• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?

How do you feel about Global Warming?

  • Global Warming is a myth and the climate will stabilize soon.

    Votes: 4 3.4%
  • Global Warming is happening but Humanity has nothing to do with it.

    Votes: 8 6.9%
  • Global Warming is happening and Humanity is partly to blame.

    Votes: 41 35.3%
  • Global Warming is happening and Humanity is mostly to blame.

    Votes: 52 44.8%
  • Global Warming is happening and Humanity is the only cause.

    Votes: 8 6.9%
  • Don’t know, don’t care.

    Votes: 3 2.6%

  • Total voters
    116

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
That sounds about right. I'm on the island though - we haven't had a beetle problem locally - the majority of the trees here are either cedar or Douglas fir.

I didn't know about the lower biodiversity going further north and west. North makes sense due to the progressively harsh conditions, but what causes the lack of biodiversity going west? Is it the barrier of the mountains isolating ecosystems at different altitudes from one another? (Just guessing).
It's mostly to do with the last glaciation. Trees were killed off and replaced by grasslands over much of the continent and the last refuge of high biodiversity was in the southeastern USA and a few pockets on the west coast. Trees then spread back northward and westward as the glaciers receded.

Generally you will always have lower biodiversity tree wise where there is high aridity, low temperatures and higher elevation. These are generally the conditions found over much of the continent from the last Ice Age on.
It's blocked a lot of the trees from spreading back across the landscape.

wa:do
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
So what do the numbers tell us? With 58 votes we have at least one vote in every category with the majority, 80%, falling in either "Humanity is partially or mostly" to blame. I admit that I'm surprised to see that 10% believe that GW is totally humanities fault. Anyway, does this tell us anything? Or is it just meaningless data that at least seems kind of interesting?
I think it shows that online polls are inherently unreliable. :cool:

But besides that, I'm willing to bet that the majority of members would fall under the "I don't really care" category... and really don't care enough to engage in a poll or discussion on the subject.

Only those with some sort of emotional interest in the subject will actively participate in such a discussion.

wa:do
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I picked that it's happening and that humans are partly to blame, but I could have easily picked "Don't Know, Don't Care".

The reason being, the primary things that cause greats amount of carbon dioxide to enter the air, are things that I think should be reduced or eliminated for different reasons, so global warming is just one more reason rather than the core reason (and in the media and the popular mindset, often works as a distraction, in my observation).

Oil, natural gas, and coal, and their derivatives, have gotten into the air, land, and sea in ways that they don't get in naturally. They're a major cause of worldwide pollution, and I support only using them for very limited things, and getting most energy from elsewhere.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
I know - it's appalling. When I was living in Europe, foot dragging on climate change was quickly becoming what Canada is famous for. ''Oh, you're from Canada - doesn't your country have the world's highest per capita carbon emissions?'' and ''What's with Canada trying to sabotage Kyoto all the time?'' and ''Oh, those filthy tar sands... THAT Canada..."
I never did as much traveling the globe as one of my older brothers and some of my cousins, and I can recall that in a long bygone era when it was safe to travel about in Mexico, I went down with a few friends on a tight budget with an old, beatup Econoline van. And we were told 'make sure you guys wear lots of Canadian flag pins, and put them on your backpacks so they know you're not Americans.' Nowadays, Canada is seen as a major environment offender, besides being a total flunkie for the worst foreign policy initiatives of the U.S.. Maybe today you have to pretend your from Sweden or Holland to be safe!

I can't wait until we get rid of Harper. He's such an embarrassment.
I hope we can get rid of Harper! The Conservatives are quietly at work proposing changes to election and campaign finance rules, and make our system as cash-dependent as the U.S. political system.

One thing that should be noted on the subject of our tar sands developments is that our allies who pretend to be neutral or disapproving of these toxic industries, are at work behind the scenes facilitating the investments in tar sands extractions of oil and their exports: Senate Republicans push bill expediting Keystone XL Pipeline decision

U.K. Secretly Promotes Canada Tar Sands, Despite Disastrous Implications For The World | ThinkProgress

It's like we're becoming the world's largest heroin dealer, and the U.S. and allies have decided to go their deaths feeding the habit, rather than kicking the habit!
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
From the article:

The northern polar region’s climate has materially changed over the past five years, a team of 121 scientists from 14 nations concludes in a December 1 Arctic report card. Compared with 2006 and earlier, they note, the Arctic is warmer and less icy.

Thoughts?
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Oooo, check this one out.

From the article

Brighten clouds with sea water? Spray aerosols high in the stratosphere? Paint roofs white and plant light-colored crops? How about positioning "sun shades" over the Earth?

At a time of deep concern over global warming, a group of scientists, philosophers and legal scholars examined whether human intervention could artificially cool the Earth — and what would happen if it did.

This is the kind of thing that scares me. Will measures to counter act Global Warming do more damage than good?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Oooo, check this one out.
From the article
This is the kind of thing that scares me. Will measures to counter act Global Warming do more damage than good?
Reducing solar energy reaching the Earth's surface is a stupid idea. The whole base of the food chain runs on solar energy.

Accidentally cut too much and you get some seriously bad side effects.

wa:do
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
Oooo, check this one out.

From the article



This is the kind of thing that scares me. Will measures to counter act Global Warming do more damage than good?
The accelerating CO2 rate and rapidly rising methane in the atmosphere, are evidence that positive feedback loops are already established, and mickey mouse strategies to reduce the amount of carbon we add to the atmosphere, like cap and trade negotiations in Durban, will be too little too late if global average temperatures increase 6C/11F by the end of this century. That sort of temperature increase would wipe out agriculture and civilization as we know it, so there doesn't seem to be any way out of trying some of these geoengineering strategies.

