NationStates Jolt Archive

Poll coming. Not going to post any links (not yet anyway) as you've probably seen them all anyway. Just interested in everybody's opinion. Relax. Take your time. Google something. No rush here.

...Generally a question requires a question.

Do you mean "when do we get to the point of no return?" or "when will the earth stop being habitable for humans?"

More than 100 but not much more than that. Of course, it depends what you mean by "world as we know it" since some effects will be felt long before that (are being felt now) but differences won't be radical until around then.

describe world as we know it...

describe world as we know it...

Breathable air. More than at least 1 billion people. Hurricaines, Typhoons and the like, not becoming more powerfull as time passes, etc...

Poll coming. Not going to post any links (not yet anyway) as you've probably seen them all anyway. Just interested in everybody's opinion. Relax. Take your time. Google something. No rush here.

From global warming? Probably a VERY long time, if it can even be considered a legitimate threat. From the end of the world? 2012. The Christian Book of Revelation and the Mayan calendar are lining up nicely...

From the end of the world? 2012.


*Looks at North Koreea*

far earlier than that.

The Christian Book of Revelation and the Mayan calendar are lining up nicely...

What specifically are you referring to? Just curious, not being argumentative or anything.

The world has about five billion more years. Earth itself isn't going anywhere.

From global warming? Probably a VERY long time, if it can even be considered a legitimate threat. From the end of the world? 2012. The Christian Book of Revelation and the Mayan calendar are lining up nicely...

Okay, also baring, devine intervention.

Breathable air.

not near factories otherwise your about 200 years too late

More than at least 1 billion people.

why does that matter :confused:

Hurricaines, Typhoons and the like, not becoming more powerfull as time passes, etc...

when have they ever got weaker :confused:

What specifically are you referring to? Just curious, not being argumentative or anything.

Just commenting on the connections between the revelation as written down by St. John and the global events occurring today. The part of the Mayan calendar refers to the end of the Mayan solar cycle that is supposed to occur around the Winter Solstice in the year 2012. Only six more years...

I'm pretty sure in fifty years we'll all be living in domes to protect us from the heat. It's gonna suck. We need to get this under control.

Only six more years...

Oh no! I'm going to have to graduate from college early in order to get a job so that I can afford the equipment I need to do my hike along the Appalachian trail. Let's see, I'm supposed to graduate in 2010, I'll need to have at least a year to get the job and have it long enough to have money. That puts me at 2011-12 before I can even set off. I'm going to have to accelerate my course schedule by about a year.

Oh no! I'm going to have to graduate from college early in order to get a job so that I can afford the equipment I need to do my hike along the Appalachian trail. Let's see, I'm supposed to graduate in 2010, I'll need to have at least a year to get the job and have it long enough to have money. That puts me at 2011-12 before I can even set off. I'm going to have to accelerate my course schedule by about a year.

Dude, that's so crazy--I actually graduate college in 2010 and plan on hiking the Appalachian trail sometime after as well...though, it'll have to wait until my four years of military service are up...

I'm pretty sure in fifty years we'll all be living in domes to protect us from the heat. It's gonna suck. We need to get this under control.

Ah, don't be such a worrybody. Even if this global warming thing pans out as bad as it won't, we just have to make sure we enjoy the rest of our short little lives. Oh, and don't have kids--that way, we won't have to think about their future. Life's so simple...

Time for a link?
Here is an older one:
http://www.climateregistry.org/docs/ABOUTCLIMATECHANGE/WSJ050603.PDF

Breathable air. More than at least 1 billion people. Hurricaines, Typhoons and the like, not becoming more powerfull as time passes, etc...Still much too poorly worded.

Current atmospheric pollution won't make the air unbreathable. That would take something radically different.
The planet will probably be able to sustain a billion humans right up to the point where it gets destroyed by the Sun. Probably, because our current technology is good enough to sustain us in space. Earth can't become anywhere near that hostile an environment.
The weather is something else entirely. Weather has already started to get more extreme, so if that's your criteria, we're already past the point of no return.

Predicting climate changes is very difficult. There's a vast number of variables, the science is still in its infancy, and very minor inaccuracies have enormous effects given time.

Over the past century or so, humans have added a total negative 2-3W/m**2 forcings & roughly twice that in positive forcings. Comparatively, the natural forcings responsible for the ice age cycles totals 1.2W/m**2 over a 80,000 year period. As you can see, given time, even tiny changes in the atmosphere will have staggering effects on the climate.

The IPCC (those are the guys who're supposed to be the authority on global warming) have a bunch of scenarios, and I'd advise you to check their site for more info. Roughly speaking though, if we don't do anything this is what we'll see over the next 100 years:
Ocean levels will rise with as much as 1-4 meters.
The tropical & subtropical regions of the world will heat up & become plagued with drought.
The temperate areas will suffer sporadic, but massive rain or snowfall (depending on where), experience shorter, but colder winters & longer, hottter summers.
Weather around the globe will become far more extreme.

Give it 200 years, and it becomes much, much worse. Water levels will rise by quite a lot. Quite possibly enough to alter the saline levels of the oceans to such an extent that virtually all marine life on the planet dies.

