Wondering Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Ok, so when i posted my other thread with a question about global warming I didn't actually know too much about it. Well, the library in my town only has 4 books about global warming.. 2 were in the kids section:eek_big: . That is where i learned that between 1940 and 1970 scientists were actually concerned about an ice age coming. Even though I live in the north, thinking about an Ice Age scares me more than Global Warming. So it wouldn't really bother me that the earth is getting warmer if it wasn't for the coastal regions that could be destroyed. (and the poor polar bears:( ) So if the government doesn't want to cut down on greenhouse gases & stuff then shouldn't it make more preparations for flooding or what might happen (i'm still not totally sure what would happen)? I don't know if this thought makes sense yet.. but maybe I could get some more of your thoughts on this issue. :eek2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 A few scientists are worried about a 'runaway' greenhouse effect, with Venus serving as the applicable analogue. Venus is swamped with CO2, trapping heat in its atmosphere so effectively that the surface temperature exceeds the melting point of lead. If this was the case on Earth, it would take a while before we reached that point, and humans (the main antagonists) would be killed off long before we reached those high temps. On the short term, however, global warming results in more energy trapped in our atmosphere. This energy needs to be channeled somewhere, and the easiest and quickest way to relieve the energy gradient is through an increased number of hectic storms of epic proportions. What we have seen in the US in the last couple of weeks might be indicative of this. In short, the expectation is that dry places will get much drier, and wet places will get much wetter. This can't be good for homo sapiens, seeing as we have settled in both areas based on the weather playing a role of predictive kindness towards us. If the weather goes ballistic in order to shed the increased energy levels, we'll have to rearrange our global setup, and pretty soon. Grasslands and plains in the in-between zone between wetness and dryness will tend to one of the extremes, i.e. either become very wet, or very dry. Neither of these conditions will be conducive to massive grain production, like the American mid-West groing a heck of a lot of corn. Coastal cities need to rethink the wisdom of having settled right next to the ocean. Global oceanic trade might be jeopardized. Air travel might become too dangerous. Small, local storms might brew into massive, destructive, hemisphere-straddling phenomena as it tries to shed the increased energy. To cut a long story short, upsetting the balance will probably not be a good thing - especially seen in the light that we are steadily learning the folly of our ways. We can't afford to let this issue become our children's problem, we have to act now in order for us to have a world left to leave to our kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wondering Posted March 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Thank you for that. The issue of global warming is so confusing. Sceintists can't agree on it and I'm even having trouble deciding my own opinion. It's so hard to know what is real and what is not when it comes to this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 My pleasure. But keep in mind that my take on it isn't necessarily the truth. But in my mind, the stakes in the global warming debate is so high that we have to be prudent and take the worst-case scenario seriously. We can't afford to laugh it off and say "those silly scientists are just trying to scare us". If there is only a 1% chance that they're right, would we be right in risking global civilization (as well as our very existence) on it? People laughing it off tend to be investors with huge stakes in the oil industry and polluting companies in general who stand to lose a lot of money if laws are passed forcing them to cut down on production. Are we to be held hostage by a very small number of individuals (as compared to the rest of humanity, numberwise) who are not only risking their own lives, but also the lives of all other humans with no say in the matter in order to protect their selfish monetary interests? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Why is it people only focus on the emmissions end of global warming? A larger worse cause is the loss of "green space" to buildings, highways, parking lots, etc.!!!! Not only are we losing the plants which cool and clean our air but we are replacing them with blacktop, black roofs, and concrete all of which store heat during the day and release it at night.(and tend to be far hotter than soil, grasses, or trees during the day) This additional heat at night reduces the natural cooling that would normally occur without it. This same process in winter yields unnaturally higher temps, allong with hot engines and hot exhaust. Then there is the heat loss from houses in summer and winter. In summer air-conditioners spew additional heat into the air in winter houses lose heat to outside again creating artificially higher outside temps!!! (the more houses, stores, office, buildings etc. the more heat the higher the artificialy higher temps!!!!!!!) Machinery also makes heat which contributes even further to global warming in the same manner. Cars make a lot of heat in their operation more cars more heat.the same for every computer, electric motor, diesel, fuel cell, battery, solar cell, cell phone, if it moves or consumes energy it produces heat that would not otherwise exist in nature. Living creatures produce heat just by living so again the more life there is the more heat!!! The more global warming!!!!! It's real and it's not going to be stopped!!! People ain't going to stop raising livestock, making machines or babies!!! (more babies= more need for living space, more houses, more office buildings, more stores, more hospitals, more schools, more livestock, more vehicles etc.