Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?

[Father Heathen]

And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. Rev.16:8-9

Not on a train! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! Sam! Let me be!
I would not, could not, in a box.
I could not, would not, with a fox.
I will not eat them with a mouse
I will not eat them in a house.
I will not eat them here or there.
I will not eat them anywhere.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You also made the claim that life will rebuild and return to the state it was in before, and I have a lot of evidence now that this is false.

Really, I would have thought the fact that we were having this discussion was evidence that life returns. Also, I stated that complex life would return, not that it would be the same state as it was before. I don't see any dinosaurs roaming around do you? If we have had extinction events in the past and come back from them then I assume we would do so again. I am not basing my opinion on anything more than that. It has happened before therefore it is possible it could happen again. I think that is a fair assumption. Could the entire system implode and never again allow complex life to evolve? I suppose so but I really doubt that we are looking at an event of such magnitude. Do you? Do you honestly believe we could push the Earth that far?

No, but apparently what I've been told that UU congregations vary greatly with location seems to be true. You would probably find the Unitarian Church in my hometown something equivalent to being at an Occupy Wall Street demonstration.

Well, if you makes you feel any better, I'm not the best representative of the South. Since I was 10 years old I have spent my life traveling across the United States, the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia. I have rarely spent more than 2 years in any one location and I am now 45. So I don't fit into any regional "groups".

 

[javajo]

Not on a train! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! Sam! Let me be!
I would not, could not, in a box.
I could not, would not, with a fox.
I will not eat them with a mouse
I will not eat them in a house.
I will not eat them here or there.
I will not eat them anywhere.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Have you ever tried green eggs and ham? Don't knock 'em 'til ya try 'em! Better hurry if my verse proves true!

 

[Father Heathen]

Have you ever tried green eggs and ham? Don't knock 'em 'til ya try 'em! Better hurry if my verse proves true!

Green eggs and ham were served at the last supper.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Climate change means more frequent droughts and floods, U.N. panel says in report

The report says there is at least a 66 percent chance that climate extremes have changed as a result of greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities, including from coal-fired power plants and fuel burned through transportation.

Does anyone want to dispute that percentage? Is it too low or too high? Do you think exteme weather, like Huricanes and such, will become more and more extreme?

 

[Alceste]

Climate change means more frequent droughts and floods, U.N. panel says in report



Does anyone want to dispute that percentage? Is it too low or too high? Do you think exteme weather, like Huricanes and such, will become more and more extreme?

As a general rule, the IPCC has a pronounced tendency to understate the severity of the impact of climate change, so I am going to bet the percentage is on the low side.

Then again, what's a percentage worth anyway? It will either happen or it won't, regardless of the statistical probability if it happening. Considering that we are already seeing these effects, it's a bit of a no-brainer.

 

[painted wolf]

Climate change means more frequent droughts and floods, U.N. panel says in report

Does anyone want to dispute that percentage? Is it too low or too high? Do you think exteme weather, like Huricanes and such, will become more and more extreme?

I don't know enough about the subject to dispute figures, however...

There is some evidence showing that warmer surface ocean temperatures have been increasing the frequency and intensity of El nino and La nina cycles.

Ocean surface temperatures also influence the growth and intensity of hurricanes and monsoons.

Plus, the increasing severity of droughts on every continent is nothing new.

wa:do

 

[gnosticx]

the whole global warming bandwagon that centres around ozone depletion is a doodlebug. yes there is global warming but what were not being told is that it has something to do with the sun....

 

[Thief]

When I was younger....snow before Christmas was expected.
More likely than not....the ground would be covered by that day.
Old as I am, the more outstanding occasions are the ones I remember.
Nowadays, they are that...memories.

It's not unusual for snow to fall before Christmas.
We had a sprinkling of it, just a few days ago.
No ground cover, just flurries.
And even though it was unusual for the calender...'no big deal'.

What I hold as observation is how the seasons appear to be shifting.

The cold weather and snow are later in the year, and linger longer, into the next.

There are warming spells that clear the ground of snow and ice.

The attitude of the storms, snow or rain, are more intense.
Followed by what seems a complete reversal, only a day later.

Did anyone mention the north ice cap has thinned?.....a lot!!!!!
U.S. subs can now break ice and surface almost anywhere.

The southern ice cap is breaking into slabs and floating away.

The Sahara is growing a mile every year.

The fresh water land glaciers are disappearing.

Ice samples taken from long standing glaciers have history frozen into them.
The multiple layers show trends of weather many hundreds of years previous.
The current trend...looks bleak.
What was a yearly deposit of pollen in the layers, is all but gone.
The high altitude flowers are failing.

