Global Warming

(For General Discussion)

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Postby Dr Theobald » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:09 pm

chris.ph wrote:i thought it was snowy in victorian times because krakatoa blew up and basically caused a mini nuclear winter :?:


krakatoa was 1883 and the snowy winters were evident well before that date. Sure, Krakatoa did have an influence on global weather - but only in the short term

One has to wonder whether the huge forces that cause the geoplate movements that lead to earthquakes and volcanoes are also a significant factor in the drivers for climatic change? Personally I think that is likely.

Remember that MOST of this earth is a turbulent inner mass of molten rock and movements / currents within that molten mass can have some quite devastating effects on the thin crust that we occupy. For example, consider the effects should the magnetic pole move AGAIN - it most definitely has moved in the past as can easily be shown by geologists. In that the new magnetic north would relocate to the spin axis that could mean (as an example) the current Sahara being where we now have the north pole - and pro-rata reallocation of continents to totally different climatic regions. Not a happy thought, especially sice it is thought, note - thought, that the past movements of the poles have occurred over very short times.

Dr T
User avatar
Dr Theobald
Member
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:19 pm
Location: In all places

Postby chris.ph » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:11 pm

thats my compass knackered then :lol:
measuring intelligence by exam results is like measuring digestion by turd length
User avatar
chris.ph
Member
 
Posts: 8639
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:52 am
Location: swansea south wales

Postby Dr Theobald » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:19 pm

chris.ph wrote:thats my compass knackered then :lol:


Look on the bright side. Swansea could end up where Cannes is now :lol:

Dr T
User avatar
Dr Theobald
Member
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:19 pm
Location: In all places

Postby chris.ph » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:32 pm

if the magnetic poles change does that mean the planet will swing on its axis to make the new poles magnetic north and south :?:

the only cannes i like is fosters dr t :lol: id prefer any where in the tropics :wink:
measuring intelligence by exam results is like measuring digestion by turd length
User avatar
chris.ph
Member
 
Posts: 8639
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:52 am
Location: swansea south wales

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:37 pm

Vulcanism does effect the climate, but only if it's really widespread and over a sustained period. There is change - there's no doubt about that with the ice caps beginning to erode, but that doesn't mean there can't be natural influences too.

I posted elsewhere several weeks back on conclusive evidence found in the Antarctic about there being geological proof that we've had holes in the ozone layer before, in ancient times when we couldn't possibly have effected the natural balance to cause that phenomenon - ergo warming likely occurred through increased vulcanism. Conversely the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia, 6000 years ago unwittingly contributed to the onset of the Arabian deserts by excessive irrigation between the Tigris and the Euphrates so the water tables there gradually rose in the region as the natural effects that created the Sahara began to spread out and took an ongoing toll in turning the surrounding regions into semi and full desert. We can and do effect our environment, but we're only a tiny part of the whole. Some effects we may be able to reduce, or find ways around or to lessen the effects of climate change, but the one thing we won't be able to do is to prevent it changing all together. It's a natural cycle and it's got momentum over millennia not 50, 100 or even 1000 years.
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:44 pm

Well, if it IS very quick, as Sir Terry says "It will be a Short, Sharp, Shower of Sh*t."

Reminds me of Tony's phrase about Mother Earth shaking us fleas off. :lol:
Aha! So, Bob's yer uncle... very clever.
User avatar
Tina a.k.a.SusanSto.Helit
Member
 
Posts: 3885
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:25 pm
Location: Byron IL USA and The Quirm School for Young People ... it's genetic, you know

Postby Dr Theobald » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:03 pm

chris.ph wrote:if the magnetic poles change does that mean the planet will swing on its axis to make the new poles magnetic north and south :?:

the only cannes i like is fosters dr t :lol: id prefer any where in the tropics :wink:


Chris

The technical answer to the rotation query is - almost certainly yes ie the new magnetic north (or it could be south) will likely end up on the axis of rotation which will be more or less perpendicular to the rotational axis around the sun. If it does not do that then earth could move out of orbit I suppose. THAT would put an end to people just worrying about global warming

Dr T
User avatar
Dr Theobald
Member
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:19 pm
Location: In all places

Postby Catch-up » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:04 pm

Interesting thread! And a belated welcome to you Dr. Theobald. :D
User avatar
Catch-up
Member
 
Posts: 6767
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:19 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Postby Dandelion » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:27 pm

swreader wrote:Dandelion, don't want to pick on a newbie--but please check your facts and do a bit more reading. Michael Crichton's State of Fear has been discredited as an unbiased statement for years.


