i know there is a similar thread running but i would like to know if anybody has any sensible suggestions about what we can actually do in regards to climate change? i mean sure we can stop emissions but that wont stop climate change.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- what can we do about global climate change?
Sorry, we simply don't have that level of technology; I hope we never do unless we grow up an awful lot as a species. The best we can do is stop exacerbating the problem.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
i know there is a similar thread running but i would like to know if anybody has any sensible suggestions about what we can actually do in regards to climate change? i mean sure we can stop emissions but that wont stop climate change.
All we can do is sit back and relax. Oh, and use sunblock.
Adapt, and use the other thread. See this post... http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=500030#p500030
Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-06-27 11:57:25)
gotta stop the fatties from eating beans, all those farts and hot gases are quite bad for our environment
According to a recent study, at the present time the earth is hotter than it has been for the past 2000 years. As Stephen Colbert said, "Eat that, other periods of time!" Unless you can compell the world into action for a unified cause instead of thinking about nonexistent lines called national boundaries, all we can do is sit back and watch the chaos unfold. I'm sure we'll be long dead by this phenomenon gets unbearable though, at least I hope.
its just a heat period of the earth, it will cool down. just like the ice time is the cold one.
i heard is was its hottest in 400 years, not 2000DesertFox423 wrote:
According to a recent study, at the present time the earth is hotter than it has been for the past 2000 years.
He he, those statements really shock stupid people. Think about it, that means that 400/2000 years ago it was as hot or hotter than it is now and they didn't have cars, planes, factories etc then did they?ryan_14 wrote:
i heard is was its hottest in 400 years, not 2000DesertFox423 wrote:
According to a recent study, at the present time the earth is hotter than it has been for the past 2000 years.
Statistics like that only prove the skeptics (who say there's a natural fluctuation in the Earth's temperature) correct. As I said in a previous thread, I'm not denying global warming, I just feel completely unsure when I think about things like the ice age which was totally a natural event......
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2006-06-27 16:42:10)
as you can see here (the first link in the quote) the last 2000 years arent very important reallyDarth_Fleder wrote:
Well, gauging by the past temperature history chart of the planet and the trends that it shows, I have no doubt that the planet is in a warming trend. However, I think that the science is still out as to the root causes. Again, I point out that Mars and Jupiter are also in warming trends.
http://img278.imageshack.us/img278/8663 … ig37ys.gifI point out again rather dramatic shifts in short (relatively) periods of time. Take a look at the first dramatic 13C rise in antarctic temperature approximately 130,000 years ago and again about 13,000-18,000 years ago. CO2 Emissions from fossil fuels? Smog from the stone age?http://www.gcrio.org wrote:
Figure 3 Air temperature near Antarctica for the last 150,000 years. Temperatures given are inferred from hydrogen/deuterium ratios measured in an ice core from the Antarctic Vostok station, with reference to the value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. Jouzel et al., Nature vol 329, pp 403-408, 1987 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991.
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winte … -fig3.html
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2006-06-27 16:41:17)
Just wait for the next volcano to blot out the sun.DesertFox423 wrote:
According to a recent study, at the present time the earth is hotter than it has been for the past 2000 years. As Stephen Colbert said, "Eat that, other periods of time!" Unless you can compell the world into action for a unified cause instead of thinking about nonexistent lines called national boundaries, all we can do is sit back and watch the chaos unfold. I'm sure we'll be long dead by this phenomenon gets unbearable though, at least I hope.
Also, I might respectfully suggest watching less Al Gore movies and reviewing actual studies. Below is a good article, lengthy, but interesting.
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.
Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.
The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.
ive read that article already and really the temp should rise another 10 degrees to get back to its historical average but thats the discussion for the other thread. this is to see that even if everybody agrees its the most serious threat to mankind, is there actually anything we can do about it? especially as its in the media that if we dont do something soon it will be too late, but what are we supposed to do exactly?
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2006-06-28 03:52:49)
That article is about 3 months old. They just finished a study that basically refutes most of that. Even if it is 3 months old, though, it's not all blatant falsehoods...
You have to be pretty determined to read it that way to, erm... read it that way, but it can be done. So he did it.
Here's the 2000-year view...
Anyway, nobody really disputes global warming any more. Bob Carter didn't get the memo -- it's all about "natural fluctuations" these days.
Edit: Oh yeah. What can we do about it, that's the topic. Well, we can start by just acknowledging the fact that on one hand we have scientists -- known for wanting to take over the world and blackmail the president from a secret base underwater/on the moon/in his bloodstream -- and on the other, guys like Bob Carter, who just don't want us to jump to any hasty conclusions.
Like "I bet ExxonMobil puts money in that guy's pocket", for example. That would be way off. Or "I bet that story got copied and pasted all over the place." Again, Bob's just a guy who wants to get a bit of healthy skepticism into the debate, so relax.
If you can afford to finance and promote your own branch of science, I say go for it. You paid for it.
That part is true. You can actually can kind of see what he's talking about in this graph, also from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia...The Daily Telegraph wrote:
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. ... Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
You have to be pretty determined to read it that way to, erm... read it that way, but it can be done. So he did it.