But like I said, it's hard to say anything very definite. All we can be certain of, is that the world won't be a terribly nice place anymore, if we keep doing what we are doing. It's pretty insidious, in a way. There's a lot of lag in the global climate, so the effects of our changes to the atmosphere aren't readily apparent. Worse still, despite the fact that the climate we know is a balancing act, small disturbances over a short period won't affect it much. It's sort of like when you break a twig. First it just bends, but at some point it snaps. Climate feedback behaves in a similar fashion. At first nothing much happens, but when things start happening, they happen fast & all the kings men can't do shit about it.

More than at least 1 billion people.

The planet can't support over 1 billion people indefinitely anyways. Even if global warming was fixed yesterday, humanity would still hit a die-off at some point in the future.

The planet will probably be able to sustain a billion humans right up to the point where it gets destroyed by the Sun. Probably, because our current technology is good enough to sustain us in space. Earth can't become anywhere near that hostile an environment.

Long before Earth is incinerated by the sun, it will become completely uninhabitable by any carbon-based lifeform whatsoever. Our atmosphere will be completely destroyed in 3 billion years, IIRC. And since when can our current technology sustain us in space?

Long before Earth is incinerated by the sun, it will become completely uninhabitable by any carbon-based lifeform whatsoever. Our atmosphere will be completely destroyed in 3 billion years, IIRC.True enough.

And since when can our current technology sustain us in space?Since 1960-something. '67 if memory serves.

Since 1960-something. '67 if memory serves.

Just because we have an International Space Station doesn't mean we can survive in space indefinitely. The food there comes from Earth. The people on board swap out every year or so, if my memory serves me right, and there's only a handful of them on there. To tell the truth, we really can't remain in space for more than a year before serious health problems start to set in.

A more recent link:
http://www.dailyreckoning.co.uk/article/280620061.html
links note: I havn't even gotten to the West yet.

I think that it's a bunch of hype...I remember Y2K was supposed to be the end and now we're fast approaching 2007. I think people have been declaring the end of the world each and every century and here we are still "kickin'" :D

I think that it's a bunch of hype...I remember Y2K was supposed to be the end and now we're fast approaching 2007. I think people have been declaring the end of the world each and every century and here we are still "kickin'" :D

Except the experts didn't think Y2K was a major problem. Global warming on the other hand...

Just because we have an International Space Station doesn't mean we can survive in space indefinitely.Perhaps "sustain" was too strong a word. I simply meant we're able to survive it.

The food there comes from Earth. The people on board swap out every year or so, if my memory serves me right, and there's only a handful of them on there. To tell the truth, we really can't remain in space for more than a year before serious health problems start to set in.All that is a non-issue on Earth though. Down here we - in the very worst of circumstances - only have to worry about a dangerously harsh environment, not an outright lethal one.

I think that it's a bunch of hype...I remember Y2K was supposed to be the end and now we're fast approaching 2007. I think people have been declaring the end of the world each and every century and here we are still "kickin'" :DAnd I think you should at least attempt to understand things, before you draw conclusions about them.

The 1 billion number was just a number I threw out there (indicating the death of billions)

I would have to say that having to live in space would qualify as: "End of the world as we know it"

The 1 billion number was just a number I threw out there (indicating the death of billions)

I would have to say that having to live in space would qualify as: "End of the world as we know it"OK, perhaps I wasn't clear, so I'll try again: there's no way global warming can render the globe uninhabitable.

It can make it a really fucking nasty place to live, but that's it.

The world has about five billion more years. Earth itself isn't going anywhere.

It most certainly is.

Unless you think it can survive the Sun going red giant and engulfing the inner planets entirely. Personally, I think it'll be someone else's asteroids and meteors after that.

Speaking of which, the Orionids (meteor shower appearing to fall from the vicinity of Orion's club) are due to start falling this weekend. Get away from light at about midnight, bundle up, and watch the show! Crescent moon means a nice, black canvas. Enjoy!

OK, perhaps I wasn't clear, so I'll try again: there's no way global warming can render the globe uninhabitable.

It can make it a really fucking nasty place to live, but that's it.

Yes. I don't think this will cause the extinction of mankind. But still a minimum I'd say about 80% of the world population: dead (as a direct result of man made global warming)

*snip the stuff I understood*

Over the past century or so, humans have added a total negative 2-3W/m**2 forcings & roughly twice that in positive forcings. Comparatively, the natural forcings responsible for the ice age cycles totals 1.2W/m**2 over a 80,000 year period. As you can see, given time, even tiny changes in the atmosphere will have staggering effects on the climate.

*snip the rest, too*

Okay, geekazoid, can you translate this for those of us who don't know A) how you've altered the appearance of the formula to fit computer screen limitations, B) have no idea what the word "forcings" means in an atmospheric context, and C) what it means in layman's terms?

Sheesh!

Alright, so the poll results show that a majority of people feel that we will have breathable air for no more than the next 100 years. Not to be pessimistic, it may be less than 25 years if things don't change. We can start now with all the little things we don't pay attention to and then maybe we'll have fifity years. We need to tell our leaders we are tired of petrolium based economics, that we are tired of cancer and that we want the right to breath. If that doesn't work, then go guerilla.

The planet can't support over 1 billion people indefinitely anyways. Even if global warming was fixed yesterday, humanity would still hit a die-off at some point in the future.

Uh...the planet's currently sustaining over six billion now.

Mind you, that notion is completely dependent upon your definition of "sustaining"....

Uh...the planet's currently sustaining over six billion now.

Mind you, that notion is completely dependent upon your definition of "sustaining"....

See the word "indefinitely"?

