Closed Thread Icon

Topic awaiting preservation: Global Warming Pages that link to <a href="https://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=14553" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: Global Warming" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: Global Warming\

 
Author Thread
Gilbert Nolander
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Washington DC
Insane since: May 2002

posted posted 03-17-2004 17:45
quote:
oneworld.net - Given enough freshening (Fresh water from melting glaciers getting into the ocean), the Gulf Stream that currently warms the North Atlantic would be shut off, triggering an abrupt decline in temperatures that would bring about a new "Ice Age" in Europe, eastern Canada, and the northeastern United States and similar disastrous changes in world weather patterns elsewhere--all in a period as short as two to three years.



I am sure that some people around here are of the opinion that global warming is a big scam, and that our actions can not effect the planet on a whole, I am just curious what you think of this, and other mounting evidence that this is a real issue. Are all these scientists just mistaken, or perhaps over-evaluating the eveidence?


----------------
Ozone Quotes

WarMage
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Rochester, New York, USA
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 03-17-2004 19:48

It is easy to show that the global temperature is increasing on very finite timeline. This is because we have a very small amount of data to base our conclusions on, being that known human existance spans only a handful of tens of thousands of years. Earth is said to be billions of years old. Our scope is very small. There is evidence to sugest that we are at the point where earth is still coming out of an iceage, and warming should be expected, where the earth when dinosaurs walked was much warmer on average than it is today.

Taking this into account, it is further harder to draw fact from these conclusions because we really don't know what would happen if our icecaps were to melt, we can formulate hypothises based on models but a majority of the pertinent data is an unknown. In most cases the resulting data is based on a worst case or even an average case in results gathered from the model.

The issue here is not that it will happen, but that it might happen. There is a chance, even if we don't know what the numbers are, that this could happen.

Whenever a finite time line is given for events I must pause to really check the facts. When someone says that in two or three years everything will change, I am skeptical. We can not acuratly predict if this coming years rainfall will cause a flood, which is something that people spend more time predicting, than those who spend time predicting the flooding results from melting ice caps. Also the time scale in this case is so small that it is hard to believe it. The use of the word "enough" also causes lots of problems. What is the "enough" factor. Say the entire ice cap melted, then I am sure that we would have some problems. If they were to melt I would think that the temperature of the earth would be more of a concern than that of melting ice caps. We would be much hotter already and be hoping for an ice age.

The issue then isn't one of science but one of politics and philosophy. Is it worth the effert to guard against these threats? Most of these catastrophies will not happen even in the worst case in my life time, or my children's lifetime. There are also issues to be explored in that counter messures that are currently around might end up causing other problems.

It is very hard to come to any sort of answer on these large scale long time line issues. I feel that it is much better to deal with the immediate issues which are tangebale.

Should we polute? I say no, my reason being that I don't think that a brown sky is a happy sky, I don't like the smell of the air. I don't like the look of garbage in the streets, or even that of a landfill. I don't want to swim in water that has had refuse, human waste, and worse dumped into it. To a lesser extent I can imagine what the world might look like when I am 80 years old, and I wouldn't want that to come to pass, which adds further reason not to polute.

I feel this way about many issues that rely on models to prove themselves. If you are trying to prove something by a model you are proving things the wrong way. Prove the smaller pieces don't jump into the big pieces. I would be ready to believe that we estimate a certain percent of melt this coming year, but then taking that data to mean that we will have all the ice caps melted in x years is simply silly.

To start with, the data we are using to plot next years melt has a large margin of error. The margin of error just gets huge when you start to multiply out by hundreds of years.

Say we have a figure of 1% for this coming year, this number also comes with a margin of error +- anywhere from 0 to 100%, and I would guess it to be more around 1 or 2% margin of error. Which means not that in 100 years all the ice will be melted, but that in 100 years we might have more ice or we might have less ice. It is faulty to take uncertain numbers and plot them.

I like the studies that a limited and give a margin of error, also giving the time line that the statistics are compiled over. The "Farmer's Alminac" is a good book to use to guage possibilities for next years rain, but would you use this information to determine when the next great flood is coming? I would hope not. It just isn't enough information.

-Dan-

Gilbert Nolander
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Washington DC
Insane since: May 2002

posted posted 03-17-2004 20:44
quote:
Dan - This is because we have a very small amount of data to base our conclusions on, being that known human existance spans only a handful of tens of thousands of years.



By using other factors, like where certain plants and animals can survive at certain longitutes, and then finding their fossils, and the location of coral fossils (which grow in warm temperatures only), and other scietific means, it is quite possible to know the relative temperature of our past back to perhaps the beginning of creation, or at least pretty far.

But you are right about everything, and I do agree with most of it, and you bring up pollution, and that is the main reason why I am in support of stopping global warming. Becuase like you said, the air is what we breathe, and if the air was cleaner, perhaps we would all be healthier, live longer, and certain eagles and other birds would not have problems with the acid and other things in the air destroying their eggs.

quote:
More Info - Recent studies (1994) show that acid rain is causing the decline of several species of songbirds in Europe.[44] In the Netherlands, researchers found that up to 40 percent of certain song birds were laying defective eggs as a result of too little calcium.



But one thing to think about, is not the road systems and buildings not the worst form of littering? Only it is permanent littering that we use, so we don't consider it that, but in reality, isn't it just that, placing something on the planet that does not belong and will certainly scar the surface of the earth a lot longer than a candy wrapper.

Sangreal
Nervous Wreck (II) Inmate

From: the one place the Keebler Elves can't get him
Insane since: Apr 2004

posted posted 04-27-2004 05:02

It may be real and it may not be but as far as Im concerned it doesn't matter since the planet was screwed as soon as the first human was born.


As George Carlin once put it

"We're all fucked. It helps to remember that."

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu