NEWS: Northern Hemisphere Nearing Point of No Return on Global Warming.

Originally posted by Shaker
After the movie Day After Tomorrow it seems that many mainstream scientists and the like are taking that seriously. Who knows... maybe Hollywood got this right...

If they got that right, what about other movies?

That movie was based on the Art Bell- Whitley Streiber book
The Coming Global Superstorm.
They seem to have been correct for the most part, though I have not read the book, I remember their public collaborations on the contents of it.
See the mini-series by Speilberg called Taken==RAW TRUTH..imo

Originally posted by astrocreep

Well, I agree with the general premise of that ideology but this topic doesn't relate. It may be sad that an uncontrollable natural cycle outweigh the lives of everyone but such is life on a DYNAMIC planet. I don't think there is a thing mankind can do except to adapt.

Ofcourse, that is only true if you assume, and you are assuming, that mankind has nothing to do with this. Which is, at least IMO, equally foolish to assume that as to assume that mankind is alone in the blame.

The funny thing is that maybe there are 10 things for global warming, and ten things for the ice age. Both equally naturally occuring. Introduce man's changes either for or against either side and what happens? Change. Is man solely to blame for the change? Depends on how you look at it doesn't it? In one sense no because there are ten other things(either way that change the outcome), but yes in the sense that it is man's actions that are throwing off the balance.

Which is what it is all about isn't it? Balance?

Whoa, no one said Hollywood got it right, just pointing out the fact that if you've watched the film then more and more of this strange weather that is happening all over the world is becoming increasingly similar to TDAT.

I couldnt care less when or even if global warming happens in my lifetime because theres no way to stop it, even if everyone in the world stopped using anything that causes harm to our atmosphere tommorrow, it wouldnt slow it down or stop it completely.

The earth changes naturally, or if your of a certain religious faith you would probably blame it on a certain type of person.

I also think the main reason for noticing our earths changes more is because of the technology we have at our disposal for measuring (accurately) anything and everything from temperature/o-zone/sea level to sattelite images of places we could not have compared accurately 100 years ago.

Originally posted by Passer By


The funny thing is that maybe there are 10 things for global warming, and ten things for the ice age. Both equally naturally occuring. Introduce man's changes either for or against either side and what happens? Change. Is man solely to blame for the change? Depends on how you look at it doesn't it? In one sense no because there are ten other things(either way that change the outcome), but yes in the sense that it is man's actions that are throwing off the balance.

Which is what it is all about isn't it? Balance?

This is the ideology that is driving this misconception that change is being brought about by some evil force be it man or nature. Change is inevitable. Change is constant and never did cease. Change is the normal state for this planet and its climate. As was mentioned earlier, ice on the earth's surface is not a normal state of the climate or nature. My guess is it was deposited by a comet strike as many mammoths were found flash frozen still chewing on prairie grass. Glaciers were not that fast that we know of.

That being a clue to a devestating instant change to the climate patterns, the earth is likely since been changing as a direct result of this.

The Earth has since been even warmer by globally 10 degrees..like when the vikings settled greenland and for a short time, grew crops. Try that now but in another couple hundred years, it may be possible. yeah, that likely means its stupid to build a house near land that will one day be under water or these melting caps may indeed effect the natural ocean currents. My point is, instead of plunging mankind backward into pioneer type living and poverty because we're afraid technology is responsible, we had better be forging ahead to be able to adapt to these changes. You think living in a TeePee is going to stop the change? Do you really think it is possible to preserve anything in its current state?

Thats what cracks me up, the idea that anything can be preserved on a changing world. It can't. Not forest, which have bee razed and regrown for tens of thousands of years, not animal life which have steadily been going extinct....most of which happened before humans were a factor at all.

Look, I know everyone needs a cause to feel important and I know its from the most well meaning depts of the natural fear of change that these ideas are born and I don't mean to take all hope away. In fact, I think the hoplessness comes from the desire to cling to something that we have absolutely no control over. I think hope comes from accepting our only means of survival is adaptation and resolving ourselves to that endeavor.

It hurts to know that a town we once loved is underwater or an animal we thought was special no longer exist, thats our compassion as humans and its what makes us special on this earth..but we are confined to deal with the same environment as every other living and dieing thing here.

