Do you care about the enviroment?

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

Do you care about the enviroment?

No!
2
10%
Yes.It is a very important issue.
19
90%
I don't know.
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 21

Postby Bladen » Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:25 pm

We've all got our point of views on it, I'm not saying that he's basing it on the hyped media version, I'm just clarifying what I mean by media hype. a PHD, eh? wow, I'm taking up environmental sciences next year, only A-Level though, I'm basing what I say on what I've read up, the information just leaks in when I read these documents, problem is they're hard to come by so I only know so much.

So, it's either the economy or the entire planet, America's gonna need to make the sacrifice because sooner or later, I mean they've got most of the world telling them to shove it. 3rd world country pverty always manages to seep into these issues.
User avatar
Bladen
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Tyneside

Postby Thirteen-thirty-seven » Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:06 pm

According to the Stern report. Global warming will damage the economy far more than the effects of cutting emissions.
Image
User avatar
Thirteen-thirty-seven
Forum God !
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England

Postby intowiz » Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:57 pm

the stern report pretty much is a things to come essay.
"Dance on, lads, you're young; I was once."
Old manx sailor, Moby dick
User avatar
intowiz
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:43 am

Postby mattie » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:26 am

I do take the environment very seriously. In fact, I would go as far as saying that global warming is the biggest and most serious issue facing the world today. We should all do our part to minimise our carbon emissions. We can all save on things like power, car usage, recycling etc.


Mattie.
mattie
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:35 am

Postby Bladen » Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:17 pm

Intersting, take a look at what I found.

The Climate Debate turns ugly

It's been a bad year for Global Warming Alarmists. Researchers are finding more and more evidence of natural warming events in the earth's past, events that were far more rapid and dramatic than first thought. Several scientists, disgusted with the media's refusal to carry their mesage accurately, have begun writing letters and books. Even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has long been the most vocal supporter of climate alarmism, has finished its Fourth Assessment report, which lowers worst case estimates sharply, and cuts in half long-term predictions for sea level rise. Evidence of the beneficial aspects of continues to mount, with arctic seal populations increasing, longer growing seasons, and less extreme temperature swings.

Is it any wonder environmentalists are getting even more emotional in the debate? In public, they state they simply want "truth to out," but the reality is a bit different. Recently, Weather Channel host Heidi Cullen made a strong bid to silence the opposition, calling for the removal of AMS certification for meteorologists who challenged the belief in catastrophic human-induced global warming. In it, she compared global warming denial to "going on air and saying that hurricanes rotate clockwise," apparently herself unaware that in the southern hemisphere hurricanes do indeed rotate in this direction. Cullen's statement immediately provoked outrage from meteorologists around the nation, with one of them angrily proclaiming, "I don't know a single meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype."

Heidi Cullen gained earlier fame for hosting environmental writer David Roberts, who openly called for Nuremberg-style war crimes trials (complete with death sentences) for any scientist brave enough to dispute the public hysteria on global warming. How's that for support of scientific truth and free speech? In the past, reporters just hung up on scientists who didn't agree with their beliefs ... now they want to lynch them!

Luckily, its not yet illegal to research the true causes of global warming. Late last year, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer released his book, Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 Years), detailing the current warming trend's correspondence with a natural 1500-year cycle. Singer notes that most of the current warming ocurred before 1940, and thus before the majority of man's CO2 emissions. He further notes that, since 1940, the earth experienced one 30-year long cooling trend, followed by a 30-year warming trend...both of which were much smaller than the warming right after 1900. Singer's documenting of 600 past historical events of rapid warming further supports his views.

Also, Danish Physicist Henrik Svensmark has a book coming out next month: The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. In it, he details his research on cosmic radiation-induced atmospheric cloud formation. Svensmark points out that already-observed changes in solar flux act to reduce cloud cover, and thus cause the earth to reflect less solar radiation back into space. This quite obviously causes a moderate degree of warming...just as we've seen.

Is global warming a man-made danger ... or a part of a natural cycle? More and more scientiests are leaning to the latter. Will the media be brave enough to report their research, or will public hysteria win the day?


from google news.
Tell me what you think of it.
User avatar
Bladen
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Tyneside

Postby mattie » Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:49 pm

Tell me what you think of it.