The problem is that at best, geoengineering would only stall the catastrophe temporarily to provide us some breathing room to get our act together and make serious changes to ensure longterm survival for future generations. If it becomes an excuse to go back to business as usual -- like the Green Revolution in agriculture did, by convincing world leaders to scrap efforts to stop population growth, then all bets are off! We responded to the Green Revolution by allowing world population to double, and use up that extra capacity for food production. Would the same thing happen with strategies to reduce anthropogenic carbon increases? Odds are that it would be back to burning as much coal and oil as is available.

The big problem with a lot of these geoengineering schemes is not unknown potential dangers, but instead the fact that they only address one aspect of increased carbon -- the green house effect. But what about other harmful results of increased CO2? Such as the disaster going on in the world's oceans -- ocean acidification, caused by the half of that atmospheric carbon that gets absorbed by the seas and dissolved as carbonic acid. Ocean acidification may be a bigger danger than the increased temperatures, judging by what happened during a similar event that caused a mass extinction at the end of the Permian Era, when the oceans became a toxic swamp with sulfate-reducing bacteria.
 

gnosticx

Member
of course the climate is changing ....i live in australia and our summers arnt summer anymore...its december and i still have my winter clothes out... 2 days ago it was like winter ...as to the cause....haarp definitely can be cited as a cause but maybe its because the sun is expanding and well weve just been lied to like always by the !#@?* illuminati so any talk about climate change cause by ozone layer depletion cause we buy THEIR products to survive has got to be laced with evidence tainted by money....so the question of climate change is a no brainer but the cause well....
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Ecosystems shift as climate changes

By 2100, nearly 40 percent of land-based ecosystems - forest, grassland or tundra, for example - will have moved from one type to another.

According to a modeling study from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology, global climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of Earth's land surface.

The projections indicate that many plant and animal species face increasing competition for survival. Most land that's not covered by ice or desert is projected to undergo at least a 30 percent change in plant cover - meaning humans and animals will need to adapt and often relocate.

"For more than 25 years, scientists have warned of the dangers of human-induced climate change," says Caltech scientist Jon Bergengren.

"While warnings of melting glaciers, rising sea levels and other environmental changes are illustrative and important, ultimately, it's the ecological consequences that matter most."

The scientists used a model that predicts the type of plant community that is uniquely adapted to any climate on Earth. This was used to simulate the future state of Earth's natural vegetation in harmony with climate projections from 10 different global climate simulations.

The simulations are based on the intermediate greenhouse gas scenario in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, which assumes greenhouse gas levels will double by 2100 and then level off. This predicts a warmer and wetter Earth, with global temperature increases of 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

The researchers found a shift of biomes toward the poles - most dramatically in temperate grasslands and boreal forests - and toward higher elevations.

Hotspots projected to undergo the greatest degree of species turnover include regions in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau, eastern equatorial Africa, Madagascar, the Mediterranean region, southern South America, and North America's Great Lakes and Great Plains areas.

"In this study, we have developed and applied two new ecological sensitivity metrics - analogs of climate sensitivity - to investigate the potential degree of plant community changes over the next three centuries," says Bergengren.

"The surprising degree of ecological sensitivity of Earth's ecosystems predicted by our research highlights the global imperative to accelerate progress toward preserving biodiversity by stabilizing Earth's climate."
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
"In this study, we have developed and applied two new ecological sensitivity metrics - analogs of climate sensitivity - to investigate the potential degree of plant community changes over the next three centuries," says Bergengren.

"The surprising degree of ecological sensitivity of Earth's ecosystems predicted by our research highlights the global imperative to accelerate progress toward preserving biodiversity by stabilizing Earth's climate."

Personally I think this should read "stabilizing humanities impact on Earths climate" instead.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member

Panda

42?
Premium Member
Global warming is happening, that is a clear and obvious fact anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or ridiculously uninformed.

The causes, well that is a different story. I have no doubt that humanity is having an effect on the climate but how much of an effect I'm not sure.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Global warming is happening, that is a clear and obvious fact anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or ridiculously uninformed.

The causes, well that is a different story. I have no doubt that humanity is having an effect on the climate but how much of an effect I'm not sure.

Judging from the poll, most folks here agree with you, I know I do.
 

Panda

42?
Premium Member
Judging from the poll, most folks here agree with you, I know I do.

Most people do and the vocal element dismissing it has decreased, along with the element that says humans have had no effect on it. Frozen Planet had a really good episode on the topic actually.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Most people do and the vocal element dismissing it has decreased, along with the element that says humans have had no effect on it. Frozen Planet had a really good episode on the topic actually.

I must admit, the permafrost info is pretty scary. Until recently I thought melting permafrost just meant sinking pipelines in Alaska. (Pipeline owners and operators are already scambling to shore up sinking pipelines.) I don't really see Humanity as a cause of global warming but more of an accelerant. But then again, most fires aren't all that dangerous without an accelerant.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I must admit, the permafrost info is pretty scary. Until recently I thought melting permafrost just meant sinking pipelines in Alaska. (Pipeline owners and operators are already scambling to shore up sinking pipelines.) I don't really see Humanity as a cause of global warming but more of an accelerant. But then again, most fires aren't all that dangerous without an accelerant.

The methane perma-frost issue is just the tip of the iceberg. There are several equally worrying positive feedback loops that are expected to kick in.

Wikipedia's article is pretty good.
Climate change feedback - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
The methane perma-frost issue is just the tip of the iceberg. There are several equally worrying positive feedback loops that are expected to kick in.

Wikipedia's article is pretty good.
Climate change feedback - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, its not the tip of the iceberg but the middle quadrant on the southern side. The semantics of what your saying could be misconstrued to...

Ow! That hurt! I was just kidding... :p
 
Top