Just keep on picking, me I got a tough shell :twisted:
And I did write that The scientific value of that book is a point of discussion, as most data about global warming can be interpreted differently depending on one's base point of view.
Of course it is an biased statement. It's an action novel - not a scientific study. If You would read my post more closely, You might notice that I didn't write that Crichton's view would be the right one - even he himself doesn't pretend that, as he told his readers to go through the books he listed as sources and then to draw their own conclusions. Something that a lot more people should do nowadays.. own conclusions, not getting breastfed by the media...

Greenland never had more than a small area of habitable land on the southern and western tip, and historically never had a population as high as 2000. While Iceland has had a number of climate changes, the death of the settlements in the 14th and 15th century seem to have been the result only partially of increasing ice, but also to poor farming practices, and to armed conflict with the Inuit peoples.


From Wikipedia
Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years — which makes it possible to say that areas of Greenland may have been much warmer during the medieval period than they are now and that the ice sheet contracted significantly.

These Icelandic settlements vanished during the 14th and 15th centuries, probably due to famine and increasing conflicts with the Inuit. The condition of human bones from this period indicates that the Norse population was malnourished, probably because of

* soil erosion resulting from the Norsemen's destruction of natural vegetation in the course of farming, turf-cutting, and wood-cutting,
* a decline in temperatures during the Little Ice Age,
* armed conflicts with the Inuit.


Over several hundred years there were settlements on Greenland. And then, during the 14th and 15th century, all those people who had settled there died. So, if it were - as You wrote - only about 2000 people living there, and they all died - at least the european settlers, who did.. - that makes it two thousands of dead people, right?

As to your "follow the money" -- a more realistic evaluation would be that no single nation and most likely even all the nations of the world can afford to deal with the dislocations caused by climate change should things continue pretty much as they are for more than 50 to 100 years. Those nations that convent to green economies will be in the best position, but that will not help unless all the nations of the world co-operate in finding ways to stop global warming. The Australian government has now officially recognized that the effects of global warming they have felt in the past few years (drought especially) are permanent. They are now trying to find ways to live with the consequences.


They won't. There's billions of people in the "new" industrial countries - China, India, Southamerica - who would prefer to get something to eat each day, thank you, and won't care or even think about global warming as long as they barely manage to get enough food to see the next day alive.
As long as Earth's population keeps growing, there will alway be way too many people who - have to! - think with their stomachs..

So one of the best ways to stop global warming would be the reduction of population growth. We already manage that quite good in the "old" industrial countries - too bad the newcomers, who rely on "dirty industry" don't follow this trend.

The current way of the "old" industrial nations to fight emissions is to export them into foreign countries doesn't really help either. "Let them buggers over there produce the stuff we need, so we just buy the final products and don't have to care about possible environmental problems.." is a very attractive solution. At least, if one thinks with his purse.

As all of you can tell, this is a subject I am rather passionate about--and equally very pessimistic.


Being passionate is good, under the right circumstances. Being logical is often even better.
And seeing the concept behind that "state of fear" theory that Crichton delivers in his book, which only marginally is connected to global warming, but more to the fact, that our political leaders love things that occupy the public's mind in a way like now the "war against terrorism" or "the fight against global warming" to keep people from looking to closely at other things that go on. People who live in fear are easier to be controlled. So if you want to pass some laws which wouldn't be easily accepted by your voters, get them a heavy dose of fear to help them to put away their uneasyness. You need an excuse to gather data - private data - about the people in your country? Well, raise the fear of terrorism and - abracadabra - most people will suddenly see the benefit in giving up some of their personal freedom. And the same holds true for "global problems" - they keep the voter's minds busy and away from other local problems..
Fabricati Diem, Pvnk!
Dandelion
New member
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:39 am
Location: Germany

Postby Morty » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:07 am

poohcarrot wrote:I could be completely wrong here (and very insulting) , but the way I look at it is this;

There are three kinds of people in the world.

1. People who believe in God. The world was made for them and God will make sure nothing bad happens.

2. People who believe in science and realise that while the dinosaurs lasted approx 180 million years, humankind will be lucky to suvive for 200,000 years.

3. People who don't think.


Definitely a # 1 person.
There has to be something better than this.


Dotsie comes from Manchester and certainly at the moment her memory will be in a considerably better condition than mine but I can’t remember a decent Manchester summer since 1976.


Global warming is not affecting Manchester.
My central heating is on full blast, I’m wearing two sweat shirts and a sleeveless body warmer and I’m going in the bath soon to get warm.