Rubbish. Sounds to me like the author was merely expressing his/her own opinion.

Is global warming a man-made danger ... or a part of a natural cycle? More and more scientiests are leaning to the latter.


That is simply not true! The vast majority of the world's respected scientists believe that global warming is predominantly man-made.

As for the evidence.. Is it merely a coincedence that as countries underwent the process of industrialisation, our climate became progressively milder ? It seems almost ludicrous to think that before the 1800s the River Thames used to freeze over for long periods.
mattie
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:35 am

Postby Kentigern » Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:11 pm

This article seems as hysterical as the hsyteria it is trying to counter!

It's been a bad year for Global Warming Alarmists. Researchers are finding more and more evidence of natural warming events in the earth's past, events that were far more rapid and dramatic than first thought. Several scientists, disgusted with the media's refusal to carry their mesage accurately, have begun writing letters and books. Even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has long been the most vocal supporter of climate alarmism, has finished its Fourth Assessment report, which lowers worst case estimates sharply, and cuts in half long-term predictions for sea level rise.


I don't deny that there are many warming events in the past, and I don't deny that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has cut some of it's worse case scenarios. in the past two hundred years large volcanic eruptions (Krakatoa, Iceland) has caused variations in climate. Looking at the small detail, it is possible that there are localised times of cooling. However the overall longterm trend is one of warming.

Evidence of the beneficial aspects of continues to mount, with arctic seal populations increasing, longer growing seasons, and less extreme temperature swings.


What about people in Bangladesh who are now slowly being flooded? What about the people in Africa starving because of a lack of rainfall? With any warming there may be benefits. However I would argue that with this warming there are significant non-benefits.

Is it any wonder environmentalists are getting even more emotional in the debate? In public, they state they simply want "truth to out," but the reality is a bit different. Recently, Weather Channel host Heidi Cullen made a strong bid to silence the opposition, calling for the removal of AMS certification for meteorologists who challenged the belief in catastrophic human-induced global warming. In it, she compared global warming denial to "going on air and saying that hurricanes rotate clockwise," apparently herself unaware that in the southern hemisphere hurricanes do indeed rotate in this direction. Cullen's statement immediately provoked outrage from meteorologists around the nation, with one of them angrily proclaiming, "I don't know a single meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype."

Heidi Cullen gained earlier fame for hosting environmental writer David Roberts, who openly called for Nuremberg-style war crimes trials (complete with death sentences) for any scientist brave enough to dispute the public hysteria on global warming. How's that for support of scientific truth and free speech? In the past, reporters just hung up on scientists who didn't agree with their beliefs ... now they want to lynch them!


I certainly wouldn't agree with silencing people who disagree with the mainstream view. However this article is unfairly taking the actions of two people as typical of all climatologists who believe that man is responsible.

I don't believe in lynching anyone, and I am happy to listen to people who think otherwise, but currently I am convinced that global warmng at the moment is mans fault. So is the vast majority of scientific opinion. The Intergovernmental report consulted with thousands of climate scientists in it's compilation.

Luckily, its not yet illegal to research the true causes of global warming. Late last year, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer released his book, Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 Years), detailing the current warming trend's correspondence with a natural 1500-year cycle. Singer notes that most of the current warming ocurred before 1940, and thus before the majority of man's CO2 emissions. He further notes that, since 1940, the earth experienced one 30-year long cooling trend, followed by a 30-year warming trend...both of which were much smaller than the warming right after 1900. Singer's documenting of 600 past historical events of rapid warming further supports his views.


I would like to see this guys evidence. It would have to be global in extent, and I find it difficult to believe that it is! As far as I am aware we don't have many accurate ways of telling what gobal climate has been doing over the last 1500 years. One can use tree rings to get trends, but they only go back so far. One can use ice cores, but one cannot measure the temperature accurately from these and there is no direct record i.e. as I recall temperature is measured from proxies which may respond to other things going on. I'm sceptical, but I haven't seen his evidence.