& as a result less green space, more heat and green house gasses) Nor are they going to stop destroying green space for houses and shopping malls!!! Nor will they give up their cars, a/c, or technowlogy!! So might as well face it global warming will get worse no matter how clean our vehicles and factories emmissions become!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Why is it people only focus on the emmissions end of global warming? A larger worse cause is the loss of "green space" to buildings, highways, parking lots, etc.!!!! ...not always! :eek2: The city of Johannesburg is the largest artificial forest in the world! What used to be grasslands on the highveld a hundred years ago, have been transformed in less than a century to a great green sprawling jungle, through gardening and the planting of millions of trees. It has been estimated that for the surface area, Johannesburg is producing 400% more oxygen than what it used to when being grassland. And the production of oxygen takes carbon out of the atmosphere. Maybe we should start thinking laterally and encourage the establishment of proper gardens. We might go even further and pass laws that all rooftops must be painted white in order to reflect more heat back into space during daytime. We should encourage the building of lighter-coloured concrete highways instead of using dark tarmac. There are lots of ways. We saw the danger of CFC's in the early 80's, and today you'll be hard-pressed to find virually any product containing it. We should be able to do the same in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 The city of Johannesburg is the largest artificial forest in the world! What used to be grasslands on the highveld a hundred years ago, have been transformed in less than a century to a great green sprawling jungle, through gardening and the planting of millions of trees. It has been estimated that for the surface area, Johannesburg is producing 400% more oxygen than what it used to when being grassland. And the production of oxygen takes carbon out of the atmosphere. Cool!!!! We might go even further and pass laws that all rooftops must be painted white in order to reflect more heat back into space during daytime. We should encourage the building of lighter-coloured concrete highways instead of using dark tarmac. There are lots of ways. We saw the danger of CFC's in the early 80's, and today you'll be hard-pressed to find virually any product containing it. We should be able to do the same in this case. I agree wholeheartedly...Though instead of laws the ideal way to achieve it as far as rooftops would be to make it fashionable...Make people want lighter roof tops as badly as they want the latest fashions and cell phones!!!!!!!! As far as roads are concerned it would probably require laws and a massive push from the masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Still doesn't help on the increasing population front though. (sadly)Either people have to give up personal individual houses for highrises or reduce the numbers being added to our population or we will continue to need to spread out and loose green space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 True - if the population tapers off to zero growth right now, it still won't help. There are more than a billion people in China about to benefit from their sustained economic growth. Those people are going to want to move out of their small homes and move into larger residences, with more space. This has happened all over the world where wealth was generated, and there is no reason to expect it not happening in China and India as well. We need to educate everybody all over the world as to the dangers of overpopulation, and I think a good point was raised here that desirability plays a big role. Popular culture should make it desirable to live in an apartment instead of a house. But in doing this, we are attempting to change culture though propaganda, and this opens the door for all kinds of other evils!!!:eek2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 we are attempting to change culture though propaganda, and this opens the door for all kinds of other evils!!! True. But isnt that the way things work already?Girls are encouraged to enjoy baby dolls from a young age to foster the desire to want to be a mommy when they grow up. Boys GI joe so they will want to be a soldier. Same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 ...not always! :eek2: The city of Johannesburg is the largest artificial forest in the world! Maybe we should start thinking laterally and encourage the establishment of proper gardens. We might go even further and pass laws that all rooftops must be painted white in order to reflect more heat back into space during daytime. Planting gardens and small woods' ontop of skyscrapers and building roof tops is becoming a more popular theme, and it helpfully reduces carbon-dioxide from large cities...And gives the all that otherwise wasted space,, Life Here in Portland they are seriously taking it to task... (kinda') Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Cool beans!!!!!! (But small woods on roof tops? Aren't there some risks to health and property in putting trees on top of buildings?