Look, if we could look back at a tranquil, and static climate and see this change ahead, I would be the first on board..and in fact at one time I was on board. However, looking back at the Earth's climate, we actually are living in one of the most stable epocs we know of. The changes we see coming , though they may impact us greatly, are minute compared to our past.

So, in my opinion is global warming real and happening? Yes. is global cooling real and happening? Yes. Is there any hope to stave off either? No.

I see the ignorance is flowing freely again. The vast vast majority of scientists all around the world (including the US) agree that man's actions are causing global warming.

We are condeming our children and grandchildren to a very unstable future. We'll be dead and they will have to live with the mess we have created. Look into your childrens eyes the next time you state "It's not our fault so we don't need to do anything".

How many anti man made global warming contributors are there from the above who work as environmental researches ? I'll take a guess : big fat zero!

Originally posted by malcr
I see the ignorance is flowing freely again. The vast vast majority of scientists all around the world (including the US) agree that man's actions are causing global warming.

We are condeming our children and grandchildren to a very unstable future. We'll be dead and they will have to live with the mess we have created. Look into your childrens eyes the next time you state "It's not our fault so we don't need to do anything".

How many anti man made global warming contributors are there from the above who work as environmental researches ? I'll take a guess : big fat zero!

There is absolutely no call for the kind of insults you just posted. Just because some people have finally let go of the concocted scare tactic talkingpoints agenda that you still subscribe to does not mean "ignorance is flowing freely".

In fact, I spent 6 years as a geotechnical research investigator and in my current position, I do handle environmental justice reports commonly. So what you've done by assuming is make an ass out of u and me. For your information, most scientist do not conclude your assertion and the repettitive linguistics approach you practice still isn't making it so. In fact, data gather in the atmosphere not only don't support the initial global warming theory but actually allude toward a cooling trend. In fact, the predicted temps by the global warming computer model have now been proven to have an inherent error on the order of some 300%. So when you accuse others of ignorance, you might want to mull those figures over and for future reference, name calling and personal insults ARE NOT WELCOME on this board. You may have a differing opinion but by George, you will learn to present it tactfully as an adult. You can take that free advice and decide to join in or you can get pissed and start down the road of which so many other supposed intellectual giants have chosen to go.

[edit on 21-9-2005 by astrocreep]

Originally posted by grover
[All that being said however we do affect the climate and it would not do us ill to change our polluting ways, global warming or not, its the only planet we got and once its gone we will be up S--ts creek without a poodle...unfortuanately this administration will never address the problem.

What administration has? We like to jump on this one because it's in power right now, but I really don't hink any past administration has done a damn thing, really, about global warming and I don't think it would make a real difference if the current administration was democratic, or libertrarian, or anything else.

astrocreep:

OK, lets have at this then shall we? Scientists around the world agree that something is happening. Most are sure man has at the very least a slight effect if not on the change, then at least, the rate of change. There is no question on it. It is fact. Maybe we are having a huge effect, maybe a small one, but we are having one. To suggest that because change happens anyway, then isn't that the same as saying we should kill babies because they will die eventually anyway? We are having an effect, maybe it is small (Ofcourse then the debate will be how much is too much, but that is a debate for another day) but we are effecting it. To suggest otherwise is simply false.

That all said, I happen to agree with the premise, I beleive, of your post. Change is life and thus don't be afraid of it. Ofcourse, everything is in motion, change is the natural state of this planet, and all of creation. Thus - creation. No change, no movement, no movement, no creation. Thus is life. In this perspective, I would ask you if you had taken the neccasary precautions assuming this is merely cyclic, then this is probably what causes the major extinctions on this planet?

Regardless though, we are having an effect, this is changing,m and those changes are not beneficial towards the human condition. Which really means this is something that should be taken seriously and not just

We're in deep Shoot and our offspring does'nt know it. We are in a hell of a mess and the best we can do is allow it to reach our unborn. Amazing, Christian Todd Whitman quits as Envirionmental Secretary and it barely reaches news.

Not just the U.S. there are others too. But her resignation after Christina's highly praised New Jersey Governorship should have raise Big Bells.

