Undeniable signs of Global Warming

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,095
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'16 VW The Beetle Cabrio
Why would greenhouse gasses, one of the most abundant group of emissions that naturally occurs on our planet make the weather warmer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Effect has 30 references, knock yourself out and get reading.

and what precedent do we have to base those implications on?(hint: none)
Just look at one implication I mentioned, rising sea levels. Warmer weather will result in less ice over solid ground (Greenland, Canada, Siberia, Antarctica). Where does that water go after melting? Into the ocean, so it's quite clear that the sea level will rise.
I also wrote "no more dutchies". There is no need to test the theory first, we all know that lots of places including the Netherlands are roughly at the current sea level. If that level increases those places will either get flooded or be very hard to keep dry. Even bits that don't get flooded all the time will be more prone to tidal flooding.

Do we first need to drown every dutchie there is to have a precedent? Yes, but that would be cruel :lol:
 

Lilleput

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
3,168
Location
United Kingdom of Denmark
Car(s)
Ford S-Max Titanium - 268hp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Effect has 30 references, knock yourself out and get reading.
So the earth is killing it self, that makes sense.
Just look at one implication I mentioned, rising sea levels. Warmer weather will result in less ice over solid ground (Greenland, Canada, Siberia, Antarctica). Where does that water go after melting? Into the ocean, so it's quite clear that the sea level will rise.
Sea levels have gone up about 1.8mm a year for as long as someone has bothered to measure.

The IPCC 2001 report states "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20? C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years."

(the East Antarctic Ice Sheet accounts for 80% of the Earth's current ice)

What people have to remember is that we are coming out of an ice age here, so the current amount of ice may not even be normal for earth and it'd be more natural with a lower amount of ice.

But again, man has no influence on any of this, we are tiny and indifferent to the earth.
 
Last edited:

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
So the earth is killing it self, that makes sense.

Sea levels have gone up about 1.8mm a year for as long as someone has bothered to measure.

The IPCC 2001 report states "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20? C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years."

(the East Antarctic Ice Sheet accounts for 80% of the Earth's current ice)

What people have to remember is that we are coming out of an ice age here, so the current amount of ice may not even be normal for earth and it'd be more natural with a lower amount of ice.

But again, man has no influence on any of this, we are tiny and indifferent to the earth.
Well, I think what narf is saying is that the dutch are so lazy(stupid?) they're going to need more than 10,000 years to figure out what to do :p
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,095
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'16 VW The Beetle Cabrio
Sea levels have gone up about 1.8mm a year for as long as someone has bothered to measure.
People have bothered to measure for thousands of years.

Let's look into the more distant past first.



What do we see? Since the last ice age there was a huge rise in sea levels, while the past few thousand years saw very little change.

The somewhat distant past shows similar things:



For the past two thousand years it's basically a flat line.

How does the somewhat recent past compare?



On average the levels rose by 2mm a year in the 20th century.

And the very recent past?



You see an incline of 3.3mm a year.

About half of the increase is due to the oceans expanding anyways, so it doesn't really matter if some bits of the arctic melt or not.
Increased temperature = higher sea levels = considerably less Denmark.
 

Lilleput

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
3,168
Location
United Kingdom of Denmark
Car(s)
Ford S-Max Titanium - 268hp


Fucking vikings and their CO2 emitting ways!



Temperatures go up, then they go down again, we're just on our way up, it's going to get warmer for a while, enjoy it while it lasts because it'll end and then it will get colder again.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
People just dont seem to understand how puny and insignificant us and our impact is on this gigantic molten rock in this massive solar system(which is currently cooling and slowly becoming solid)
 

Cobol74

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
17,508
Location
The banana republic of Ukania
Car(s)
Honda Accord 2.2 i-Dtec Sport Estate.Hyundai Ix20
Right - I think that the real point is If the climate is warming up really we had better be ready with a response - what levers can we pull, how much will it "cost" and how effective will the levers be. So cut CO2 emissions from transport - OK now the real question is how? Cows are they really contributing? If yes what do we do - get shot of them? Deforestation? Population Growth, how do you stop that? Power generation - OK Nuclear, but go into it with our eyes wide open and not lied to - true costs, no I really mean the real costs independently assessed and published, health issues - OK there are probably health issues Lukemia clusters - so we move an population away from these things. Wind, waves, tidal - none of them explored - they lost in the UK the fight for resources against Nuclear in the 70s when there were some pretty good leads to follow through upon.

