You think global warming is a problem?

Kmguru, Patagonia and the Amazon basin (about twice the size of the US) have less than 1 person by square km. Add to that regions most Asia (Siberia, most of Africa, the Middle East, Mongolia, and Australia) and you see the Earth is barely populated. Divide the Earth's surface by population and will find out the unhabitants/km2 figure. (Remember that Europe has about 400 unhabitants/km2).

if we apply the adequate technologies, those regions could be transformed into useful areas for populations. But greens will never allow this dream become true. :(
 
Britain!

have less than 1 person by square km
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats because they have all come here,but do not show on the figures ,because they have entered illegally!
:( :D :D
 
h_india_map_02.jpg


Satellite imagery being presented today shows that the great majority of the world's glaciers are melting at rates equal to or greater than long-established trends, including some that are receding at alarming and accelerating paces….


Glacier changes in the next 100 years could significantly affect agriculture, water supplies, hydroelectric power, transportation, mining, coastlines, and ecological habitats, the research team predicts…

According to a 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scientists estimate that surface temperatures could rise by 1.4°C to 5.8°C by the end of the century. The researchers have found a strong correlation between increasing temperatures and glacier retreat.

For the rest of the article: here
 
Apparently we had a mini ice age 200 years ago. So it is taking that long to melt the ice because of the way the sunlight interacts with ice and water. So if it was the result of the mini ice age, should not we blame the people 200 years ago that did some nasty stuff to themselves? :D
 
The bad news

crowley_fig6.jpg

Comparison of the GHG forcing response with six residuals determined by removing all forcing except GHG from the two different temperature reconstructions in Fig. 1. As in Fig.5, the three different estimates of solar variability were used to get one estimate of the uncertainty in the response. This figure illustrates that GHG changes can explain the 20th century rise in the residuals; +/-2 standard deviation lines (horizontal dashed lines) refer to maximum variability of residuals from Fig. 5A (inner dashes) and maximum variability (outer dashes) of the original pre-1850 time series (Fig 1). The projected 21st century temperature increase (heavy dashed line at right) uses the IPCC BAU scenario (the "so called IS92a forcing")(59) for both GHG and aerosols (sulfate and biomass burning, including indirect effects), and the model simulation was run at the same sensitivity (2.0 C for a doubling of CO2) as other model simulations in this article.

Ref: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html

Here is a better picture from another source:

_fig1.gif


The problem is same data produces two different outcomes. One shows an exponential rise of temperature while the other shows a slight increase from the 1000 AD though marked increase from 1600-1700 mini iceage which should be natural. May be we are at the tail end of that mini ice age.

I think no one has a clue in this prediction methodology....
 
Last edited:
plankton problems in sea of japan?

from 3/28/2001:

"Japanese Scientists, Fishermen Say Global Warming Killing Sea of Japan - Catches Down 62% Over Last 10 Years as Warming Waters Shut Down Ocean Currents that Bring Nutrients to Surface Plankton; Sea's Failure Could be Model for Collapse of Rest of World's Oceans. "

...

"At CREAMS, the Centre for the Research of East Asian Marginal Seas, a joint research team of scientists from Japan, South Korea and Russia, has since 1993 accumulated enough data to confirm what the fishermen fear. They have been measuring the currents, salinity and oxygen levels up and down a stretch of water in the Sea of Japan. What they have found confirms their worst fears."

link at http://www.frim.gov.my/Hutanasli2/drjenny/Oceans and climate change.htm

is this a solid study?
 
Last edited:
is this a solid study?
The link you provided didn't actually give the name of the study, but there is enough informatin to track down the origin of the study. I will check this "CReAM" project, and after some analysis and checkups I would be able to say something about its seriousness.

The web link also contained a second article (source CNN --that makes it suspicious) about the increased rate of CO2 absorption of phytoplanktons and algae (this has been noticed by many scientists, though), but tries to diminish the CO2 intake increase by surface plants, thing that has also been well established.

