AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-04-26, 04:50   Link #61
Jinto
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
Global dimming is believed to be responsible for droughts, as far as I know global warming has no immediate effect on preventing rain. technically you would assume global warming would cause more water to evaporate and it would rain and flood more often.

however in australia and germany the evaporation rate of water was actually measured and found that global dimming is a serious problem.
Yeah its ironic how the visible pollutants dimm the earth and artificialy cool it, thereby masking the global warming effect, which lets people believe everything is alright. So they set free even more pollutants and CO2, since the dimming did not reverse until 1990. But in contrast to the dimming pollutants that remain only for a short time in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases remain much longer. If one adds the snow and ice fields that are on the retreat... well I suppose many people are still not aware of the of the situation.
Jinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-11, 00:38   Link #62
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
I looks like the IPCC report that first spurred the OP was very conservative:

Alternet
Quote:
It is hard to shock journalists and at the same time leave them in awe of the power of nature. A group returning from a helicopter trip flying over, then landing on, the Greenland ice cap at the time of maximum ice melt last month were shaken. One shrugged and said:"It is too late already."
The Guardian
Quote:
Reading a scientific paper on the train this weekend, I found, to my amazement, that my hands were shaking. This has never happened to me before, but nor have I ever read anything like it. Published by a team led by James Hansen at Nasa, it suggests that the grim reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be absurdly optimistic.

The IPCC predicts that sea levels could rise by as much as 59cm this century. Hansen's paper argues that the slow melting of ice sheets the panel expects doesn't fit the data. The geological record suggests that ice at the poles does not melt in a gradual and linear fashion, but flips suddenly from one state to another. When temperatures increased to between two and three degrees above today's level 3.5 million years ago, sea levels rose not by 59cm but by 25 metres. The ice responded immediately to changes in temperature.
This has the potential to get very, very ugly.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 05:22   Link #63
Khaos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: München
Global Warming seems to be a lot but for sure it is not the man-made apocalyptic end of the world, as well as CO2 is NOT a "killer gas" at all. *sigh*

First:
It is true that CO2 absorbs and emits infrared rays. Pretty normal. But it doesn't work the way, it is often simplifiedly described. Throughout the troposphere, temperatur normally decreases with height. However, it is stated, that the infrared rays coming from the earth are absorbed by greenhouse gases and then reemitted in all directions to heat up everything, including the ground. More greenhouse gases would therefore mean, more infrared rays from above warming up the ground. However, this violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics! Heat by itself always flows from warm to cold, this applies also to thermal radiation, meaning: Infrared radiation from the cooler higher levels of the troposphere will never ever be able to heat up lower warmer levels, it is only able to heat up cooler levels above. Well, in the stratosphere with its temperature increase with height a downward heat flow is of course possible, but I don't think (personal opinion!!) this has a great impact due to the very low density of air in these heights (15-50km).

Second:
The CO2-measurements before 1958 when measurements at Mauna Loa startet are derived from ice core drills. However these ice core drills aren't good sources for measuring CO2 in the past. Diffusion effects within the ice compensate short term maxima and minima. Drilling itself alters the ice cores, gas is lost in the process. Above a certain pressure level no gas bubbles axiest at all in the ice, so gas bubbles observed later often occur first when the ice is decompressed. The decompression also leads to the building of cracks in the ice where the drilling fluids can intrude contaminating the ice and altering the later measured consistence. These factors lead to an overall loss of CO2 in the ice core drills leading to too low CO2-values. Overall the graphic showing CO2-concentration in the past has two errors: Too low values and total loss of all short-term maxima and minima.
But Chemists have been measuring CO2-concentration in the atmosphere since 1800, so why do the people from the IPCC use ice core drills till 1958??
Direct chemical measurements by many chemists since 1800 show strong shifts in the CO2-concentration. At the beginning of the 1940s e.g. the concentration was at 450ppm (today's value being somewhere around or above 370ppm!!!) while around 1880 it was slightly above 290ppm.
Source for this information is "Beck, E.G., 180 years atmospheric CO2-Gas Analysis by chemical methods".
But even without reading the primal sources, I think you can trust direct measurements made by lots of different scientists a lot more than error-prone proxy data in ice core drills.