Here's the 2000-year view...
Anyway, nobody really disputes global warming any more. Bob Carter didn't get the memo -- it's all about "natural fluctuations" these days.
Edit: Oh yeah. What can we do about it, that's the topic. Well, we can start by just acknowledging the fact that on one hand we have scientists -- known for wanting to take over the world and blackmail the president from a secret base underwater/on the moon/in his bloodstream -- and on the other, guys like Bob Carter, who just don't want us to jump to any hasty conclusions.
Like "I bet ExxonMobil puts money in that guy's pocket", for example. That would be way off. Or "I bet that story got copied and pasted all over the place." Again, Bob's just a guy who wants to get a bit of healthy skepticism into the debate, so relax.
If you can afford to finance and promote your own branch of science, I say go for it. You paid for it.
Last edited by spastic bullet (2006-06-28 06:30:38)
nothing
to control the temp rising have Chuck Norris go outside and with his commanding voice " I command the heat to stop " BOOM we're back in the ice age - thanks to Chuck Norris
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=500030#p500030Darth_Fleder in http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=500030#p500030 wrote:
Wouldn't it be ironic that if the effort to halt global warming was the exact opposite of what was in our best interests and we end up plunging the Earth back into an Ice Age?However, historically, the amount of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere is in a trough. That is to say the CO2 levels are near the lowest they have been in Earths history. There is only one time with comparable levels of CO2 and that was 300,000,000 years ago.William F. Ruddiman wrote:
Now, though, it seems our ancient agrarian ancestors may have begun adding these gases to the atmosphere many millennia ago, thereby altering the earth's climate long before anyone thought.
New evidence suggests that concentrations of CO2 started rising about 8,000 years ago, even though natural trends indicate they should have been dropping. Some 3,000 years later the same thing happened to methane, another heat-trapping gas. The consequences of these surprising rises have been profound. Without them, current temperatures in northern parts of North America and Europe would be cooler by three to four degrees Celsius--enough to make agriculture difficult. In addition, an incipient ice age--marked by the appearance of small ice caps--would probably have begun several thousand years ago in parts of northeastern Canada. Instead the earth's climate has remained relatively warm and stable in recent millennia. ...
http://scientificamerican.com/article.c … 414B7F0000Again, I point to the long term historical record.Monte Hieb wrote:
Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Looking at the chart you can see that the average global temperature rode at approximately 22C with sharp dips into lower temperatures followed by sharp rises back to historical normal. We have just come out of an ICE AGE people, and very recently by geological standards (10,000 years). Of course the temperature is rising. Any reasonable person looking at that graph would have to conclude that average global temperatures are going to rise again, and significantly.
Now as to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere...
"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.8 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 19 times higher than today.
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss … imate.html
Now, I have to ask, why is the the Earth returning to it's historical average temperature bad? Life has flourished in periods of warmth far better than it has trying to scrap out a living during Ice Ages. We humans are one of the most adaptable species ever, flourishing in every climate on Earth, save perhaps Antarctica.
I also suggest that while the Earth is heating up, there is very little we can do to stop it, nor should we want to. I realize that there are a vast number of people out there that who, though they slept during their science classes, have seen films like "The Day After Tomorrow" that are based upon junk science and let these movies and TV shows influence their emotional reactions to the hype of the day. Any dire predictions for harm are based solely upon conjecture and speculation, for crying out loud, the predictions of the weatherman are so notoriously off they have become the adage for inaccuracy.Someone mentioned that the mindset of people has to change, I say what needs to change is the level of education. Much of the history of mankind has been marked by belief in superstition and the fear of the unknown and I say that the current 'Global Warming' hysteria is no different.globalwarming.org wrote:
Projections of future climate changes are uncertain. Although some computer models predict warming in the next century, these models are very limited. The effects of cloud formations, precipitation, the role of the oceans, or the sun, are still not well known and often inadequately represented in the climate models --- although all play a major role in determining our climate. Scientists who work on these models are quick to point out that they are far from perfect representations of reality, and are probably not advanced enough for direct use in policy implementation. Interestingly, as the computer climate models have become more sophisticated in recent years, the predicted increase in temperature has been lowered.
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=65
1* the sun is getting hotter
2* the sun heats the earth
3* the earth is getting hotter
4* the total global climate change in the past 100 years is only about +1 degree (Fahrenheit at least)
5* the arctic ice cap is getting thinner, however...
6* the antarctic ice shelf is getting thicker
7* the polar ice caps on Mars are getting thinner
8* the Romans talked of growing grapes for wine on the British Isles, and some Nordic lands were known for mass cultivation of wheat
it's not really a problem, we ain't causing it, there's nothing we can do about it, hell just 20 years ago these same research groups were telling us we were about to enter a new ice age
2* the sun heats the earth
3* the earth is getting hotter
4* the total global climate change in the past 100 years is only about +1 degree (Fahrenheit at least)
5* the arctic ice cap is getting thinner, however...