Dallas

EDIT: Asked to edit out S ends with t. Done !

[edit on 21-9-2005 by Dallas]

So true. I just don't get it. How can so many feel that they are so invincible, especially when they see the recent events in NO and elsewhere. The fit is about to hit the shan and most don't even smell the odour yet. It is going to be a very shocking time for many I fear.

Originally posted by Passer By
astrocreep:

OK, lets have at this then shall we? Scientists around the world agree that something is happening. Most are sure man has at the very least a slight effect if not on the change, then at least, the rate of change. There is no question on it. It is fact.

yep. Its one thing to use a loose term like "Scientist around the world" or "most scientist". Its another to provide names so here ya go.

zwr.oism.org...

The truth or fact is much of this info has already been posted on this board numerous times before and I had hesitated to play the role of the broken record but one gets drawn into it from the non-scientific political extremist's continued assertion of their "facts" which just seem to stem from the idea that the same rhetoric repeated often enough will eventually be accepted as fact and spared the pains of scientific validation.

Fact: Your global warming data is from a model (20 years old) and not based on actual observations.

Fact: This model when campared with projected values had an inherant error oon the order of some 300%. Wish I could get by that easy.

Fact: The rise in global surface temps is not mirrored in the atmosphere and is more likely caused by the development of cities closeby to where these measurments are taken. This is technically called a reduce albedo effect. Albedo being the amount of insolation reflected back into the atmosphere. Surface temp readings taken outside developed area remain with 1% of the norm, however your global warming enthuseist do not chose to acknowledge these readings.


So, in having at it, I have presented the names and occupations of over 15,000 actual educated scientist who take exception to global warming. I have presented technical details and explanations regarding the mechnisms that drive climate.


You, in having at it, have repeated the same doom and gloom scare tactic that has supposedly led you to become an expert and the self-important one person who cares about the environment.

Look, you want a cause to fight that will do more to help the environment than any other you can come close to? Fight poverty.

Astrocreep, I don't think anyone on this board takes the position that global warming is solely the result of man's pollution & tampering. Global warming is however a fact, it is happening. Records over the past 50 years clearly show the trend towards higher global temperatures. The rapid retreat of glaciers around the world, the slowing of the Gulf Stream, the increasing desertification of previously arable land, the huge quantities of fresh water pouring into the artic oceans and the declining ice cover, and other facts all underscore the fact of global warming. What portion of the phenomenon is attributal to mankind is really not very important except to politicians and others who want to proscribe certain human activities in the, probably mistaken, belief the trend will stop, or reverse.

Evidence has been gathered for years about the subject of man's pollution of the environment and its effect on global warming; however, that evidence, to date, remains largely inconclusive and is hotly debated. There is no argument about the act of pollution, or the effect of pollution, only the rapidity with which it must be curtailed and who should pay or otherwise be held accountable for doing something about it. In general, the poor countries want the industrialized countries to pay and be held accountable, while the richer, industrialized countries hold that position to be unfair, since all have benefited from the products and processes that contribute to pollution.

As the planet continues to heat up, the polite war of words between the two sides may escalate to attempts at punitive actions of one sort or another. However, no action by any country will make much difference over the next few decades. It is only in the fullness of time (lots of it) that changes can really make any difference. The attempts at finger pointing and tongue wagging are therefore pointless and designed to make the citizens of some countries feel better, or more virtuous, or whatever, rather than actually intended to do something about the problem.

For anyone to actually believe that mankind's actions have tipped the world over some irreversible threshold is, in my opinion, almost laughable. The world may, indeed have crossed such a threshold and mankind probably helped it get there, but our actions are relatively puny compared to natural processes and our attempts at remedial actions will be relatively puny as well--none-the-less, we should attempt such actions. If for no other reason than to make ourselves feel better, or at least feel less guilty as species after species goes belly up. We can all go to our graves feeling as if we did what we could to preserve the richness of life on Earth for our descendants.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Records over the past 50 years clearly show the trend towards higher global temperatures. The rapid retreat of glaciers around the world, the slowing of the Gulf Stream, the increasing desertification of previously arable land, the huge quantities of fresh water pouring into the artic oceans and the declining ice cover, and other facts all underscore the fact of global warming.