Dr. T......The cartoon.....PMSL :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Morty
Member
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:37 pm

Postby Catch-up » Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:16 am

Very informative post Dandelion. I really enjoyed that book! And belated welcome to you too. :D
User avatar
Catch-up
Member
 
Posts: 6767
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:19 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Postby Danny B » Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:20 am

Dr Theobald wrote: For example, consider the effects should the magnetic pole move AGAIN - it most definitely has moved in the past as can easily be shown by geologists. In that the new magnetic north would relocate to the spin axis that could mean (as an example) the current Sahara being where we now have the north pole - and pro-rata reallocation of continents to totally different climatic regions. Not a happy thought, especially sice it is thought, note - thought, that the past movements of the poles have occurred over very short times.


The earth's magnetic pole has indeed shifted many times over the earth's existence, there is currently no indication that the shift of magnetic alignment is connected to sudden and catastrophic rearranging of the continents, nor is there any compelling evidence for the time period that the realignments occur in. They could happen overnight, or over the course of millions of years, there's currently no way of telling. The continents move, but they do so very slowly and over great periods of time.

Earth crust displacement is widely regarded to be a crackpot theory, with little to no scientific merit. Changes in magnetic alignment do not correlate with known extinction events, nor is there any geological evidence of abrupt movement of the tectonic plates. The volcanic activity and tsunamis associated with such an event would be completely devastating to all life on the planet, to the point of which recovery would virtually impossible, especially in the time scale life has existed for and realignments occur in, so the evidence is flimsy at best. Add to this the staggering release of seismic energy such an event would produce and the lack of evidence pointing towards such an event and it's as good as dead in the water. There are pieces of scattered and unrelated data that seem to point to at the likelihood of the earth physically flipping on it's axis, which are played up to with great fervour by the people who write the dubious academic papers and the makers of doom-saying documentaries, however the mountains of evidence that it simply doesn't happen are ignored in the sensationalist furore that surrounds such pronouncements.

Dr Theobald wrote:
The technical answer to the rotation query is - almost certainly yes ie the new magnetic north (or it could be south) will likely end up on the axis of rotation which will be more or less perpendicular to the rotational axis around the sun. If it does not do that then earth could move out of orbit I suppose. THAT would put an end to people just worrying about global warming

Dr T


Bwah? :?

Where will the moon and the sun be during all of this? It's widely recognised that the sun and the moon are what keep the earth's rotational axis in such a pleasantly predictable and conducive to the long term evolution of complex life forms pattern. The sun pulls the earth towards it, the moon pulls the earth towards it and the earth sits in it's enjoyably dull pattern of rotation and axial wobble. Pretty much everything that all life on the planet is evolved to deal with, gravitationally speaking, is the result of having such a massive satellite. Some cosmologists even argue that the moon is too large, proportionally speaking, to be classified as a satellite and we are in fact part of a binary planet system. The earth, sun and moon have engaged in a stately and predictable dance for billions of years now, staying that way through many previous magnetic realignments and there's absolutely nothing to suggest that they'll do otherwise after the next one.

The energy required to move the earth out of it's current orbit is MASSIVE. Massive on a scale that it's difficult to comprehend. Early in the earth's formation a wandering planet roughly the size of mars crashed into the earth, gouging out our cosmic neighbour, the moon. A wallop of that scale didn't move the earth out of it's orbit. A bit of jiggery pokery with the magnetic field most certainly won't do it. Magnetism simply doesn't work that way. The earth's magnetic field could realign itself twice a day, every day for millennia and the only major effects would be bad reception on electronic communication devices, hours of fun on orienteering outings in the lake district and some very confused migratory animals. We wouldn't even have to worry about increased exposure to solar radiation, since a magnetic field doing the alignment two-step is still very much there, deflecting away all of that deadly solar wind.

There are many things that could wipe out humanity, a good few which could wipe out all higher life forms and more than one that could wipe out everything, but earth crust displacement simply isn't one of them.
User avatar
Danny B
Member
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:55 am
Location: Northumberland, UK

Re: Global Warming

Postby kakaze » Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:12 am

Dr Theobald wrote:Since those nominally in charge are all off for a jolly (at our expense) and will attempt but fail to change attitudes to the so-called global warming issues I thought the following may offer some light relief

Image


Dr T (a sincere global warming sceptic - predicting that the post will "raise a few issues")


Is that a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon by Bill Watterson? I loved Calvin and Hobbes and wish that he hadn't retired.

Quark wrote:The silly thing is when people start telling us how the world will be utterly ruined by global warming. It won't. Earth's looked far worse for wear at points in its history than anything we've done to it, and, like Dotsie says, temperature goes up and down all the time. Humans are just notoriously fragile.