EDIT:
PS: Of course, green-house gases can give their absorbed energy to other air particles via collision and thus lead to a temperature increase, but this effect is very slight.

PPS: This is a link with graphics showing the CO2-curve by E.G. Beck. It is in german, but the graphics speak mostly for themselves:
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2.htm

Last edited by Khaos; 2007-10-27 at 05:32.
Khaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 07:47   Link #64
Slice of Life
eyewitness
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
You have been framed.

"Climate skeptic" Beck (who is a teacher, not a scientist) is well-known in the community for his manipulation of data.

One well-documented example is his claim that temperatures on the Northern Hemisphere have been warmer around 1100 AD than now which he "proves" with a diagram where the youngest temperature data points are simply his invention. See here for a comparison of his diagram with real data.

Khaos, and everybody else who can read German might also want to take a look in the article about this particular bunch of climate sceptics by Prof. Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Everybody else might want to read his article The Climate Sceptics.

That is the crux with global warming. The topic has too many details for laymen to understand (and this includes journalists, who are in turn the main source of information for all the other laymen) which allows people to get away with pretty much anything if they are just bold enough. They exploit our belief that if a claim is only dressed up with enough numbers and diagrams then there must be some truth about it. An alternative interpretation, causes nobody thought about yet? But you'd be surprised how often it relies on invented graphs, invented numbers, and invented mechanisms, in other words on lies, manipulation, and fraud. Sorry for sounding so harsh, it's just how it is.

Since we can't be all experts sometimes it has to suffice to look at who says what and think a bit about plausibility. How plausible is it that the whole scientifc community uses "bad data" if they had "better" and does not take into account effects well-known enough that some teacher could lecture them? And what is this whole conspiracy good for? Insisting that global warming exists is not the best strategy to attract funds from the industry, that for sure.
__________________
- Any ideas how to fill this space?
Slice of Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 08:41   Link #65
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
E.G. Beck is a schoolteacher in Germany whose claims about CO2 levels and temperature are debunked here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khaos
Infrared radiation from the cooler higher levels of the troposphere will never ever be able to heat up lower warmer levels, it is only able to heat up cooler levels above. Well, in the stratosphere with its temperature increase with height a downward heat flow is of course possible, but I don't think (personal opinion!!) this has a great impact due to the very low density of air in these heights (15-50km).
That doesn't really matter since Earth's overall temperature is "regulated by the thin upper layers [of the atmosphere] where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khaos
But Chemists have been measuring CO2-concentration in the atmosphere since 1800, so why do the people from the IPCC use ice core drills till 1958??
That's because they found out that the old measurements were unreliable: "Their measurements apparently fluctuated from day to day as different air masses passed through, with differences between stations as high as a factor of two. Only much later was it recognized that their methods of analyzing the air had been inadequate, and responsible for much of the noise. A leading authority summarized the scientific opinion of the late 1950s: 'it seems almost hopeless to arrive at reliable estimates [of CO2]... by such measurements in limited areas.'" Ice core measurements can be much more accurate since we can take multiple samples and use them to weed out the outliers.


The full mechanisms of global warming aren't easy to grasp, nor are they necessarily intuitive. That's why there's historically been a vast amount of debate on how it works. To read up on why the greenhouse proponents won over, you can check the American Institute of Physics site on the subject: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm. It's an extremely long, but very thorough look at how that scientific field progressed.

In the end, the debate on whether CO2 causes global warming is a bit of a red herring. The main issues are still the questions of how it's going to affect the human race, and what we can do to prevent or alleviate the effects.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 08:51   Link #66
Khaos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: München
Well, thank you both for your opinions, it does help me not losing myself within one side because I don't like the other. I'm a student of meteorology and I'm somehow desperate about what and whom I should believe...this is really annoying, because it is one of my living rules to doubt something all the more, the more loudly and vehemently it is propagated.