Satellite (weather) photos taken over several decades, show the average
temperature is raising....within my life time.....3degrees.
Sounds like a small amount.
However, when the earth was cooler by 7degrees...several thousand years ago...there was a glacier on top of what is now New York.


The difference?...man made chemistry floating in the air.
The industrializing of our life style is changing our planet.

 

[painted wolf]

the whole global warming bandwagon that centres around ozone depletion is a doodlebug. yes there is global warming but what were not being told is that it has something to do with the sun....

Actually ozone depletion is another issue entirely. It has to do with a different class of chemicals that are now highly regulated, and the ozone holes pretty much repaired themselves in just a few years after regulations were enacted.

And the link with solar activity has been refuted. for example:

If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

Climate Change: Causes

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

the whole global warming bandwagon that centres around ozone depletion is a doodlebug. yes there is global warming but what were not being told is that it has something to do with the sun....

Wow, seriously? Have you been living in a cardboard box at the bottom of a lake for the past 20 years?

 

[javajo]

I kinda agree with Theif. We don't get the snow around here like we used to when I was young. The glaciers are melting and all that. Something is definitely going on and I don't think it is just a cyclical deal. We can't go outside without sunscreen on anymore, so we know the ozone layer is being depleted and that is from co2 omissions is it not? (I'm no expert but I know what I know)

 

[painted wolf]

I kinda agree with Theif. We don't get the snow around here like we used to when I was young. The glaciers are melting and all that. Something is definitely going on and I don't think it is just a cyclical deal. We can't go outside without sunscreen on anymore, so we know the ozone layer is being depleted and that is from co2 omissions is it not? (I'm no expert but I know what I know)

The ozone layer is fine for now... we fixed that problem in the 1990's by banning CFC emissions. Loss of ozone does not increase temperatures it increases radiation exposure... the risk without an ozone is cancer related.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that raises atmospheric temperatures. It does not harm the ozone.

Two different problems. One was harder to ignore because it was swift, perfectly observable and killed people directly. One is slow, difficult to fully measure and kills indirectly.
One we were willing as a planet to solve... the other we aren't.

wa:do

 

[javajo]

The ozone layer is fine for now... we fixed that problem in the 1990's by banning CFC emissions. Loss of ozone does not increase temperatures it increases radiation exposure... the risk without an ozone is cancer related.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that raises atmospheric temperatures. It does not harm the ozone.

Two different problems. One was harder to ignore because it was swift, perfectly observable and killed people directly. One is slow, difficult to fully measure and kills indirectly.
One we were willing as a planet to solve... the other we aren't.

wa:do

Right, thanks! (little brain-dead today). Do you think we will be able to solve this problem? Is China at the most fault? We need jobs in the U.S. right now, so more regulations are unwelcome by many, is there a way we can emit less CO2 and still create jobs? I don't think we should ignore the problem, but find ways to address it now before its too late while still being productive.

 

[Thief]

The ozone layer is fine for now... we fixed that problem in the 1990's by banning CFC emissions. Loss of ozone does not increase temperatures it increases radiation exposure... the risk without an ozone is cancer related.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that raises atmospheric temperatures. It does not harm the ozone.

Two different problems. One was harder to ignore because it was swift, perfectly observable and killed people directly. One is slow, difficult to fully measure and kills indirectly.
One we were willing as a planet to solve... the other we aren't.

wa:do

Just a touch more detail...just saying....
ozone blocks uv light, and we are sensitive.

But that layer of gas ozone is only a few inches thick....I've heard...
only six inches.
Seems like a thin layer to be so important.
The correction though is not complete.
The chemistry that breaks the o2 molecule has been reduced....
but not fully done.
Any vapor that reacts with o2, and is light enough to float upward...
will continue to be a problem.

Carbon emissions are in huge abundance.
That collection of gases allows the infra red all the way to the surface of the earth.
Then the carbon gases hold on to it.

Plant trees!
Don't mow your lawn!

 

[javajo]

Yeah the ozone layer is still damaged cuz we gotta wear sunscreen now. Skin cancer is way up, so if you're looking for a career, dermatology may be the way to go.

 

[painted wolf]

Right, thanks! (little brain-dead today). Do you think we will be able to solve this problem? Is China at the most fault? We need jobs in the U.S. right now, so more regulations are unwelcome by many, is there a way we can emit less CO2 and still create jobs? I don't think we should ignore the problem, but find ways to address it now before its too late while still being productive.

Of course we can still create jobs without fossil fuels... oil isn't a magical substance that suddenly makes jobs appear.

That's like worrying that letting people fly airplanes would kill the car industry.