Cats out of cars - stupid idea promulgated because it was a quick fix, lets go with real lean burn perhaps, or different fuels - what ever?

That is on the PUSH side, what about approaches to remove greenhouse gasses from the environment? Carbon capture? Chemical approaches perhaps, re-seeding mangrove swamps, develop plants through GM or selective breeding that grow quickly but 'breath' lots of CO2.

This stuff I have just discovered with Cosmic rays and the Solar wind - investigate more and can we simulate the effect around the planet generating more clouds that cool the world?

There must be loads of stuff that should be tried, well considered at least. We have to cut through the BS that is the stupidity of the arguments, stop falsefying data for one just because it does not fit the case you want to support - if Global Warming does not happen then no harm done, if it does we have fixes we can try at least - rowing around a table getting nowhere is, er, getting us nowhere.
 
Last edited:

Lilleput

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
3,168
Location
United Kingdom of Denmark
Car(s)
Ford S-Max Titanium - 268hp
Right - I think that the real point is If the climate is warming up really we had better be ready with a response - what levers can we pull, how much will it "cost" and how effective will the levers be. So cut CO2 emissions from transport - OK now the real question is how? Cows are they really contributing? If yes what do we do - get shot of them? Deforestation? Population Growth, how do you stop that? Power generation - OK Nuclear, but go into it with our eyes wide open and not lied to - true costs, no I really mean the real costs independently assessed and published, health issues - OK there are probably health issues Lukemia clusters - so we move an population away from these things. Wind, waves, tidal - none of them explored - they lost in the UK the fight for resources against Nuclear in the 70s when there were some pretty good leads to follow through upon.

Cats out of cars - stupid idea promulgated because it was a quick fix, lets go with real lean burn perhaps, or different fuels - what ever?

That is on the PUSH side, what about approaches to remove greenhouse gasses from the environment? Carbon capture? Chemical approaches perhaps, re-seeding mangrove swamps, develop plants through GM or selective breeding that grow quickly but 'breath' lots of CO2.

This stuff I have just discovered with Cosmic rays and the Solar wind - investigate more and can we simulate the effect around the planet generating more clouds that cool the world?

There must be loads of stuff that should be tried, well considered at least. We have to cut through the BS that is the stupidity of the arguments, stop falsefying data for one just because it does not fit the case you want to support - if Global Warming does not happen then no harm done, if it does we have fixes we can try at least - rowing around a table getting nowhere is, er, getting us nowhere.
This made my head hurt.. What!?
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,095
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'16 VW The Beetle Cabrio


Temperatures go up, then they go down again, we're just on our way up, it's going to get warmer for a while, enjoy it while it lasts because it'll end and then it will get colder again.
Funny thing is, I can produce a statistic from a similar period of time showing obvious increases in temperature: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png there are lots more interesting ones, for example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png showing we're on a huge 2000-year high.


if Global Warming does not happen then no harm done, if it does we have fixes we can try at least - rowing around a table getting nowhere is, er, getting us nowhere.
This. If what we are doing has no effect on the climate at all then having even less impact won't hurt.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
That's the thing, we are CONSTANTLY having less impact, as technology improve we become more and more efficient all the time. we don't need the government or environmentalists pushing us any harder. Often is the case that their attempts to make the world a better place do much, much more harm than good.