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wondering Posted March 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Painting rooftops white and planting gardens is more of a thing that certain communities can do, but I don't think it's something that whole countries like USA and Canada would get into. We still need to think about greenhouse emmissions. We need more action on it, or nothing is stopping big companies from influencing the government that we should be influencing. The environment deserves way more attention in our popular culture. Starting a trend to care about the earth would be good, but it has to last. As far as the population, nothing will stop that.. except maybe the bird flu or something:eek: .. but yeah, it should start in the individual communities too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankM Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 ....That is where i learned that between 1940 and 1970 scientists were actually concerned about an ice age coming. Even though I live in the north, thinking about an Ice Age scares me more than Global Warming. .... Some long term mechanism created the conditions for the "ice age" some 10,000 years ago wherein water was stored in tremendous ice sheets, and this lowered water levels worldwide. The mechanism reversed and there was a warming trend that melted the vast ice sheets. We have less than 200 years of global weather information and the detail in various geographic areas varies widely. The mechanism for the "little ice age", about 500 years ago, is not specifically known although a number of theories have been advanced. Something could have happened in a remote part of the world that modified atmospheric conditions and there were not instruments at that time to identify the changes. It is not surprising that scientists in the 1970s thought the weather was cooling, based upon long term information. It seems the cooling trend has reversed and a well known event might be the causative factor. According to a Russian scientist, the Tunguska Event in 1906 may have altered our upper atmosphere. http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html We know that a volcano can, in one or two days, dump sufficient material into the atmosphere to alter it worldwide for years. The lesson is, the upper atmosphere can be altered fast by violent mechanical acts, but it takes a long time to stabilize to its prior conditon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 ___Here's a new one on me; foreign countries trying to legislate land status in the US!?http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/13/tech/main1391827.shtml A dozen organizations last month filed a petition asking the United Nations to declare Glacier in Montana and the adjacent Waterton Lakes National Park in Canada endangered, because of glacial retreat and its effect on the environment of the parks. ___So if no one understands what is going on, it is illogical to take this kind of action. Waste of money as well. Mmmm...I wonder how close this area is to the new coal mining Montana's Governor is pushing for (so we can reduce oil dependency & its greenhouse gas outputs).___Once again, the United Nations can decide land use in Montana?:eek: Good grief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFINITLYDISTRUBD Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 The New World Order is here!!!! OH BLeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeP! BLeeeeeeeeP!!! BLeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeP!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wondering Posted March 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 ___So if no one understands what is going on, it is illogical to take this kind of action. Waste of money as well. Mmmm...I wonder how close this area is to the new coal mining Montana's Governor is pushing for (so we can reduce oil dependency & its greenhouse gas outputs).___Once again, the United Nations can decide land use in Montana?:umbrella: Good grief. I happened to turn the channel to 60 minutes tonight and learned something that is actually not suprising to me: Reports made by scientists have to go to the white house to be edited before they're published. Lawyers and politicians editing scientific evidence. One edit they showed was changing the sentence "Earth is undergoing significant climate change", and they changed the "is" to "may be". I doubt the politician that edited that had the evidence to back that up. It's obvious they are just trying to make global warming a less important issue than it should be. It's disgusting what they're doing. They are even controlling whether researchers can talk to reporters or not. Just shows that we can't trust certain governments when it comes to this issue. People do know what is going on, but there are people on both sides of the arguement trying to spin the story to their own purposes. Here is the link to the story:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.