Also, Danish Physicist Henrik Svensmark has a book coming out next month: The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. In it, he details his research on cosmic radiation-induced atmospheric cloud formation. Svensmark points out that already-observed changes in solar flux act to reduce cloud cover, and thus cause the earth to reflect less solar radiation back into space. This quite obviously causes a moderate degree of warming...just as we've seen.

This is slightly more believeable, but again I have not seen his evidence, and I don't know if the majority of physicists would agree with him. It sounds all theoretical. Has he actually measured planetery cloud cover (which has only been possible since the 1970's) to see if it has an effect. Theories need supporting facts before they can be believed.

Is global warming a man-made danger ... or a part of a natural cycle? More and more scientiests are leaning to the latter. Will the media be brave enough to report their research, or will public hysteria win the day?


On the basis of this aritcle I find the conclusion that more and more scientists are leaning towrds global warming being natural unconvincing. They present two scientists contradictory oppinion to the mainstream, and seem to base their idea that more and more scientists are aginst man-made global warming on that. My impression indeed is that the opposite is happening. More and more scientists are realising thatw e are responsible.
Gordon Lawrence

Image
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

Postby Bladen » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:15 pm

it depends on what kind of science the scientist is majoring in aswell.

You can learn the contents of the atmosphere through ice and sediment core though. back in Neolithic times, late stone age, it was 15 degrees warmer.
The earth warming and cooling is nothing new and natural but I have to admit that human action is indeed affecting the rate and severity. The only way you can get the truth is to ask the actual scientists and not pay attention to the media at all. I'd like to read that bloke's book and see his evidence to that statement, there has been proven patterns in hurricane season severity though. Look at coral islands and you can see the changes of sea level through the earth's history through the reamins of coral in rocks.

By the way it's spelt Krakatau and it was in Idonesia, major 3 way fault line, Anak Krakatau (Child Of Krakatau) is around the same size as Krakatau was in the 19th century but no signs of a cataclysmic eruption like that are visible.

Pinatubo's 1991 eruption was so intense it cooled earth temperatures by 2 degrees for several YEARS. I mean, that's only small in comparison to what that one at Yellowstone can do and that volcano is overdue to erupt.
If it blows there's going to be alot of hell around the area of the USA aswell as global cooling for a while. You got to take into hand that volcanic eruptions can also unleash alot of carbon that can result in global warming too. Man there's too much to take in hand here, I think that the scientific estimation of earth by 2300 is a load of crap taking these into hand though. These estimations are based on the possibility things continue as they are and no volcanoes erupt for the next few hundred years which is entirely possible but not likely.

I'm one of those people that takes one side but takes into hand of the other side of the arguement, I can see where you're all coming from and that but it aint gonna get me changing me mind.

I'd explain some more of what little I know some time later if someone asks me to.
User avatar
Bladen
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Tyneside

Postby Kentigern » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:51 pm

You can learn the contents of the atmosphere through ice and sediment core though. back in Neolithic times, late stone age, it was 15 degrees warmer.


You can learn the contents of the atmospere with respect to various gases yes. As I recall though the link between what gases there were and the likely global temperature is rather difficult to work out.

One way it is done is by using computer models, these are often unreliable, as the accuracy of the model depends on how well we know about all the various feedbacks etc. We don't know these accurately, therefore different models will come up with different answers.

The other way it is done is using the link between carbom dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature. This is fairly well known. I do know however that the whole earth was not 15 degrees warmer as recently geologically as you suggest. Temperatures do not change so quickly, and the majority of scientific oppinion is with me on this one. The earth has been in "glacial" mode for the last 30million years or so, before that it was likely 10 degrees hotter.

Look at coral islands and you can see the changes of sea level through the earth's history through the reamins of coral in rocks.


Various methods have been used to estimate sea level, and most of them are notoriously unreliable. The principle reason for this is that at any given locality there are two factors that affect apparent changes in sea level. Sea level may rise and fall, but also land goes up and down. Sea level changes at the same time all over the earth. land goes up and down at different times. For example today Norway is going up and East Africa is going down. We often don't know whether sea level is rising or falling, because we don't know what the land was doing at any given point in time.

Corals are good at telling you about the chemistry of the ocean, and the chemistry of the cean can be used to estimate temperature of the water, global ice volume, and a variety of other things.
Also corals can only be sampled usually at 100000 year intervals, so they tell us nothing about climate variation over the timescale of hundreds of years.