The only thing I feel intuitive is, that nothing terrible will happen and that most of this is overrated alarmism, but to find some sort of truth in this mess seems like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Khaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 09:04   Link #67
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khaos View Post
Well, thank you both for your opinions, it does help me not losing myself within one side because I don't like the other. I'm a student of meteorology and I'm somehow desperate about what and whom I should believe...this is really annoying, because it is one of my living rules to doubt something all the more, the more loudly and vehemently it is propagated.
When in doubt, it's always best to rely on the experts (Actually, it's best to rely on what they say even if one is certain - there's a reason why they're experts). In this case, they started out as skeptics of global warming, but the data in support of it are so compelling that they are now in overwhelming consensus on the relevance of the theory. The IPCC reports are a very good indicator of what the current science tells us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khaos View Post
The only thing I feel intuitive is, that nothing terrible will happen and that most of this is overrated alarmism, but to find some sort of truth in this mess seems like looking for a needle in a haystack.
I hope that nothing will come out of it as well, but I think that this is where the maxim "hope for the best, but plan for the worst" comes into effect. It doesn't really make any sense to do emergency planning with the assumption that the best of all possible outcomes will occur. This is especially true given that very unfavorable outcomes are also the most likely ones.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 09:35   Link #68
Khaos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: München
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
When in doubt, it's always best to rely on the experts (Actually, it's best to rely on what they say even if one is certain - there's a reason why they're experts). In this case, they started out as skeptics of global warming, but the data in support of it are so compelling that they are now in overwhelming consensus on the relevance of the theory. The IPCC reports are a very good indicator of what the current science tells us.
Hm, the problem is however, "experts" are also just humans, who tend to be easily corrupted. Whereever there is anything to gain, might, prestige, money, funding it is best to doubt everything from both sides. Same goes for idealists who think going the wrong way is justified by the "higher" goals they try to achieve, this goes for the advocates of global warming who truly believe they have to save humanity as for the total sceptics who truly believe everythin is a lie and conspiration. As soon as science mixes with politics and ideology there's nothing you can trust anymore.
I think over 95% of these things need to be seen as propaganda and even people like me who try to stay neutral sometimes fall for it.
Khaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 09:58   Link #69
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khaos View Post
Hm, the problem is however, "experts" are also just humans, who tend to be easily corrupted.
This is precisely why it's much better to look at the scientific consensus rather than the work of any one individual. The greatest rewards in science are garnered by those who can come up with new observations, theories and ideas that successfully overturn the scientific consensus, so it's an extremely good gauge for the most accurate way (currently) to view the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khaos View Post
I think over 95% of these things need to be seen as propaganda and even people like me who try to stay neutral sometimes fall for it.
Sadly, this is an approach taken by all too many people. There really aren't all that many compelling counter arguments to the global warming issue, so there isn't very much reason to be skeptical. A very telling sign is that the response to the IPCC reports has been relatively muted despite how devastating its findings are - even those whose vested interests are threatened by the reports can't find very many legitimate arguments against it.

The glacial melting rate in Greenland certainly suggests that something nasty is going to happen.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 16:08   Link #70
Sides
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 32
There is a problem with expert opinon that i noticed for a while. Most of them only take only one aspect into account, and ignoring other factors, world polulation, solar radiation. Currently most people believe that CO2 is the only main factor causing climate change/globalwarming, but other gases such as CH4, N2O and others are just as damaging as CO2. So biodiesel such as Sheryl Crow and other celebs are promoting is in fact not good for the environment at all, if you take the harvesting process of biodiesel into account, of course it depends what kind of source is used.

