Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Global Warming Question..........  
User currently offlineMike89406 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1426 posts, RR: 3
Posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1257 times:

Ok I usually dont make a big deal out of this subject but the global warming gods have come back to tell us even more bad news, and frankly I dont know how much of this bull I can beleivge anymore.
First off I believe that maybe there has been some damage done up til now by fossil fuels, vehicles etc... carbon dioxide emissions.

The point is that When is too much media hype too much? When does it bcome fallacy instead of truth?

Me and my physics professer at Embry-Riddle University were discussing global warming he is a PhD Environmental Engineering and he said that the movie "The Convienent Truth" showed people the falling iceburgs, glaciers etc. on only a 5% landmass while tha was going on the other Icecaps were growing in places like antarctica or other parts of the arctic. There was also that GW is occuring much faster than they predicted but reputible scientists say we dont know how fast its occuring so the people who are saying that we'll be covered by 2080 or whatever dont really know. Also my professer said that scientific models are inaccurate they're getting better but nowhere near able to predict the real timeline etc...Also the majority of scientists dont necessarily agree that everything is as bad as they say, however they probably came to a consensus and are pushing this issue just to be on the safe side (Doesn' mean they're always right)

I've also heard that there was 3 warming trends in the 20th century alone one more significant than present day. Also there are increased Co2 emissions with the warming up not necessarily just because of cars and jets. Now I'm willing to concede that there is something going on maybe pollution, even sopme GW but not like they potray etc... but can these massive media scares just be what it is? Lastly I will leave you with the article I seen this today although it seems to me that these crazy artciles and GW topics run rampant on AOL

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles...04409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePizzaandplanes From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1243 times:

Every civilized person living today knows that global warming is a big issue no matter if they are for or against it. The media has been talking about this issue for the last decade. This awareness has created more environment friendly people and products that we use everyday. I think the media has done their job with creating the awareness but scientists have made a bad move by scaring everyone. Although, in some ways having the fact that kids today are educated about global warming like crazy, it's creating a sense of pride to live in such a fascinating world.

Only time will tell if this complex issue is a fallacy or maybe a red herring.


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8621 posts, RR: 44
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1242 times:

I'm not going to meddle with the argument about what should be done against global warming, or how it's a "bs theory" because some glacier at the other end of the world grew an inch in thickness over the last five years. That never leads anywhere.

But please consider the effect rising temperaturess can have on vegetation, both marine and on land. Google for the effects on e.g. coral reefs which are vital ecosystems for millions of people; if only for being wave barriers. Then look for permafrost soil in relation to global warming. There's also a significant effect on the stability of alpine rock formations, which may not seem all that dramatic to someone from Florida but still has a nasty catch to it. Mountainsides crashing on Swiss highways aren't fun.

All in all, I'd say the "OH MY GOD, we're going to be ten feet under water in five years!" paranoia is very much overdone, but then again that sort of thing is basically the only news that could possibly get anyone off their lazy bums. The day someone has to accomodate the entire population of the Maldives, they'll just scream for better immigration control and not even begin thinking.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2014 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1233 times:

I think you raise some good points. Fact is, climate is a very complex thing; we can attempt to understand it and make presumptions and predictions based on our models, but we can never be absolutely sure. There's one indicator that speaks for our knowledge: most of our models say, the earth will get warmer; empiric evidence shows that it does. That's an indicator that our models could be true (but the reason could lie elsewhere, of course).

An important thing to realize is that we best leave these calculations to the scientists. John Doe saying "hey, global warming is nonsense, this morning it was unusually cold in Idaho" is as little use to the debate as are some folks picking out random facts from the media and proclaiming "the south pole actually gets colder so that disproves global warming" etc. If we aren't specialists, we in fact have no idea what the reality looks like and which predictions we should believe.

So what can we do? We have to make a decision. Either we take the risk and continue with emissions and polluting the earth, hoping that man-made global warming either doesn't exist or isn't harmful etc. Or we play it safe and try to limit our way of living to a more sustainable and less damaging behaviour. If we choose the latter, then it's gonna cost us, no doubt. If we choose the former, we might pay later, but substancially more. We have the choice.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4158 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1167 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 3):
I think you raise some good points. Fact is, climate is a very complex thing; we can attempt to understand it and make presumptions and predictions based on our models, but we can never be absolutely sure. There's one indicator that speaks for our knowledge: most of our models say, the earth will get warmer; empiric evidence shows that it does. That's an indicator that our models could be true (but the reason could lie elsewhere, of course).

The models agree that the earth is warming. whether the human population has enhanced it or not is up for debate.

There is empirical evidence that the earth has been much warmer in the past for certtain periods of time, and much colder as well for certain periods of time. only in the last 5000-50,000 out of 5 billion years, have humans truly cared about that cycle. which means we only rellly can relate to 1/10,000th of the earth's history at best.

Global warming is going to be bad for many people. However i am an optimist and believe that hunam innovation will prevaiel.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1152 times:

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 4):
whether the human population has enhanced it or not is up for debate.

The last IPCC report has come to the conclusion that it is "very unlikely" that human influence was not at least a major contributor.

That ship has sailed.