Lots of politics here... Most of the time, it is hard to tell when science leaves off and politics takes over.
 
<font color=red size=5><B>Australia Set to Reject Global Warming Treaty</B></font>

<B>DATE:</B> June 5, 2002

<B>BACKGROUND:</B> Reuters News Service reports that Australian Prime Minister John Howard said today his government will not ratify the Kyoto Treaty because of the economic impact it would have on jobs there. Howard said, "For us to ratify the protocol would cost us jobs and damage our industry." The Kyoto Treaty aims to cut worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases but provides exemptions to developing nations. President Bush has said he will not implement the treaty because of the harm it would do to the economy. The U.S. Senate passed a resolution 95-0 in 1997 that says the Senate will not ratify any treaty that would harm the U.S. economy or fails to require developing nations to reduce emissions.

<B>TEN SECOND RESPONSE:</B> Australia should be applauded for standing up to pressure from environmentalists and instead choosing to protect jobs for its people.

<B>THIRTY SECOND RESPONSE:</B> Like Australia, the U.S. has wisely chosen not to ratify this treaty because of the enormous burden it would impose on our economy. President Bush should be aware there are provisions in the Senate version of the energy bill that mirror the Kyoto Treaty and run contrary to his recently re-affirmed position on global warming policy.

<B>DISCUSSION:</B> The Kyoto Treaty, designed to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, was signed in 1997 but never ratified by the U.S. Senate. For it to go into effect it must be ratified by nations producing at least 55 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Just this week Japan ratified the treaty but European nations, Russia and Canada still have not ratified it. There is no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance of the nations that sign the treaty.

Howard's government in Australia has said it favors a voluntary emissions reduction plan much like the one the Bush Administration has proposed in the United States.

<B>FOR MORE INFORMATION:</B> See <B><A HREF="http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html">"Kyoto Questions and Answers"</A></B> or <B><A HREF="http://www.nationalcenter.org/Bonn2001.html">"Global Warming: Charges and Responses"</A></B>.
 
a brief opinion

Good article, it is eye-opening.

Despite the catastrophist/liberal/etc image I seemed to have built up throughout many of my posts, I do wish to say, that it would certainly not be a good idea to implement a large volume of pollution stabilization strategies into all of society, in any intrusive, disorganized and/or imposed debilitating way, and any plan put forth should absolutely be reasonable and fairly taking economy and hard working people into account.

What seems to be the real question in my mind, is how long a time period does president Bush envision, for a plan he would approve of, to have layed out, in which to alleviate the various types [CO2, CO, NOx, SOx, toluene/xylene in petrol, etc. from industrial production, related health problems] specifically with regards to air pollution. I speak strictly in terms of industrially related pollution now, not of global warming.

Ill probably do a search on this tomorrow or something. Take care
 
Last edited:
The problem with our government is - they do not understand what a "in moderation" means. From our justice department to rules and regulations, everything is in extremes. A friend of mine was out of town when he got summons for a court appearance for the traffic ticket he has already paid. When he returned, they hauled him in on a Friday night so that he had to wait till Monday to straighten out the misunderstanding/mistake.

Now that we have a terrorist threat hanging over our head, hopefully the government would monitor air and water quality to keep it safe.

Industrial pollutions are a problem - but only in a chronic basis. If you inhale say Xylene for 2 to 3 days 2 to 3 times the government safety limit, you will develop lung problems. But if you do not inhale further - the problem will go away and the body will recover. The government should do research as to what is acceptable and what can be solved through technology. As it happens today, most refineries and chemical plants release chemicals to the atmosphre at night but the total amount is calculated based on a 24 hour period. Sometimes the industry complains and rightly so that technology is not available to manage certain pollutants. So, instead of making a ruling that one can not pollute using that item, there should be an infrastructure setup to solve those issues taking into account the population density and other effects in that particular area.