While China trys to cover up how many people get killed in their coal mines (oh it's true) (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-08/18/content_668262.htm)
Why on Earth would you think anyone would accuse China of covering up casulities from a typhoon? Maybe all that coal burning acts like a typhoon magnet by seeding clouds with soot?

Okay, geekazoid, can you translate this for those of us who don't know A) how you've altered the appearance of the formula to fit computer screen limitations, B) have no idea what the word "forcings" means in an atmospheric context, and C) what it means in layman's terms?

Sheesh!Heh, I'll try.

The atmosphere retains energy from the Sun & Earth, and has a theoretical equilibrium. An alteration is called a "forcing", and is expressed in Watt per square meter (W/m**2).

Some forcings are natural. The Earth's orbit around the sun, for example, is altered on a 40,000 year basis, resulting in either a slight increase in solar radiation (a cumulative +0.6 forcing ), or a slight decrease in solar radiation (a -0.6 forcing). That's what caused the ice age cyclus (and still would, if we weren't interfering). The Sun itself also varies in output over time, but that cyclus is rapid enough to be inconsequential to the Earth's climate under normal circumstances. Presently it's responsible for something like a +0.4 forcing, and that's of course not the best thing when we're responsible for a hell of a lot of positive forcings at the same time.

Now I'll just take the opportunity to rant a bit more :)

As you can see from my example of the ice age cyclus, a 0.6 forcing is enough to alter the global climate, given enough time. The amount of forcing needed to change the global, or specific parts of the global climate, over a given period of time, is called "sensitivity".

The interval between the introduction of forcing and climate change, is called "lag". Just to confuse matters, man-made forcings working against eachother over a period of time, is also called lag. An example is bright aerosols in the atmosphere. They're currently make up a significant forcing, but unlike GHGs (greenhouse gasses) they're very short-lived, and emission levels will almost certainly drop sharply over the next two decades. Consequently the effect on our atmosphere from GHGs will increase dramatically when it happens.

Now.. I was gonna say some more geekazoid shit, but I forgot where I was going with this, so the above will have to do.

See the word "indefinitely"?

Indeed I did. My point in mentioning the current 6+ billion figure is that ONE billion total people likely IS sustainable indefinitely. Six times that? Not so much. I don't know how recently Earth's population of humans crossed the 1 billion threshold (I'd guess about 1860 or so because we were at 6.5 billion as of February of 2006 which was then reported as being roughly 4 times the population in 1900, which would make 1900's population about 1.6 billion), but Earth probably could've handled 1860's population indefinitely. Think about it.

Okay. One more link then gotta go for a bit.
4 pages (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml)
Still a myth?

I am just not sure you are asking the right question here Dragontide.

Yeah we are in trouble if we don't do anything about it, but the thing I find troubling is that there might be a point where we have to do a lot more than just reduce emmissions. A point where the warming starts driving itself. Where melting ice caps and changes in vegetation etc are providing enough warming effect of their own to perpetuate the cycle without humans little help along.

A point of no return if you will. All very dramatic and all I know but it is a distinct possibility. That point of no return may well be within the next 50 or so years.

Only thing is scaremongering doesn't seem the best way to alert people to the problem. I mean I know people tend to reacte to extreme things.. just look how quickly Europe reacted when they started having acid fall from the skys in the 80s, or how quickly CFCs were dumped when we realised we might fry ourselves when we destroyed all the ozone.

Only problem is that global warming probably isn't another quick fix problem. So people get tired of the scare mongering. This problem is a case of Slow and steady wins the race ... just so long as we get the steady thing going.. cause so far all we seemed to have managed is the slow bit ;)

The planet can support more than 1 billion people living on it until the sun bloats out, scorching Earth. That'll be one spectacular show. But it's a long time away.

The planet supports life over most of its dry surface and much more in the waters that cover about 2/3-3/4 of the total surface. Humans occupy about 5-10% of the habitable (to us) surface. Considering how much space other life takes up I think we're well withing our safety margin.

This, like so many of the doom prophecies, is mostly hype and exageration of minor changes. Does anyone remember sars and how, according to the experts, it was going to kill us all and it was all Bush's fault for not being prepared. Remember Bird flu, dog flu, cat flu, and any every other kind of flu that you could only get by boning the animal it was named after and how they were going to kill us all? And anthrax? And the scare about small pox (which now only exists in a couple of guarded labs because it was wiped out)? And every other disease that was going to kill us all? How many have actually turned into the vast pandemics that we were warned about?

Global warming is the same way. All the predictions are based on theory and models. They're potential scenarios.

And isn't our interglacial nearly up? It started about 10,000 years ago and they usually last about 12,000.

Anyway, if you are really worried about this and want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off and feel change is needed to prevent these terrible prophecies from coming true, then get off your ass, get a sheet of paper and a pen, get back on your ass, and write a letter demanding more nuclear power. Contrary to what Greenpeace would have you believe, fission plants are not like the Springfield facility with dripping waste and regular meltdowns. There have been 2 civilian meltdowns in recorded history and one of them was contained and the reactor shut down before anyone got killed. The other only resulted in 4,000 deaths.

My advice is don't believe the hype and ignore the doom prophets. They're usually just trying to profit off your fears.

This, like so many of the doom prophecies, is mostly hype and exageration of minor changes. Does anyone remember sars and how, according to the experts, it was going to kill us all and it was all Bush's fault for not being prepared. Remember Bird flu, dog flu, cat flu, and any every other kind of flu that you could only get by boning the animal it was named after and how they were going to kill us all? And anthrax? And the scare about small pox (which now only exists in a couple of guarded labs because it was wiped out)? And every other disease that was going to kill us all? How many have actually turned into the vast pandemics that we were warned about?