User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1122 times:

Our earth goes in cycles and we will eventually go into another ice age. People need to relax. As was said before, ice is actually increasing in places but you never hear about that. Also, many weather stations that influenced the overall average temperature were in Russia and are no longer available for use. This is important because Russia has some of the coldest temps in the world and not having those readings will cause the average to look warmer than it really is. I'm still gonna drive my truck and burn all the fuel I can while I live on the earth. Cheers everyone  Smile

Slovacek747


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1109 times:

Quoting Slovacek747 (Reply 6):
ice is actually increasing in places but you never hear about that

That's why the new PC term is global climate change, because some people had difficulty realizing that "global warming" doesn't mean everywhere gets warmer. In fact, one of the most dangerous possible effects of an overall increase in temps is that the cold, fresh water runoff from the melting Greenland ice cap could disrupt the Gulf Stream, thereby cooling the land masses near the North Atlantic that are kept abnormally warm by that stream of warm water coming up from the tropics.

Quoting Slovacek747 (Reply 6):
I'm still gonna drive my truck and burn all the fuel I can while I live on the earth.

Now that's a real responsible approach to the issue, Slovacek.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1087 times:

Quoting Mike89406 (Thread starter):
Me and my physics professer at Embry-Riddle University were discussing global warming he is a PhD Environmental Engineering and he said that the movie "The Convienent Truth" showed people the falling iceburgs, glaciers etc. on only a 5% landmass while tha was going on the other Icecaps were growing in places like antarctica or other parts of the arctic. There was also that GW is occuring much faster than they predicted but reputible scientists say we dont know how fast its occuring so the people who are saying that we'll be covered by 2080 or whatever dont really know. Also my professer said that scientific models are inaccurate they're getting better but nowhere near able to predict the real timeline etc...Also the majority of scientists dont necessarily agree that everything is as bad as they say, however they probably came to a consensus and are pushing this issue just to be on the safe side (Doesn' mean they're always right)

I've also heard that there was 3 warming trends in the 20th century alone one more significant than present day. Also there are increased Co2 emissions with the warming up not necessarily just because of cars and jets. Now I'm willing to concede that there is something going on maybe pollution, even sopme GW but not like they potray etc... but can these massive media scares just be what it is? Lastly I will leave you with the article I seen this today although it seems to me that these crazy artciles and GW topics run rampant on AOL

There have been many 'natural' warming/cooling trends since the last Ice Age, for sure. About 5K yrs ago, it was so hot in the northern plains that the aboriginal people left during the summers and migrated north or into the alpine areas, for example. The Little Ice Age cooling trend that drove the Vikings from Greenland only ended about 200 yrs ago and it's been getting warmer ever since. But the rate of warming has accelerated noticeably since the end of WW1.

There's no actual consenus on the reasons for this. The models have big gaps in them due to the complexity of the environment and the lack of really good data going back centuries, although much can be gleaned from ice core samples. This can give you at least a rough 'big picture' data point on temperatures from isotopic ratios, for example.

Part of the GCC (global climatic change) theory is that we will see much more variability in conditions around the world. As your prof pointed out, icecaps can be shrinking in one area and growing elsewhere. However the _trend_ globally seems to be pointed towards shrinking.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2):
But please consider the effect rising temperaturess can have on vegetation, both marine and on land. Google for the effects on e.g. coral reefs which are vital ecosystems for millions of people; if only for being wave barriers. Then look for permafrost soil in relation to global warming. There's also a significant effect on the stability of alpine rock formations, which may not seem all that dramatic to someone from Florida but still has a nasty catch to it. Mountainsides crashing on Swiss highways aren't fun.

Re: alpine rock. Quite so. In fact the current edition of "Canadian Geographic" has a very interesting article on this very subject.

Quoting Rara (Reply 3):
I think you raise some good points. Fact is, climate is a very complex thing; we can attempt to understand it and make presumptions and predictions based on our models, but we can never be absolutely sure. There's one indicator that speaks for our knowledge: most of our models say, the earth will get warmer; empiric evidence shows that it does. That's an indicator that our models could be true (but the reason could lie elsewhere, of course).

Global climate modelling is very difficult. Much depends on cell size for the predictions, for example. There is a tremendous amount of inter-relationship between current conditions, rends, and future conditions. The effect of feedback among, say, 20 or 30 parameters, is quite difficult to model -- I know this from modelling nuclear reactor response to accident situations.

Consider, however: if we conclude that human activity is _not_ the primary driver for the GCC effects we are currently seeing, and we determine in 2050 or 2060 that we're wrong. By then it will probably be too late to halt or reverse the effects, and then it will be every country, or every person, for themselves. The cautionary principle should direct us towards taking the path that impacts the global ecosystem the least that is practical consistent with maintaining our presence here in some kind of decent standard.

The IPCC report recently issued was a consensus report which, bluntly put, was a 'lowest common denominator' standard simply to get the damn thnig published. My gut feeling is that the situation is going to get much, much worse.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Help Battle Global Warming posted Fri Apr 20 2007 08:21:51 by Scooter01
Wind Shear By Global Warming May Curb Hurricanes posted Wed Apr 18 2007 05:51:29 by KFLLCFII
Global Warming...yeah Right! posted Tue Apr 10 2007 15:00:20 by KaiGywer
Honest Look At Global Warming: posted Mon Apr 9 2007 02:40:50 by Galaxy5
John Travolta Lectures On Global Warming posted Sat Mar 31 2007 15:20:43 by N62NA
Global Warming - Not Only On Earth Now posted Sat Mar 17 2007 07:05:07 by NWA742
Global Warming - Ships Are The Villains! posted Sun Mar 4 2007 03:12:21 by NAV20
Global Warming Caused By Sun, Not Gases -- Expert posted Mon Jan 29 2007 12:51:37 by AerospaceFan
Mirrors In Space To Combat Global Warming posted Sat Jan 27 2007 05:06:51 by N229NW
New Study On Potential Effects Of Global Warming posted Mon Oct 30 2006 19:09:39 by Mir