A holistic approach is the best way to solve these man made pollutions which sometimes cost society dearly. Unfortunately our government does not have too many smart people (they go to industry) nor does hire retired smart people to manage these issues.

So, what Bush will do is anybodies guess....
 
Global Warming Questions (many!)

This debate over global warming tends to get out of hand because the baseline of beliefs isn't established, so let me ask some questions to establish what people believe here:

* Do you believe that the earth has periods of global warming and global cooling?

* If so, do you believe that the earth is currently in a period of global warming?

* Do you believe that severe global warming can occur in short periods of time (much less than 100 years)?

* If so, do you believe that the activities of man is and will be making this period of global warming much more severe?

* Do you believe that "runaway" global warming is a possibility (that is warming that is so severe and so fast that most life is wiped out before the earth can compensate)?

* Do you believe that severe global warming could have a very detrimental effect on a significant portion of life on the earth (including man)?

* Do you believe that global warming that results in signifcant death of the human population on earth would be a "good thing" or a "bad thing"?

* Do you believe that man should do something to curb or curtail its activities in order to control global warming?

Let the debate begin... :)
 
BatM

When you think about this,please do not forget that there are a lot of people making a good living out of global warming.
Put that in to your equation!
 
Re: BatM

Originally posted by odin
When you think about this, please do not forget that there are a lot of people making a good living out of global warming. Put that in to your equation!

Hmmmm. So maybe I should add the following questions?

* Would large-scale efforts to reduce man's effect on global climate changes directly impact your lifestyle?

* If so, does that color your belief in the issue of global warming?

Ultimately, though, my original questions were intended to make it more apparent whether a particular debater was really making a reasonable judgement about the problem. For instance, a person who's maing a good living from global warming (eg. car manufacturers) would probably fall out near the beginning of my questions because they wouldn't believe in global warming. Those more inclined to believe would hopefully provide details on why they believe.
 
Unfortunately our government does not have too many smart people (they go to industry)...

How true. The CFR's are literally cobbled together from industry "best practices". They are a madhouse of sometimes working, sometimes of wholly inadequate practices. One such practice is the elimination of liquid Freon, used in water testing, to verify on site that a particular location is meeting the water quality standards required by the CFR's and EPA. The trouble with this is that at the time of the mandate there was no other, easy to accomplish test, that would fit the requirements of a wide variety of applications that the CFR's cover. Hence a "blind eye" has been turned towards the industries that still use Freon as a method of determining that they have met daily standards of water quality. Technology has caught up with the situation since. There are now other methods available to allow the testing of water but the expense to verify these requirements have went through the roof.

For those unaware of what the CFR's are, (Congressional Federal Regulations) they are the laws that all industries are required to meet to operate safely, protect people, and the environment. How rigidly they are enforced depends upon the size of the company, the inspector, and what is the hot item of the month from the inspection team.
 
Ideally you should be at -0.2. We are getting warmer because we were cooler during the mini ice age. The data from past 1000 years was run through a neural net with a process balance subprogram. The plot is really a crude one because I did not have the actual numbers from the last 1000 years which varies depending who collected them and averaged them. So I took the average from five different graphs.

I think Earth is trying to balance the temperature from the last mini ice age and getting warmer but will peak and then go down. I do not think, humans can provide that much heat capacity to make a dent on. On the otherhand if we do provide heat, then the peak will be slightly larger until it automatically goes down in a shorter cycle. The grapgh looks like a standard temperature controller for any industrial furnace or heat exchanger.
 
Originally posted by kmguru
I think Earth is trying to balance the temperature from the last mini ice age and getting warmer but will peak and then go down. I do not think, humans can provide that much heat capacity to make a dent on. On the otherhand if we do provide heat, then the peak will be slightly larger until it automatically goes down in a shorter cycle. The graph looks like a standard temperature controller for any industrial furnace or heat exchanger.

What is the mechanism that will kick in to cause the cool down when the Earth reaches this coming peak? Where will the heat go?

:confused:
 
Back
Top