Global warming is the same way. All the predictions are based on theory and models. They're potential scenarios.



So you think global warming is a myth because bird flu and anthrax hasn't killed us? Hmmmmm. Sounds like something they would say on FOX news.

I'm saying that experts have been wrong in the past and all the predictions about runaway global warming have come from scenarios not measurements. A runaway scenario within the next 5, 10, 50, or even 100 years is unlikely.

Just commenting on the connections between the revelation as written down by St. John and the global events occurring today. The part of the Mayan calendar refers to the end of the Mayan solar cycle that is supposed to occur around the Winter Solstice in the year 2012. Only six more years...

However, IF I remember correctly, isn't the world reborn afterwards? Might have my early American cultures mixed up.

The planet can support more than 1 billion people living on it until the sun bloats out, scorching Earth.While I think you're right, I don't know the counter argument. That means that although I've said exactly the same thing, it's based on speculation on my part, not facts. This, like so many of the doom prophecies, is mostly hype and exageration of minor changes.You're far more wrong than right, and that's not based on speculation.

The media has a long history of misrepresenting the science behind global warming in favour of shocking headlines. An example would be the media reporting an 11 deg C over the next two decades, when the source of that number was an experimental climate model that wasn't meant to emulate our climate correctly, but rather provide a better understanding of sensitivity (to improve the accuracy of climate models).

The media gives almost equal coverage of both scientists & deniers, despite the fact the science behind global warming is entirely uncontroversial. That means professional bullshitters get virtually the same page space as the people who actually knows what they're talking about. How many have actually turned into the vast pandemics that we were warned about?And by the same token, since even Einsteins Cosmological Constant turned out to be rubbish, we can safely conclude the entire field of physics is make-believe. And TV sets operate by magic. Global warming is the same way. All the predictions are based on theory and models. They're potential scenarios.Indeed they are. It's the same thing with gravity, and just like you, I'm royally pissed we teach the children to expect objects to fall when they're let go in mid-air.

Your rubbish doesn't even qualify as a hasty generalization, because none of it is actually related to the science you're trying to sow doubt about. It's just bullshit, plain & simple. And isn't our interglacial nearly up? It started about 10,000 years ago and they usually last about 12,000.At this rate, it'll never happen. But yes, if it weren't for us, the climate would be shifting towards an ice age. Unfortunately it would only take a positive anthropogenic forcing of 0.4-0.6W/m**2 to prevent it from happening, and as of 2000, the overall anthropogenic forcing was 1.2W/m**2 (that's after direct & incidental negative forcings have been subtracted. The source is IPCC). Today that number is closer to 2.0W/m**2 (I can't be arsed to calculate an estimate for you). Anyway, if you are really worried about this and want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off and feel change is needed to prevent these terrible prophecies from coming true, then get off your ass, get a sheet of paper and a pen, get back on your ass, and write a letter demanding more nuclear power.And switch energy company, buy a more economic car next time you're car shopping, by low energy electric applications, turn off the lights when you leave a room & so on. Contrary to what Greenpeace would have you believe, fission plants are not like the Springfield facility with dripping waste and regular meltdowns.That'a a strawman, right? Whatever, nuclear power won't cut it alone. If you're interested in realistic policy changes, visit your library next month & ask for the WEO 2006 report. It'll be out on Nov. 7. My advice is don't believe the hype and ignore the doom prophets. They're usually just trying to profit off your fears.And my advice is to set aside an hour or two to learn what global warming is, before you make any sort of conclusions. Even a 3rd grader can understand the general mechanics of the atmosphere & how it regulates the global climate.

You have no basis for concluding whether or not anthropogenic global warming is a problem, if you don't know how it works. Your present conclusion is pure superstition.

The question isn't if global warming is actually happening. This much is known. Hell, the question isn't even if humans are causing it, as the Earth goes through many coolings and warming throughout it's history. There is much evidence which may support that we are actually coming out of a mini-Ice Age that ended a few hundred years ago. Global Warming is a naturally occurring process of the Earth.

The real questions involving global warming, in my eyes, are:

1.What effect has human industrial activity had on global warming(It's foolish to say we haven't had any).
2.How much faster have we increased global warming(Once again, foolish to assume we haven't sped it up at all).
3.What will the effects be if we do not change our actions.

Now, reducing emitions and will undoubtedly have an effect on how fast, and how "intense" global warming will occur this time around. However, will it be a global hell-hole in my lifetime? Probably not. Infact, I'm not terrible sure if it will become a "world ending" event. Can it cause "tragedies" to happen? Absolutely. The two places where warming are most drastic, the poles, will melt, causing many of the ice shields to melt. This will cause the water level to rise, flooding the coasts. To what extent? An unknown. How fast? Unknown.

The only thing that can be asserted is that by reducing emitions, the effect on how fast, and how "intense" will be decreased, this much is obvious. It will help, but how much is the key turn. We can't stop global warming, but we can decrease the effects caused by our own actions.

At least that is how I see it.

Also, you're question is ambigous. It's really unclear what it is really asking. If by "when" will it happen, warming is already happening. If by having devastating effects, well depends on your definition. It will likely be gradual, and unnoticeable to each generation. Such is how such catastrophes work. Also, it will not be world-ending. The world has gone through such periods of warming, and then cooling, and so forth many times. Humans will adapt, as always. So, I doubt Global Warming will be world ending, but it will definately be world altering.