To say "well, we might as well just try and have less impact even if we're having none" is the environmental equivalent of Pascal's wager. "Ill just believe in god just in case he's real" Problem is, in both situations you're pretty heavily compromised, the former by spending money, time, resources, and following ridiculous (potentially harmful) restrictions and regulations, and the latter by spending money, time, resources, and following ridiculous (potentially harmful) restrictions and regulations. All for a "just in case"? Fuck that.

And once again, that every person with a viewpoint on global warming can bring up a chart supporting their view just further demonstrates the fact that we JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH YET.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,095
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'16 VW The Beetle Cabrio
There's a major difference between this and Pascal's wager.

With global warming acting "just in case" does not result in God putting you in hell for being a smartiepants.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
There's a major difference between this and Pascal's wager.

With global warming acting "just in case" does not result in God putting you in hell for being a smartiepants.
No it results in our government doing so which is worse really, since it actually exists.
 
Last edited:

Lilleput

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
3,168
Location
United Kingdom of Denmark
Car(s)
Ford S-Max Titanium - 268hp
Funny thing is, I can produce a statistic from a similar period of time showing obvious increases in temperature:
Yes, and those have been widely debunked as faux-science made up by government sponsored programs by scientists looking for grant-money. Do you still think Al Gore isn't full of shit?
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Al Gore was, is and will be full of shit for the time to come.

But even idiots can be right.

Edit: To elborate, I'm sure Bush though the world was round. It doesn't disprove that the earth is round.
 

Cobol74

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
17,508
Location
The banana republic of Ukania
Car(s)
Honda Accord 2.2 i-Dtec Sport Estate.Hyundai Ix20
Bush thought? Bugger me - who knew!

I thought all the thinking was done by Rove/Cheyney?
 
Last edited:

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
That's the thing, we are CONSTANTLY having less impact, as technology improve we become more and more efficient all the time.
... Which is more than offset by the rapidly increasing world population. Most of which is occurring in undeveloped nations (ie the ones without the ecogreenwhateverwunder technology).

And once again, that every person with a viewpoint on global warming can bring up a chart supporting their view just further demonstrates the fact that we JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH YET.
I think that whether the Earth is warming up, cooling off or just deciding to fuck with us we should pursue "green" technology. Of course politicians and other assorted nut jobs fuck it up. But that's no reason to say that we should just ignore this. At the very least you have to realize that our current infrastructure is based on very finite resources and that developing real alternatives isn't just a fun way to spend billions of dollars; it is necessary to maintain our standard of living and potentially our very lives.

Bush thought? Bugger me - who knew!

I thought all the thinking was done by Rove/Cheyney?
I'm fairly certain it was Rove. I'm pretty sure the only thoughts going through Cheney's mind are:
1) Who do I get to shoot next?
2) How am I going to find enough virgin blood to power my robot army in my bid for world domination?
 

Bomber

Active Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
139
Location
Adelaide, Australia
The last days events is a clear sign that global warming is in fact happening.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8423251.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8422652.stm

http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/22939/1/

There is no doubt in my mind the eco-mentalists are right! (right?)
So is/was it warming due to variations in the sun's output or due to carbon dioxide, which must be taxed by an supranational bureaucracy to create an "incentive" to produce less of it? :hmm:
 

stiggles

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
941
Location
Devon, United Kingdom
Can I just point out that weather and climate are two different things, so while posting news articles about snowy weather and going 'lol where is global warming now' may be rather amusing, it's not really relevant.
 

LittleRed

Not A Dude
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
168
Location
Englandshire
Whether we contribute or not, the fact is that climate change will affect us and I think that?s what?s concerning people, rather than ?It?s our fault!? and ?No it?s not our fault!?

If it was a case of "Oh its going to be slightly warmer" then we wouldn't be too fussed, but when it starts effecting crops (you know, those things we eat to survive) that?s when it becomes a problem. I mean in the sense of failing harvests and farmland being flooded by rising sea levels, as well as people being affected by floods, which happens more and more in Britain, and I'm sure those houses/railway lines/roads/shops/offices weren't intentionally built on land that floods every year.

Either way, believe it or not, shit is happening and it will affect us and has already.
 
Top