You're right; global warming won't ruin the world, but it might wipe us out. The biggest problem that we would face from a warming climate would be problems with our water supply, which we're already running into. Frankly, I'm more worried about pollution (plastics, farm run-off, toxic chemicals, etc...).

poohcarrot wrote:There are three kinds of people in the world.


lol :lol:

swreader wrote:no single nation and most likely even all the nations of the world can afford to deal with the dislocations caused by climate change should things continue pretty much as they are for more than 50 to 100 years. Those nations that convent to green economies will be in the best position, but that will not help unless all the nations of the world co-operate in finding ways to stop global warming. The Australian government has now officially recognized that the effects of global warming they have felt in the past few years (drought especially) are permanent. They are now trying to find ways to live with the consequences.

As all of you can tell, this is a subject I am rather passionate about--and equally very pessimistic.


You've hit the nail on the head. We're going to have trouble living with the consequences. Thanks to industrialized farming and modern medicine, our population has exploded and we've really pushed the limit on how many people we can support on the available farmland. At the same time over-farming, urban sprall, and loss of potable water due to pollution/drought/melting glaciers has reduced the amount of farmland available.

The consequences? Die-offs due to disease, famine, & natural disasters.

chris.ph wrote:have you seen pictures of the cities at the height of the industrial revolution, then we were pumping out a damn site more noxious crap than we are now. the tawe in swansea was probably worse than the ankh, the copper works and tin works pumped all their mecury and arsenic straight into the rivers not including all the crap that was coming down the valley from the coal mines. now you can salmon fish in the river so wee are trying tp improve our enviroment


This might be true in Europe & North America, but while we cut back, it's really ramping up in Asia and South America. We're not really improving anything, we're just sweeping it under the rug.

Dr Theobald wrote:One has to wonder whether the huge forces that cause the geoplate movements that lead to earthquakes and volcanoes are also a significant factor in the drivers for climatic change? Personally I think that is likely.


Personally, I think it is unquestionable. Active volcanos pump out huge amounts of greenhouse gases and, when they blow, dust & ash. When continents move they create moutains, which make glaciers, change air currents, river courses, and push land higher which can turn a forest into a desert.

Dr Theobald wrote:Remember that MOST of this earth is a turbulent inner mass of molten rock and movements / currents within that molten mass can have some quite devastating effects on the thin crust that we occupy. For example, consider the effects should the magnetic pole move AGAIN - it most definitely has moved in the past as can easily be shown by geologists. In that the new magnetic north would relocate to the spin axis that could mean (as an example) the current Sahara being where we now have the north pole - and pro-rata reallocation of continents to totally different climatic regions. Not a happy thought, especially sice it is thought, note - thought, that the past movements of the poles have occurred over very short times.


Does the axis of the Earth's core affect the axis of the Earth? I know that they are currently something like 18 degrees off of each other (which is why we have a "magnetic north" and a "true north"). I know that the core can turn over pretty quickly but, in these circumstances, it's hard for me to see how this would affect the Earth's axis much.

Catch-up wrote:Interesting thread! And a belated welcome to you Dr. Theobald. :D


Yes, welcome. :)
__________________________________________________________-

Now, like I said; I think the biggest threat facing us is food & water. This is most easily seen in Asia. Together, China and India have about 40% of the world's population (some 2.5 billion people) and have traditionally been enemies. Roughly half of both of these countries are supplied water from the Himilaian glaciers, which are shrinking.

At the same time, other parts of these countries (such as Northern China) have been experiencing severe droughts (in China's case, at least, partially due to over-farming). In order to combat the drought-stricken areas, China is building a huge pipeline (at the cost of $72 billion) to pump water from the Yellow river to Northern China where a quarter of a million residents are facing problems with drinking water.

In June of 1996 Scientific American reported that China was considering using nuclear bombs to build a 15 km tunnel to divert water into the Gobi desert from the Brahmaputra River, which skirts China's southern border before dipping into India and Bangladesh. If they did this, what do you suppose India would do?

References:
"Peaceful" Nuclear Explosions
A Chinese declaration of war?
China is building a huge network to divert water to the north.
kakaze
Member
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:42 am

Postby Quark » Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:11 am

Apparently, the period between ice ages rarely exceeds 20,000 years, and the last one finished 18,000 years ago. The global temperature then will doubtless drop far more than anything we can do in the mean time.

Also, humans are pretty darn insignificant when it comes to climate change. One volcanic eruption can cause a much bigger effect than a thousand factories, and humans have been on Earth for... well, an insignificant period.
Image
User avatar
Quark
Member
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:27 am
Location: The blogosphere

Postby Dotsie » Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:48 am

This thread certainly moved quickly :lol: But there does seem to be a lot of toot-talking.

Dr T - I'd be interested to hear which branch of science you worked in? And also why you believe everything geologists tell you, but not climatologists? :roll:
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9413
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Broken Drum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 10 guests