whether global warming is real or not, there should be no argument that every modernized country in the world should be looking for alternative and cleaner resources to make the world a better place for all in the present and for future generations

 

 

 

 

 

if we keep up what we're doing to the world there wont be many future generations

^^ Thats completely ridiculous.

^^ Thats completely ridiculous.

 

 

 

Care to explain why??

Because even the ipcc only predicts that there will be 3 degrees of warming in the next 100 years. Even if that was true 3 degrees isn't really going to be the end of humanity. And that number is way to high. Climate sensitivity to co2 is only 1.6-1.9 degrees. That would mean we would only have .8-1.1 more degrees Celsius total.

Because even the ipcc only predicts that there will be 3 degrees of warming in the next 100 years. Even if that was true 3 degrees isn't really going to be the end of humanity. And that number is way to high. Climate sensitivity to co2 is only 1.6-1.9 degrees. That would mean we would only have .8-1.1 more degrees Celsius total.

 

 

 

Well how exactly would you or the ipcc know exactly by how much the tempurature will increase?

 

If there is loads of volcanic eruptions in that time will it change the tempurature and by how much?

 

What if man made carbon dioxide increases?

Because even the ipcc only predicts that there will be 3 degrees of warming in the next 100 years. Even if that was true 3 degrees isn't really going to be the end of humanity. And that number is way to high. Climate sensitivity to co2 is only 1.6-1.9 degrees. That would mean we would only have .8-1.1 more degrees Celsius total.

 

 

 

Well how exactly would you or the ipcc know exactly by how much the tempurature will increase?

 

If there is loads of volcanic eruptions in that time will it change the tempurature and by how much?

 

What if man made carbon dioxide increases?

 

 

 

And you don't think scientists factor that kind of thing in?

 

 

 

Global warming won't eradicate the human race, but it will make living conditions untenable in some places. Droughts are looking like the norm for Australia from now on, unfortunately.

"If this global warming is happening, then why am I so cold!" ~ Gus Gould.

whether global warming is real or not, there should be no argument that every modernized country in the world should be looking for alternative and cleaner resources to make the world a better place for all in the present and for future generations

 

 

 

I completely agree. I'm not a scientist and I only know what I read in the press, so you won't hear me claiming global warming is true or not.

 

 

 

However, it doesn't take much intelligence to see that the Western countries waste a lot of resources, just because they can. As other big nations are climbing to welfare (China!) this is only going to get worse. It seems nothing less than sensible to me to invest in alternatives that are environment-friendly, if we want our children to enjoy our earth as we do. I respect the earth and I will do my best to reduce the effects of my use of it.

 

 

 

On a personal, micro-level, it is also obvious that saving on energy and gas will do your wallet a lot of good, or rather, less harm. Prices are going up, while the economy is stagnating (at best), so we are most definitely entering a period of recess. With a few simple changes of habit, I have lowered my yearly electricity use by more than 25% and I haven't got a car, my employer pays my daily trainrides to and from work.

I completely agree with Sumpta13. My family has been minimizing electicity use even before the so called "global warming crisis" for the sake of saving on utility bills. The issue with oil is more of the problem now, since uncontrolled price fixing and speculation have driven the prices of fuel to record highs. In the 1990s, it was not so much of an issue, when gasoline was $1.00 a gallon. Today, however, filling your tank can cost you close to $100.00 (thanks to speculation, politicians, and commodities traders.) The main reason why fuel economy is important for people today is money saving, not the environment. Only the wealthy morons (Al Gore and company) can brag about being "environmentally friendly".

 

 

 

In summary, this whole "man-caused global warming" thing is a joke. The rich folk are saints while those lower than they are scum. It sounds like a social Darwinism scam to me.

This Global Warming theory is bringing more harm than good. It's helping to raise the price of gas which in turn increase the cost of living. In fact, people have been having their houses foreclosured at a record rate.

This Global Warming theory is bringing more harm than good. It's helping to raise the price of gas which in turn increase the cost of living. In fact, people have been having their houses foreclosured at a record rate.

 

 

 

Salmonella sucks too. Lets just humour ourselves and say it no longer exists.

I don't get the joke #-o

 

 

 

 

 

Salmonella is a different problem altogether. Microbes are much harder to negotiate with.

I don't get the joke #-o

 

 

 

 

 

Salmonella is a different problem altogether. Microbes are much harder to negotiate with.

 

 

 

The point stands.. Something doesn't just stop existing because it's inconvenient or causes problems. Especially people with big SUV's driving alone to work can be somehow 'offended' by rising gas prices and people telling them they're just contributing to both problems: They consume expensive gas and thus create even more demand, plus they pollute about 6x more than someone driving a 'normal' car.

 

 

 

For example I like browsing message boards sometimes in my spare time. If my local town council said that unnecessary browsing after 6.00PM in excess of 2+ hours will cause significant electricity shortages in remote areas of the town, would I still continue browsing, protesting I have the "freedom" to do so?

 

 

 

If it benefits EVERYONE, then sometimes you just have to give up comforts that are unnecessary. It's more important for a family with kids to be able to cook food, than it is for me to read stuff on a forum.