My expert opinion is, if people are serious about global warming and want to save the world, the only solution is to reduce the world population (all life forms, except plants) by 3/4 and introduce a birth control scheme, that will solve the problem once and for all. But i reckon most people will call me an idiot or what ever.
Sides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 16:25   Link #71
User65554
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sides View Post
My expert opinion is, if people are serious about global warming and want to save the world, the only solution is to reduce the world population (all life forms, except plants) by 3/4 and introduce a birth control scheme, that will solve the problem once and for all. But i reckon most people will call me an idiot or what ever.
Its an alright theory, but there would be several problems putting it into practice, for several reasons...
China's attempt at this, the one child policy (although this was not brought in to save the planet originally) has had a lot of critisism, but this may be because of factors that can be eliminated...
User65554 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 19:22   Link #72
Daughter!
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
People who don't believe in Global Warming are like people who don't believe in the Holocaust.
Daughter! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 19:32   Link #73
diabolistic
pythagorean≠python gorax
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: look behind you...
When we talk about saving the environment, is it a tangible urge to save the planet, or does our enthusiasm stem from a deep-seated need to preserve our own lives? The earth has been struck by meteors, suffocated in sulfuric gas, frozen in ice ages, super-heated, and tossed around for millions of years.. the world doesn't need us to save it. It seems that a problem only becomes significant once there is evidence to show that it is detrimental to human-kind. Scientists suggest more environmentally-friendly energy sources like solar, bacterial, or tidal energy. Our problems of tomorrow will include the heating of the earth's surface, viral outbreaks, and tidal channels gone haywire, as examples. We simply lack the insight to both examine our motives (whether our intent is genuine or not) and to predict the outcomes, but at the moment, what seems dangerous to US is the melting ice-cap and the ensuing waterworld.


Global warming isn't an environmental problem in the same respect that depleting aquifers and thinning rainforests are not environmental problems.. they're more political problems that affect our wellbeing, since the planet will undoubtedly find an equilibrium once all the humans drown or melt away;P
__________________

<Pabs> kcl, you sure do put out a lot of Naruto eps

Last edited by diabolistic; 2007-10-27 at 20:15.
diabolistic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 20:08   Link #74
JustInn14
moo
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Earth, the planet of stuff
Age: 21
I blame it on pointless religious issues!
JustInn14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 20:12   Link #75
Thrasher187
Spellcaster
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Florida
Age: 28
Send a message via AIM to Thrasher187
I think Global Warming is just something used by enviromentalists to scare people into being green.
__________________

Sig By: DarkZedEx Check out my MySpace.
Thrasher187 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 20:28   Link #76
Ice Climbers
Retired
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Princeton University
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrasher187 View Post
I think Global Warming is just something used by enviromentalists to scare people into being green.
Meh, this is a topic with great controversy, but i would still go the other way. Even if it is an effort to scare us to be green, is there any harm in being green? certainly i'm not saying NOT being green is harmful, but many activities that humans do nowadays are hurting the environment (note: not specifically global warming), so why not be green?

I am a firm believer that global warming is happening, and something must be done to stop it. But i am afraid that it is going to be too little and too late.
__________________
Ice Climbers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 20:36   Link #77
JustInn14
moo
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Earth, the planet of stuff
Age: 21
My complaint about gwoble wuurming, is that there's not a thing you or I can do about it. I mean something BIG not " Pl3ase don't crap on the grass" or "p!eese pick up after your kids", I mean something BIG! Like blowing down all of the polluting factories!
JustInn14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 22:10   Link #78
aohige
( ಠ_ಠ)
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrasher187 View Post
I think Global Warming is just something used by enviromentalists to scare people into being green.
No sir, the government telling you that your neighbors are all potential terrorist is a scare tactic.
Global Warming is a real issue.
__________________
aohige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 22:20   Link #79
Terrestrial Dream
勇者
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 25
It is an issue but I don't know whether the impact will be catastrophic or minimum. I did heard that nature is so unpredictable that people like Al Gore are wrong to say that global warming will definitely damage the earth.
__________________
Terrestrial Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-27, 22:24   Link #80
aohige
( ಠ_ಠ)
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperlion View Post
It is an issue but I don't know whether the impact will be catastrophic or minimum. I did heard that nature is so unpredictable that people like Al Gore are wrong to say that global warming will definitely damage the earth.
Well, aside from all the other possible effects GW can have, the most imminent possible catastrophy would be our world turning into a crappy Kevin Costner movie. No one wants to live in a crappy Kevin Costner film.
__________________

Last edited by aohige; 2007-10-27 at 23:45.
aohige is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:07.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.