I think it will be less than 50 years before global warming has a significant on our lifestyle, as we know it today.

Obviously we should stop closing the doors of our refrigerators. This would allow the cold air to seep out and counter-act global warming.

I think it will be less than 50 years before global warming has a significant on our lifestyle, as we know it today.

Depends, really. Global warming has had a significant effect since 50 years ago, and the same 50 years before that, and 50 years before that. Global warming is a naturally occurring process, however, we should minimize our effect on it, for obvious reasons(for instance, so it doesn't get as "bad" as it could be).

Hell, the question isn't even if humans are causing it, as the Earth goes through many coolings and warming throughout it's history.Those two phenomena are not related.

Global Warming is a naturally occurring process of the Earth. Sadly, there's always a but somewhere. It's all those damn McD gluttons.
This particular but is that we should be entering a cooling period.

1.What effect has human industrial activity had on global warming(It's foolish to say we haven't had any).We're largely responsible for the increase in the global mean surface temperature over the past 150 years. Most of that warming occurred during two periods: 1910 to 1945 and 1976 to the present. The curve reflects the massive industrialization & later our massive aerosol pollution.

Dendrochronology, ice core samples & so on can say some very precise things about past temperatures & gas composition of the atmosphere. Likewise, isotope counts of the gasses in the atmosphere reveals what their sources were (and are).

The conclusion is that human emissions are responsible for a tiny 0.6°C (+/-0.2°C) increase in the mean temperature of the planet since 1850.


2.How much faster have we increased global warming(Once again, foolish to assume we haven't sped it up at all). We've roughly quadrupled it at this point, but the current positive natural forcing is waning & will become negative for the next several thousand years (we're entering a natural ice age). The global warming happening now, appears to be entirely artificial.

3.What will the effects be if we do not change our actions.It's hard to say. A 75% margin of error isn't unusual in a climate model. With that in mind, the only thing you really can do, is to read the climate predictions published by the IPCC & assume future changes can be anywhere from the most benign to the most dramatic predictions.

That said, even the most positive predictions aren't very positive at all. Even if we do everything we reasonably can do now, the warming will at the very least have tremendous human costs (and trash a lot of ecosystems, of course).

Now, reducing emitions and will undoubtedly have an effect on how fast, and how "intense" global warming will occur this time around. However, will it be a global hell-hole in my lifetime? Probably not. Infact, I'm not terrible sure if it will become a "world ending" event. Can it cause "tragedies" to happen? Absolutely. The two places where warming are most drastic, the poles, will melt, causing many of the ice shields to melt. This will cause the water level to rise, flooding the coasts. To what extent? An unknown. How fast? Unknown.

The only thing that can be asserted is that by reducing emitions, the effect on how fast, and how "intense" will be decreased, this much is obvious. It will help, but how much is the key turn. We can't stop global warming, but we can decrease the effects caused by our own actions.Very true.

Also, you're question is ambigous. It's really unclear what it is really asking. If by "when" will it happen, warming is already happening. If by having devastating effects, well depends on your definition. It will likely be gradual, and unnoticeable to each generation. Such is how such catastrophes work. Also, it will not be world-ending. The world has gone through such periods of warming, and then cooling, and so forth many times. Humans will adapt, as always. So, I doubt Global Warming will be world ending, but it will definately be world altering.Actually, the biggest problem with anthropogenic climate change, is how rapid it is. If the natural ice age cycle was even slightly faster than it is, us complex lifeforms wouldn't have had much of a chance. If anthropogenic changes reached a similar magnitude, most higher lifeforms would go extinct. We would be able to cope because of our technology & mobility, but our situation is unique.

The minor changes so far have happened over several generations, but buth subsystems & the global climate have a limit, after which incredibly rapid changes occur. Some of the more sensitive areas have already reached the point of feedback. You should expect to see significant changes in your lifetime, unless you have one foot in the grave. Most of the climate changes our models predict will happen over the comming 100 years can't be prevented, because they're the result of our present pollution. What we can do, is prevent further changes from occuring & stretch the timeframe for the predicted changes, but that's it. In a very real sense, it's all abour damage control.

For those that have voted "much much more"" Your theories will be put to the test over the next few summers. Will any of them be any milder that the past few? Will these crazy weather patterns (like we had this year) continue in the US? (Oklahoma type super cells in the Tennesse Vally, tropical type flooding in New England, record breaking heat waves all over the place, more powerful and more in quanity, typhoons in the Far East)

For those that think that the current global warming situation is caused by solar cycles or some other natural, non-man-made phenomon: I refer you to page 2 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169_page2.shtml) of the link that is also listed above.

"...As for carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, we havn't seen CO2 levels like this in hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years." (measured from deep ice core samples....ice dosn't lie)

The planet can't support over 1 billion people indefinitely anyways. Even if global warming was fixed yesterday, humanity would still hit a die-off at some point in the future.

What, now it's under a billion?

What, now it's under a billion?
The current population is over 6 billion.

Most of the climate changes our models predict will happen over the comming 100 years can't be prevented, because they're the result of our present pollution.
Of course, those models don't model cloud cover and precipitation, so that's a huge hole in the data. Dramatically increased cloud cover could serve to cool the earth significantly (that was the reasoning behind nuclear winter).
the only thing you really can do, is to read the climate predictions published by the IPCC & assume future changes can be anywhere from the most benign to the most dramatic predictions.
Assuming you trust the IPCC. As a bureaucratic agency, its primary goal is to grow.