Hey, I'm pretty much in agreement with the majority of your post. I certainly don't want anyone to misconstrue my position as someone who advocates pollution. In fact, I think much of the attention being placed on this so called global warming is taking valuable resources away from legitimate pollution problems. I admit there are many and much of it stems from industrialization..but with industrialization has also come the ability to clean it up once we make it dirty, something non-industrialized people lack thus the polluted water and mass cutting and burning of rain forests. Two very important things technology could help. The make the decision to keep them in poverty to "preserve" they're "culture" is asinine and a decision beeing made by feel good activist who do it from the comforts of they're modern lifestyle. The culture of poverty is not some grandious vision of paradise. Its sickness, suffering , and starvation. These self-important morans want to keep these poor people in grass huts so every now and then, they might go visit for a day and then its right back to their comfy lifestyle. Thats like the idiots who try and stop mountain top removal here in my state. never mind the land is reclaimed and teaming with wildlife, they want to see mountians when they chose to come down from they're big city to fly over them..even if it keeps the local population below poverty.

I guess the only exception I take is the quote above. Actually, there are quite a few descrepancies with the "records" and only those which show a warming trend are taken into account. Some of those have to do with the albedo affect of localized dust domes common to modern metros. A big nasty problem on a localized level, no doubt about it.

Also, have you any idea how many glaciers there are on planet Earth. They number into the thousands and for every shrinking one, there is one growing. They are not mentioned and for good reason. This is not a natural state of being for the earth. With or without us here, this process will continue.

I'm glad you admit the uselessness of our plight to stop such changes. However, some mitigation issues presented are based on uneducated philosphies and will actually do more to hurt of chances of survival and adaptation than help. Burning carbon based fuel is not a global problem, its a localized one in metros and there are plenty of methods that can and should be implemented such as mass transit sytems. Soil and water contamination..two more big issues being placed on the back burner that should be on top of the list.

Yeah Astrocreep, I don't have many differences with you either and the ones I do have concern details, not substantive issues.

Originally posted by malcr
I see the ignorance is flowing freely again. The vast vast majority of scientists all around the world (including the US) agree that man's actions are causing global warming.

You should keep the insults out of any dicussions in here, if you can't then you can simply ignore the thread.

Contrary to what you believe even if mankind didn't exist the Earth would be going through a global warming period right now. Does it help that we are spewing more chemicals and gases to the oceans and the atmosphere? no, but even if we didn't exist, there would be a climate change on EArth as we speak.

In fact Global warming is happening to every planet in the solar system as we speak. I am sure you are not trying to imply that mankind is also responsible for global warming in Mars, Pluto, or any of the other planets in our solar system........

Originally posted by malcr

We are condeming our children and grandchildren to a very unstable future. We'll be dead and they will have to live with the mess we have created. Look into your childrens eyes the next time you state "It's not our fault so we don't need to do anything".

There isn't really anything that can be done to stop global warming, despite what some claim. We can prepare for the changes that are coming, and monitor what is happening, but that's about all we can do.

Originally posted by malcr

How many anti man made global warming contributors are there from the above who work as environmental researches ? I'll take a guess : big fat zero!

I got lost when you said "anti man." I don't know what in the world you were tryin to say.

Mauddib,

It's the Sun causing recent warming Solar System wide.

www.space.com...

www.fathersforlife.org...

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

science.nasa.gov...

Bookmark

I think a great deal of this is purely political in nature but thats not the driving force for all the doom and gloomers. The lack of control of the environment of which we live scares us and it damn well should. We've gotten several huge reminders of that here recently. To think that if we just altered our way of living, we could somehow stave off the natural occuring processes gives some hope their lives won't have to change and others hope they will. I don't blame them and I certainly don't mean to seem like I am poking fun of these people. Hell, I used to be one of them.