Pinatubo's 1991 eruption was so intense it cooled earth temperatures by 2 degrees for several YEARS. I mean, that's only small in comparison to what that one at Yellowstone can do and that volcano is overdue to erupt.
If it blows there's going to be alot of hell around the area of the USA aswell as global cooling for a while. You got to take into hand that volcanic eruptions can also unleash alot of carbon that can result in global warming too. Man there's too much to take in hand here, I think that the scientific estimation of earth by 2300 is a load of crap taking these into hand though. These estimations are based on the possibility things continue as they are and no volcanoes erupt for the next few hundred years which is entirely possible but not likely.


The effect of volcanos is very difficult to model, but it has been done. The general consensus is that winters may be cooler or summers warmer. That effect may occur the other way round. Some areas will cool while other areas will warm. What happens depends on how powerful the eruption is, where in the world latitude wise it happens, what the wind is doing at the time, the season it erupts in, and so on and so forth.

Incidentally Pinatubo caused cooling of around 0.4 degrees celsius world wide. Yellowstone (which is extremely unlikely to erupt in our lifetime, and which I think is due without being hideously overdue) would do a lot more damage.
Gordon Lawrence

Image
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

Postby Bladen » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:55 pm

Yellowstone can blow at any time by what I know, the geysers in the area have stopped and the hills are bulging all from pressure coming to the surface or something.

There hasn't really been many cataclysmic volcanic eruptions on a scale large enough to show us what they can really do.
User avatar
Bladen
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Tyneside

Postby Kentigern » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:03 pm

There haven't been any large scale eruptions no. However we can look in the geological record, and we can model reasonably well what might happen.

Yellowstone is an unstable area with lots of variables changing all the time. We have not been measuring there or watching Yellowstone for long enough to know whether the current behaviour is normal or abnormal. It has been known to bulge then relax before, and this is normal behaviour which doesn't necesarily mean that an eruption is iniment.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_supervolcano

It sums up current scientific thinking reasonably accurately on the subject. I have been looking in general at Wikipedia, it is a reasonable (but not outstanding) source of good accurate scientific information.
Gordon Lawrence

Image
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

Postby Bladen » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:36 pm

I still reckon it's gonna blow within the next 50 years. Normal or not this kind of behaviour does mean something but not anything to care about until it nears breaking point. See if something ABnormal happens several times it becomes normal, it has to mean something, all in all, right? I'm gonna need to read up some more Vulcanology documents, been reading too much into Meteorology
User avatar
Bladen
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Tyneside

Postby Kentigern » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:55 pm

Bladen,

Yellowstone erupts every 600,000years, but may erupt up to 150,000years early or late. (This is grossly simplified btw). The last eruption was around 600,000years ago. For the purposes of this argument Yellowstone is 50 years overdue.

This periodicity is equvalent to something happening at 12noon every day, which maty happen up to six hours early or late. If Yellowstone is 50 years overdue, then that is the equivalent to this imaginary event being 17.28seconds overdue, and this imaginary event could happen anytime in the next five hours, fifty nine minutes and 42.72 seconds.

As you can see from thinking about it this way, Yellowstone is not seriously overdue, and furthermore is unlikely to erupt in our life time.

Gordon
Gordon Lawrence

Image
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

Postby Bladen » Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:14 pm

you do know that's about as precise as they can get, getting into deeper figures and so on could take it to 610,300 or something, it's only accurate to the nearest 100,000 or 1000. could even be in the 500,000s or so. I'm not looking at the relatative dates, I'm saying this from a view at looking at the activity going on in the area and the fact that these are usually associated with definate volcanic activity. I may be wrong, you may be wrong, we're not going to know until it blows, all we do know is that it WILL blow, it's a matter of when.
User avatar
Bladen
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Tyneside

Postby Kentigern » Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:18 pm

Of course I know that. Youy are talking to a Geologist who knows all about inprecission and errors of 500000years (which geologically speaking isnt very long at all)!

Gordon :)
Gordon Lawrence

Image
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

PreviousNext

Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

cron