The current population is over 6 billion.

No, I mean, every time I hear "the Earth can support..." the number gets lower.

UPDATE: new link posted today (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2725.htm)
"NASA and NOAA announce Antarctic ozone hole is a record breaker."

:rolleyes: And look where it is. On the bottom of the world. Where it goes for 6 months without ozone-creating sunlight. It always gets thin spots and holes. Without the sun we'd have no ozone. So long as we have oxygen and sunlight we'll have ozone. The layer may not be as high but it will be there. If you take out the sunlight or the oxygen or both then you lose ozone. If you understood how ozone was created you'd know this.

Without the sun we'd have no ozone. So long as we have oxygen and sunlight we'll have ozone. The layer may not be as high but it will be there.

But obiously not nearly enough with 98% of the world's ice mountian glaciers, currently melting. (You know: The ones that have been frozen for millions of years)

What you are suggesting is tantamount to putting out a forrest fire by pissing on it.

:rolleyes: And look where it is. On the bottom of the world. Where it goes for 6 months without ozone-creating sunlight. It always gets thin spots and holes. Without the sun we'd have no ozone. So long as we have oxygen and sunlight we'll have ozone. The layer may not be as high but it will be there. If you take out the sunlight or the oxygen or both then you lose ozone. If you understood how ozone was created you'd know this.

I get the feeling you actually know quite little about ozone in general.

Understand one simple truth: Climate will change.

Global temperatures will either rise or fall. They will always either rise or fall. That can't be stopped. It can't be slowed. Can it be accelerated? Possibly. Temporarily. Is this catastrophic? WHo knows? It depends on Earth's ability to self-regulate.

My problem with global warming theory is the arrogance of environmental scientists to think that a mere century of accurate weather data and theoretical models based on more theoretical reconstructions of past climate provides enough information to not only accurately predict future climate, but to try to control it. Mistakes could be cataclysmic. I don't trust in scientists' ability to predict climate fifty years from now when they can't even accurately predict the weather next week. Nevermind control it!

Can you say Snowball Earth 2? :p

Looking back the last 10 years I can say that those have already been very different weatherwise than what I grew up with 25 years ago.

I say the global climate change is already underway...

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/sunny.gif
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/titanic.gif

Are you prepared? (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,443287,00.html)

Oh yeah, one more for those who don't believe that we have a direct impact on a very fragile system and maybe didn't believe that the ozone hole existed either...

Read and weep. (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone_record.html)

My problem with global warming theory is the arrogance of environmental scientists to think that a mere century of accurate weather data and theoretical models based on more theoretical reconstructions of past climate provides enough information to not only accurately predict future climate, but to try to control it. Mistakes could be cataclysmic. I don't trust in scientists' ability to predict climate fifty years from now when they can't even accurately predict the weather next week. Nevermind control it!

As I said: The ICE man! The ICE! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169_page2.shtml)
With funding from the National Science Foundation, Mayewski has led 35 expiditions collecting deep ice cores from glaciers. The ice captures everything in the air, laying down a record covering half a million years.

"We can go to any section of the ice core, to tell, basicly, what the green gas levels were; we can tell whether or not is was stormy, what the temperatures were like" Mayewski explains.

Of course, those models don't model cloud cover and precipitation, so that's a huge hole in the data. Dramatically increased cloud cover could serve to cool the earth significantly (that was the reasoning behind nuclear winter).That completely depends on the climate model. It is true, however, that computing power is a problem. That's one of the key reasons climate modeling is done by several institutions in unison.

But as I said earlier, the amount of uncertainty is staggering at present. They only serve to point the general direction right now.Assuming you trust the IPCC. As a bureaucratic agency, its primary goal is to grow.The primary role of the IPCC is to coordinate research. You might as well say the primary goal of research libraries is to employ librarians. My problem with global warming theory is the arrogance of environmental scientists to think that a mere century of accurate weather data and theoretical models based on more theoretical reconstructions of past climate provides enough information to not only accurately predict future climate, but to try to control it. Mistakes could be cataclysmic. I don't trust in scientists' ability to predict climate fifty years from now when they can't even accurately predict the weather next week. Nevermind control it!If you think this is something you should have an opinion about, I suggest you set aside an hour each night for a week & read up on the basics of the science & methodology, because in my humble opinion, you're the one sounding arrogant.

This just boggles the mind:
All the scientists today, finally figuring out that global warming has been overlooked (and I'm greatful that they did) and a little ole, hippidy-dipity-do, rock band tried to tell us about it 17 years ago!
Fools! The ones who stray; the rain forrest burns away
Know, what you believe. This is the air we breathe
So, the world we know, is dying slow in South America
Flames, are burning down, all the trees to the ground

Time, is running low. We cannot stay no more
Wealth, these people see. Fight for eternity
Lies, they televise, paid by the government
There on! It lingers on
And they dont even care if they...

(chorus)
-Seal the planet's fate
- Crimes they perpatrate
- Waisting precious land
- It's time to take a stand

-Our only hope, to breathe again
-To stop the madness closing in
-What will we do, when all is lost
-Environmental holocaust

Foes, these people go, someone destroyed their home
Plagued, with disease, left praying on their knees
Laws, protect the land, social justice, in demand
Smoke, it fills the air, into the atmosphere
Now, it's time to see, a cycle of a tragedy
On! It lingers on. And they dont even care if they...

