chenobyl) the reactors tend to implode instead of explode (i.e. melt into themselves), so the nuclear material is confined to a small area. Not only that but nuclear technologies have developed alot so they are much safer, even if the bombs are still exactly the same.
Anyway, I think global warming is real. If you watch that Inconveniant Truth movie by Gore, it's very good. At one point he shows a graph of the average world temperature over the past thousands of years (Antarctic ice drilling I'm guessing for the data) and it shows that yes, the world does have temperature cycles. However, the current temperature is far higher than any of the cycles have been so far. So yes, the world is in a warming cycle, but we can't just blame that.
A good example of how the heating is destroying our planet is how more and more coral is getting bleached due to warmer water. (Of course another factor is tourism and stuff, but that doesn't cause bleaching.) As well as that, you can't deny the fact that the arctic and antarctic ice caps are getting smaller. Sure, they've varied in size too over time, but they're shrinking much faster than normal.
If you look at when the temperatures started to rise more, you will find that it was somewhere around when cars became much more populous.
Even if global warming doesn't exist and we're all making it up, you can't deny that what we're doing is bad. We have much more recycling, people concerned about animal protection and deforestation, people plant trees back after they chop them down, solar and wind energy are much better than coal and oil, and other things.
Regardless of whether or not global warming exists (personally I don't see how it doesn't), we are still helping Earth by going green.
Yeh, there is more doctored data in Gore's movie than all of Micheal Moore's movies put together....You can take any graph and if you extrapolate it enough you can get it to tell you anything. Fact is, the idea of it being warmer than "before" or warming "faster" is all assumptions. Educated guesses based on data that can be put either way; this is because the exact same data that shows global warming is happening can also be used to show it isn't happening. That is the main problem with the movie, instead of showing the data in every possible light to give a non biased opinoin, it is used to give one single, biased outcome.
And your point about coral well researchers have been stumped about coral for decades. You see coral is supposedly a very delicate creature, but as im sure you are aware it takes thousands of years to grow and millions to become anything like the great barrier rief. The problem with this however is that all the great extinctions of our time, most notabley the Permian extinction, should have killed all the coral off. Obviously it didn't, infact it barely touched it...Life and the planet itself is much more hardy than most of you would think. I strongly reccomend a read of "A Short History Of Nearly Everything" as it does give a well rounded view on well, just about everything :P.
)
Linear Mode