6* the antarctic ice shelf is getting thicker
7* the polar ice caps on Mars are getting thinner
8* the Romans talked of growing grapes for wine on the British Isles, and some Nordic lands were known for mass cultivation of wheat
it's not really a problem, we ain't causing it, there's nothing we can do about it, hell just 20 years ago these same research groups were telling us we were about to enter a new ice age
One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell on her head
"Oh my goodness!" said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."
On her way to the king's palace, Chicken Little met Henny Penny. Henny Penny said that she was going into the woods to hunt for worms.
"Oh no, don't go!" said Chicken Little. "I was there and the sky fell on my head! Come with me to tell the king."
So Henny Penny joined Chicken Little and they went along and went along as fast as they could.
Soon they met Cocky Locky, who said, "I'm going to the woods to hunt for seeds."
"Oh no, don't go!" said Henny Penny. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king."
So Cocky Locky joined Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along and went along as fast as they could.
Soon they met Goosey Poosey, who was planning to go to the woods to look for berries.
"Oh no, don't go!" said Cocky Locky. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king." So Goosey Poosey joined Cocky Locky, Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along as fast as they could.
Then who should appear on the path but sly old Foxy Loxy.
"Where are you going, my fine feathered friends?" asked Foxy Loxy. He spoke in a polite manner, so as not to frighten them.
"The sky is falling!" cried Chicken Little. "We must tell the king."
"I know a shortcut to the palace," said Foxy Loxy sweetly. "Come and follow me."
But wicked Foxy Loxy did not lead the others to the palace. He led them right up to the entrance of his foxhole. Once they were inside, Foxy Loxy was planning to gobble them up!
Just as Chicken Little and the others were about to go into the fox's hole, they heard a strange sound and stopped.
It was the king's hunting dogs, growling and howling.
How Foxy Loxy ran, across the meadows and through the forests, with the hounds close behind. He ran until he was far, far away and never dared to come back again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After that day, Chicken Little always carried an umbrella with her when she walked in the woods. The umbrella was a present from the king. And if -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell, Chicken Little didn't mind a bit. In fact, she didn't notice it at all.
"Oh my goodness!" said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."
On her way to the king's palace, Chicken Little met Henny Penny. Henny Penny said that she was going into the woods to hunt for worms.
"Oh no, don't go!" said Chicken Little. "I was there and the sky fell on my head! Come with me to tell the king."
So Henny Penny joined Chicken Little and they went along and went along as fast as they could.
Soon they met Cocky Locky, who said, "I'm going to the woods to hunt for seeds."
"Oh no, don't go!" said Henny Penny. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king."
So Cocky Locky joined Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along and went along as fast as they could.
Soon they met Goosey Poosey, who was planning to go to the woods to look for berries.
"Oh no, don't go!" said Cocky Locky. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king." So Goosey Poosey joined Cocky Locky, Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along as fast as they could.
Then who should appear on the path but sly old Foxy Loxy.
"Where are you going, my fine feathered friends?" asked Foxy Loxy. He spoke in a polite manner, so as not to frighten them.
"The sky is falling!" cried Chicken Little. "We must tell the king."
"I know a shortcut to the palace," said Foxy Loxy sweetly. "Come and follow me."
But wicked Foxy Loxy did not lead the others to the palace. He led them right up to the entrance of his foxhole. Once they were inside, Foxy Loxy was planning to gobble them up!
Just as Chicken Little and the others were about to go into the fox's hole, they heard a strange sound and stopped.
It was the king's hunting dogs, growling and howling.
How Foxy Loxy ran, across the meadows and through the forests, with the hounds close behind. He ran until he was far, far away and never dared to come back again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After that day, Chicken Little always carried an umbrella with her when she walked in the woods. The umbrella was a present from the king. And if -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell, Chicken Little didn't mind a bit. In fact, she didn't notice it at all.
That's a nice graph. Here's the part that represents the entire lifetime of the genus Homo, of which Homo Sapiens is only the most recent member:Darth_Fleder wrote:
[A lot of stuff that, as far as I can tell, is in reply to posts on another thread]
I was a pixel-width or two generous with that assessment. Think some zoom might be in order? Nah, in fact why not include some temperatures from the Big Bang, while we're at it? We all made it through that okay, right?
Sorry for not analyzing the rest as well, but I'm neither a climatologist nor an evolutionary biologist, so by the time I'd figured out how much of the graph might actually be relevant, I'd lost my appetite. I suspect most non-experts feel the same when they encounter an avalanche of potentially relevant data.
The sky's only ever falling when there's a war to be sold.
Which way? when I was a kid they told me " the Ice Age is coming " Now they say " Global Warming "
When I was a kid the snow was so deep in the winter it was up to my waist !
That rarely happens anymore. It is however up to the waist of my niece and nephew !
When I was a kid the snow was so deep in the winter it was up to my waist !
That rarely happens anymore. It is however up to the waist of my niece and nephew !
In order to stop global warming we must start throwing virgins into volcanos. I suggest we start with CameronPoe.
I don't really think it would have much effect. I'm not really a virgin either so maybe you should try someone else.Major_Spittle wrote:
In order to stop global warming we must start throwing virgins into volcanos. I suggest we start with CameronPoe.
let evolution do the work..
Just sit back, drink a cup of coffee and hope this somehow works out itself
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- what can we do about global climate change?