Repeat chorus

GREENHOUSE EFFECT from the 1989 album "Practice What You Preach" by Testament

1989!!! And some of the scientists of today are making it out to be like the discovery of sliced bread! :p

LONG LIVE ROCK & ROLL!!!! :D

However, IF I remember correctly, isn't the world reborn afterwards? Might have my early American cultures mixed up.

Yes, the Earth IS supposed to be reborn (supposedly happens every 5000 years or so). That's where the Biblical texts come in--it never set a date, perhaps we were meant to find it. Or stumble upon it at the appointed time. Either way, the Book of Revelation speaks of a new Earth as well, with the summoning of the 144,000 and I don't know all the details. Even if the Mayan belief in the Earth being reborn is different than the scripture, I still think that 2012 is the year to watch...

But obiously not nearly enough with 98% of the world's ice mountian glaciers, currently melting.
I can't believe you just said that.

The ozone hole and global warming are unrelated problems.

The ozone hole and global warming are unrelated problems.

How do you figure?

This just boggles the mind:
All the scientists today, finally figuring out that global warming has been overlooked (and I'm greatful that they did) and a little ole, hippidy-dipity-do, rock band tried to tell us about it 17 years ago!


1989!!! And some of the scientists of today are making it out to be like the discovery of sliced bread! :p

LONG LIVE ROCK & ROLL!!!! :D
Yeah, that sounds crazy. Probably some scientists decided to start a band after nobody would believe them. Wonder why they didn't chose punkrock? :p
I can't believe you just said that.

The ozone hole and global warming are unrelated problems.

Are they now? (http://earthwatch.unep.net/emergingissues/atmosphere/ozonedepletion.php)

Ozone losses in the stratosphere may have caused part of the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere in the polar and upper middle latitudes (about 0.6 degrees centigrade per decade since 1979). The increase of ozone in the troposphere since pre-industrial times is estimated to have contributed 10 % to 20 % of the warming due to the increase in long-lived greenhouse gases during the same period. The abundance of ozone-depleting substances in the stratosphere was expected to peak by the year 2000. However, when changing atmospheric conditions are combined with natural ozone variability, detecting the start of the ozone layer recovery may not be possible for perhaps another 20 years (WMO/UNEP, 1998).

I wouldn't trust anybody who answers this question.

Are they now?
For the most part, yes.

The chemicals that destroy ozone do not contribute to global warming.

The chemicals that cause global warming to not destroy ozone.

The only link is that the chemicals which do destroy ozone (which we've already stopped producing) do it slightly faster in a cooler stratosphere, which is reportedly casued by global warming.

But the ozone still repairs itself, and the chemicals that destroy it still decline.

For the most part, yes.

The chemicals that destroy ozone do not contribute to global warming.

The chemicals that cause global warming to not destroy ozone.

The only link is that the chemicals which do destroy ozone (which we've already stopped producing) do it slightly faster in a cooler stratosphere, which is reportedly casued by global warming.

But the ozone still repairs itself, and the chemicals that destroy it still decline.

Reality check: this is old news (http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol5/v5n08ozone_body.html)

Ozone depletion and global warming are both man-made and interconnected, and they constitute the most serious environmental crisis ever.

The chemicals that destroy ozone do not contribute to global warming.
CFC's are actually a powerful greenhouse gas:
http://www.ghgonline.org/otherhalos.htm

Of course, they also destroy another greenhouse gas (ozone), so their net effect on the climate is not entirely certain:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/vr96rpt/chap7.html

Their net effect may actually be to lower temperatures, in which case they would be masking the overall warming trend. But to say they do not contribute to global warming is innacurate.

Of course, those models don't model cloud cover and precipitation, so that's a huge hole in the data. Dramatically increased cloud cover could serve to cool the earth significantly (that was the reasoning behind nuclear winter).

Increased water vapour in the atompshere does two things. One, it is a greenhouse gas, so it can actually accelerate the pace of warming. The other is that it can produce increased cloud cover, which can partially slow the pace of warming. But only partially. It would not "significantly cool the earth" as you assert.

To those who think they know it all,

Ozone is O3, a molecule made of 3 oxygen atoms. It is not stable and given enough time will lose the 3rd atom leaving a single O2 and an free O that will bond to nearly anything it comes by. Ozone in the earth's stratosphere is created by ultraviolet light striking oxygen molecules containing two oxygen atoms (O2), splitting them into individual oxygen atoms (atomic oxygen); the atomic oxygen then combines with unbroken O2 to create ozone, O3. The ozone molecule is also unstable (although, in the stratosphere, long-lived) and when ultraviolet light hits ozone it splits into a molecule of O2 and an atom of atomic oxygen, a continuing process called the ozone-oxygen cycle, thus creating an ozone layer in the stratosphere.

The thing about ClFCs (because its Chlorofluorocarbon, not carbofluorocarbon) is that once up in the stratosphere the Cl and Br can get liberated by the same UV that drives the ozone-oxygen cycle. Once off and on their own they can bind to a pair of those free oxygen atoms and then split away from them leaving behind an O2. This O2 then gets the UV treatment and starts the cycle all over again.

Dinaverg, I get the feeling you actually know quite little about ozone in general. I hope this educates you and I encourage you to learn more about chemistry. It's really quite exciting.