It doesn't matter who's more at fault... we can only fix what we are doing and then hope to convince others later.

Yeah the ozone layer is still damaged cuz we gotta wear sunscreen now. Skin cancer is way up, so if you're looking for a career, dermatology may be the way to go.

No, we wear it because even though the ozone layer blocks a large amount of uv it can't block it all. And that's a good thing.
The ozone holes that used to be in the north and south polar regions don't make you have to wear sunscreen.

It was increasing cancer risks in countries like Australia and Argentina as well as starting to become a problem for places like Alaska, Canada, Russia and the Nordic countries. Meanwhile most of the CFC's were coming from nations like the USA.

wa:do

 

[work in progress]

Really, I would have thought the fact that we were having this discussion was evidence that life returns. Also, I stated that complex life would return, not that it would be the same state as it was before. I don't see any dinosaurs roaming around do you? If we have had extinction events in the past and come back from them then I assume we would do so again. I am not basing my opinion on anything more than that. It has happened before therefore it is possible it could happen again. I think that is a fair assumption. Could the entire system implode and never again allow complex life to evolve? I suppose so but I really doubt that we are looking at an event of such magnitude. Do you? Do you honestly believe we could push the Earth that far?

Yes I do. The record from past major extinctions indicates that it takes a long time to return the same level of diversity of life afterwards. If we set an extinction cycle in motion that poisons the atmosphere and turns the oceans into a toxic soup, it's very likely that the Earth would not have enough time left to generate a whole new class of plants and animals to replace what was lost.

250 million years from now, the Earth's continents will once again close in together and form a giant supercontinent -- just as they did by forming Pangea at the end of the Permian Era 250 million years ago, and unleashing the geologic forces that caused an abrupt change in climate that led to the greatest mass extinction in history. Even prior to that -- in as little as 100 million years (according to a study conducted by James Lovelock back in the 70's) the gradual sequestering of carbon from the atmosphere will lower CO2 levels below 150 ppm....lower than the level needed by most plants for photosynthesis. As the plants die, so do the animals, so within a few hundred million years (a short period by geologic standards) the Earth is back to where it started -- with microbes as the only form of life!

So, if there was 100 to 200 million years after a major extinction of life on Earth to rebuild, would there be another flourishing of plants and animals during that time? It's anyone's guess, but I wouldn't bet on it!

Well, if you makes you feel any better, I'm not the best representative of the South. Since I was 10 years old I have spent my life traveling across the United States, the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia. I have rarely spent more than 2 years in any one location and I am now 45. So I don't fit into any regional "groups".

The UU's are usually the most liberal church in town wherever they are located. That's why that clown, who had all of the books and videos of O'Reilly, Beck and Limbaugh, went on a shooting rampage at the Unitarian church in Knoxville Tennessee, a few years ago. But, being a liberal in the deep south might not be exactly the same as in more liberal locations.

 

[work in progress]

Of course we can still create jobs without fossil fuels... oil isn't a magical substance that suddenly makes jobs appear.

Although, I think it would be a mistake to assume that renewables could or even should provide the same level of cheap, abundant energy (especially for transportation) that mainstream conservative and liberal capitalists are expecting to maintain our debt-based economic system....which can't exist without continually growing. That's why there are so many dead-enders on the right who have already decided to double down and go for broke by going after the deepest and foulest reserves of fossil fuels left on the planet.

For electricity needs, solar and wind power are not going to provide the baseload power that is done now by coal, oil and gas. And, if we factor in resource depletion and growing water shortages around the world -- the point should be made that we need more than alternative fuels. We need a completely different way of life, that isn't centered on consumption and waste. Sustainability for the long term is going to depend on reducing world population and zero growth economics.

 

[Thief]

Of course we can still create jobs without fossil fuels... oil isn't a magical substance that suddenly makes jobs appear.

That's like worrying that letting people fly airplanes would kill the car industry.

It doesn't matter who's more at fault... we can only fix what we are doing and then hope to convince others later.

No, we wear it because even though the ozone layer blocks a large amount of uv it can't block it all. And that's a good thing.
The ozone holes that used to be in the north and south polar regions don't make you have to wear sunscreen.

It was increasing cancer risks in countries like Australia and Argentina as well as starting to become a problem for places like Alaska, Canada, Russia and the Nordic countries. Meanwhile most of the CFC's were coming from nations like the USA.

wa:do

I took a look...just saying..

'Antarctica will continue to experience excess surface uv.'

Ozone values remain below 1964-1980 levels.

from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) 2010

Blaming the U.S....?
It's more than refrigerant fluids and Styrofoam.