'Also, have you any idea how many glaciers there are on planet Earth. They number into the thousands and for every shrinking one, there is one growing. They are not mentioned and for good reason. This is not a natural state of being for the earth. With or without us here, this process will continue.'

astrocreep

I know of a grand total of two glaciers that are presently showing annual growth, and if you are correct, which I think you are, that there are thousands, then the one to one ratio is hard for me to fathom. Do you know which glaciers those two are? Their growth was actually predicted by doing computer simulations of the effects of global warming around 1980, and they were right. Also in 1980 I looked into the scientific models that were at that time showing that the biomass of the planet was being consumed by us at an unsustainable level. The only thing that I have seen they miscalculated on was they overestimated the rate of the worlds population growth. This has slightly lengthened the time before we reach critical mass. In 1980 we were beyond sustainable levels of consumption. Since then we have been consistent in that each year not only has the consumption increased, but even worse, the acceleration of the increase has grown. We have not even been able to level off at a rate of consumption that is a good 25 years past sustainable levels. We burn up more of the only stuff that can keep us alive every year. So if we can't even level off, which we haven't been able to do yet, the chance of us returning to sustainable levels is quite a long shot. I decided in 1980 that humans were not able to control their growth, and therefore their decimation of our home. You cant eat sand, or rocks, and that is about all we are going to have left if we don't pull off the most unlikely and farfetched conservation plan of all time. Not that I think we are all fools, but I cannot see us getting organized globally in time to avoid the crunch. It is going to be scary, but it is all just a part of the processes of the universe, like lemming hordes plunging off a seacliff, except multiplied a few thousand times.
If 144 000 folks manage not to die, that will be a huge success. I'd settle for 144.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII


astrocreep

Their growth was actually predicted by doing computer simulations of the effects of global warming around 1980, and they were right. Also in 1980 I looked into the scientific models that were at that time showing that the biomass of the planet was being consumed by us at an unsustainable level. The only thing that I have seen they miscalculated on was they overestimated the rate of the worlds population growth.

Actually, the 1980 model has been shown to have an error of about 300% as to what it predicted and what we actually found to be happeneing. If you are going to refer to a 20 year old model, then there is no way I hope to argue against it because my whole argument is based upon that model being wrong. Not only about population but also about atmospheric temps, C02 levels, and deglaciation. No doubt deglaciation is occuring in some cycles but since (I think we can all agree that its foolish to think or want for a stable and non-changing environment on this planet of such dynamic nature) we have to be in either glaciation or deglaciation, we got the long end of the stick on that one.

I don't know the names of the glaciers that are growing but I think it may be a tad more than two and its prolly too many anyway. Like I said, people get the idea we have only 10 or 12 glaciers but I think its more on the order of 6000. I'll try and find a source for that. It sounds high so I cannot be sure of it, however that is irrelevant. If there were one and it was almost gone, guess what? Nothing we can do about it. Why would we think there would be? Its happened a few times in the past with none to limted human existance just like its happening now. Greenland may be melting but its was once farmland. The vikings grew crops, this we know, in a world more than 10 degrees warmer globally. You can bet they weren't too happy about your all important glaciers.

I think most scientist either will admit or secretly know but won't admit for fear of losing their GW funding that the effects of our system's star, our Sun has much more an impact and is largely responsible for the majority of our climatory patterns. Yeah, I know Duh! But you would be suprised just how many people either forget or don't realize that this star is even more dynamic than the planets around it and thus its changes affect all of them.

I know why you want to cling to the model. The idea that we were significant enough to have some sort of impact upon something so far out of our control also would mean, we could fix what we did not like. Its reaching, really reaching but I certainly understood the mentality behind it and even held this hope myself for a long time. When I got off the boat is when I realized that once we got the good news that it was natural and none of the dyer predictions were coming about, instead of relief, I saw dissapointment. It became nothing more than a super-sized political publicity stunt with little or no actual scientific background. Reports were altered to reflect an entirley different meaning from the time it left the lab until it left the lawyer's desk.

Actually, I hate politics so I don't really give a damn. I don't like the thought of 4 bucks a gallon for fuel because of some trumpt up political game and I certainly do not agree with regressing society in its name.

But in the big picture, those things are even small potatoes. The truth is, we will adapt to changes and we will have to. Its our only choice. You think we are actually the first civilization thats had to realize this?

Overall, most glaciers around the world are in decline - as they have been for at least the past 150 years.....

However, in some places, such as New Zealand, that decline has recently been reversed.