To those who think they know it all,

Ozone is O3, a molecule made of 3 oxygen atoms. It is not stable and given enough time will lose the 3rd atom leaving a single O2 and an free O that will bond to nearly anything it comes by. Ozone in the earth's stratosphere is created by ultraviolet light striking oxygen molecules containing two oxygen atoms (O2), splitting them into individual oxygen atoms (atomic oxygen); the atomic oxygen then combines with unbroken O2 to create ozone, O3. The ozone molecule is also unstable (although, in the stratosphere, long-lived) and when ultraviolet light hits ozone it splits into a molecule of O2 and an atom of atomic oxygen, a continuing process called the ozone-oxygen cycle, thus creating an ozone layer in the stratosphere.

The thing about ClFCs (because its Chlorofluorocarbon, not carbofluorocarbon) is that once up in the stratosphere the Cl and Br can get liberated by the same UV that drives the ozone-oxygen cycle. Once off and on their own they can bind to a pair of those free oxygen atoms and then split away from them leaving behind an O2. This O2 then gets the UV treatment and starts the cycle all over again.

Which can possibly return us to the norm by 2068ish (assuming we can trust everybody to play by the rules)

But then there's also this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Current_events_and_the_future_prospects_of_ozone_depletion)
Global warming from CO2 is expected to cool the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a relative increase in ozone depletion and the frequency of ozone holes. The effect may not be linear, ozone holes form because of polar stratospheric clouds; the formation of polar stratospheric clouds has a temperture above which they will not form; cooling of the Arctic stratosphere might lead us Antarctic-ozone-hole-like conditions. But at the moment this is not clear.

Which leads us to: this link (released today) (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2725.htm) Which bears the title "NASA and NOAA announce Antarctic ozone hole is a record breaker"

DO THE MATH!!!

Poll coming. Not going to post any links (not yet anyway) as you've probably seen them all anyway. Just interested in everybody's opinion. Relax. Take your time. Google something. No rush here.

Global warming isn't going to destroy the world. No one is claiming that. The only people who claim that anyone claims that are people who can't refute the evidence in support of the people claiming that global warming is a problem.

A few months ago someone posted a link to an article stating that there was once tropical vegetation in the area that is now Antarctica, and this proves that Global Warming is not a problem. What he didn't realize is that there are also many areas that are now in the ocean that were once dry land that supported large cities. Global warming might not destroy the world, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem if global warming might turn Arkansas into beachfront property and Texas into a maleria plagued rain forest.

Global warming isn't going to destroy the world. No one is claiming that. The only people who claim that anyone claims that are people who can't refute the evidence in support of the people claiming that global warming is a problem.

A few months ago someone posted a link to an article stating that there was once tropical vegetation in the area that is now Antarctica, and this proves that Global Warming is not a problem. What he didn't realize is that there are also many areas that are now in the ocean that were once dry land that supported large cities. Global warming might not destroy the world, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem if global warming might turn Arkansas into beachfront property and Texas into a maleria plagued rain forest.

Sorry, but not following the logic here. Could you clarify plz?

Sorry, but not following the logic here. Could you clarify plz?ND was trying to make it clear that while climate changes don't actually harm the planet, it does harm the critters living on it.

ND was trying to make it clear that while climate changes don't actually harm the planet, it does harm the critters living on it.

Oh. Okay. Thx Sim. Yes. The planet itself is safe from global warming. It will keep spinning around the sun until the sun consumes it or a rogue black hole sucks it in or one of our neighboring stars goes super nova. But the global warming problems for life, that are in our near future, are tantamount to Godzilla vs. Bambi.

Global warming isn't going to destroy the world. No one is claiming that.

Exactly. It is not about saving the planet. The planet can save itself. It is about saving ourselves from the consequences of our own actions.

Global warming is a good thing. We'll need less energy to heat our homes in the winter, and there will be less of an over-population problem in places such as South-East Asia.

We'll need less energy to heat our homes in the winter,


And allot more to cool them in the summer. Or if you live in Europe and cease to enjoy the effects of the gulfstream, it might be the other way around.


and there will be less of an over-population problem in places such as South-East Asia.

Less land + more people = bigger problem.

Less land + more people = bigger problem.

No, there would be massive droughts which would lead to the starvation of millions, if not billions. At least that's what various documentaries said. Of course, I don't believe global warming to be a man-made problem -- it's a natural cycle. 4.5 billion years ago, the whole Earth was lava, rock, and extreme temperatures. Now, it's heading in that general direction again.

No, there would be massive droughts which would lead to the starvation of millions, if not billions.

OK, assuming that happens, it still would not address the real problem, which is overconsumption, not overpopulation.


At least that's what various documentaries said. Of course, I don't believe global warming to be a man-made problem -- it's a natural cycle. 4.5 billion years ago, the whole Earth was lava, rock, and extreme temperatures. Now, it's heading in that general direction again.

What evidence do you have to support the proposition that it is a natural cycle? Or better yet, explain why it is any more natural for it to be heating up rather than cooling down into a nice ice-covered snowball, as has been the tendency for the past several hundreds of thousands of years?

Increased water vapour in the atompshere does two things. One, it is a greenhouse gas, so it can actually accelerate the pace of warming. The other is that it can produce increased cloud cover, which can partially slow the pace of warming. But only partially. It would not "significantly cool the earth" as you assert.

No response to that I guess.