I don't get the joke #-o

 

 

 

 

 

Salmonella is a different problem altogether. Microbes are much harder to negotiate with.

 

 

 

The point is that it's stupid running away from problems or pretending they don't exist simply because the consequences are a bitter pill to swallow.

 

 

 

Saying that the theory of global warming is bringing more harm then good and then making a judgment on whether it's true or not is as stupid as me saying that Salmonella is bad therefore lets all pretend it doesnt exist.

Because even the ipcc only predicts that there will be 3 degrees of warming in the next 100 years. Even if that was true 3 degrees isn't really going to be the end of humanity. And that number is way to high. Climate sensitivity to co2 is only 1.6-1.9 degrees. That would mean we would only have .8-1.1 more degrees Celsius total.

 

 

 

Well how exactly would you or the ipcc know exactly by how much the tempurature will increase?

 

If there is loads of volcanic eruptions in that time will it change the tempurature and by how much?

 

What if man made carbon dioxide increases?

 

 

 

And you don't think scientists factor that kind of thing in?

 

 

 

Global warming won't eradicate the human race, but it will make living conditions untenable in some places. Droughts are looking like the norm for Australia from now on, unfortunately.

 

 

 

 

 

They do factor it in. But really we have no idea what kind of positive feedbacks will impact temperature. It is just as likely that negative feedbacks will detract from whatever warming we have left.

Omg, gas price isn't that big of a deal, oh my god a couple of more cents, I'm going to go bankrupt. Seriously, this isn't china where they make like 1 cents an hour. And plus, cars get around 15-49 mph. Oh mai god it costs me $4.30 to travel 32 miles!!!! World is ending!!

Omg, gas price isn't that big of a deal, oh my god a couple of more cents, I'm going to go bankrupt. Seriously, this isn't china where they make like 1 cents an hour. And plus, cars get around 15-49 mph. Oh mai god it costs me $4.30 to travel 32 miles!!!! World is ending!!

 

 

 

The problem is that the oil runs out. What has this to do with this topic though?

It's somewhat related, just needed to vent on the people thinking that their raising gas prices because of global warming.

It's somewhat related, just needed to vent on the people thinking that their raising gas prices because of global warming.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if you drive or not but if you did you would understand how painful these gas prices really are. Especailly compared to 10 years ago, when they were barely $2 a gallon, and then you throw in the spiraling economy right now its not good.

I don't get the joke #-o

 

 

 

 

 

Salmonella is a different problem altogether. Microbes are much harder to negotiate with.

 

 

 

The point stands.. Something doesn't just stop existing because it's inconvenient or causes problems. Especially people with big SUV's driving alone to work can be somehow 'offended' by rising gas prices and people telling them they're just contributing to both problems: They consume expensive gas and thus create even more demand, plus they pollute about 6x more than someone driving a 'normal' car.

 

 

 

For example I like browsing message boards sometimes in my spare time. If my local town council said that unnecessary browsing after 6.00PM in excess of 2+ hours will cause significant electricity shortages in remote areas of the town, would I still continue browsing, protesting I have the "freedom" to do so?

 

 

 

If it benefits EVERYONE, then sometimes you just have to give up comforts that are unnecessary. It's more important for a family with kids to be able to cook food, than it is for me to read stuff on a forum.

 

 

 

Food prices are going up. In fact, it used to cost us $300 for groceries, now it's averaging at around $400. Now, if you're making $100,000 a year, it's no big deal. But if you live in a family that's barely scraping $20,000, it's a HUGE deal. And if you must, this internet is needed for my mom's work. If she didn't have that work, I wouldn't be here right now.

 

They do factor it in. But really we have no idea what kind of positive feedbacks will impact temperature. It is just as likely that negative feedbacks will detract from whatever warming we have left.

 

 

 

According to who?

 

 

 

Edit: Nevermind, I've found some information on the subject.

^^ Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology proposed the iris hypothesis.

 

 

 

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf

 

 

 

And the team at the University of Alabama Huntsville found some evidence potentially supporting it.

 

 

 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2 ... 9698.shtml

 

 

 

If this is right it could explain why the world hasn't warmed this century and we might not get any further warming.

Omg, gas price isn't that big of a deal, oh my god a couple of more cents, I'm going to go bankrupt. Seriously, this isn't china where they make like 1 cents an hour. And plus, cars get around 15-49 mph. Oh mai god it costs me $4.30 to travel 32 miles!!!! World is ending!!

 

Oh you're tough smartass. It doesn't affect just car users. For example, my dad is an independent truck driver. The truck is his but hauls other companies' stuff. Because its his, he has to pay for disel and repairs. The increasing price of gas makes his profit less. And it doesn't stop there: the companies getting the shipment have to pay more to the trucking companies to transport their goods thus making the receiving company's goods more expesive.

 

 

 

If that didn't made sense: Truck Company pays more for gas, increases transport cost. The commerical company has to pay the increased transport cost and to make up for it increases the cost of their own goods. So stuff in Target, or groceries cost more.

 

So its not just cars that get affected. Everything tranported by a plane, boat, or truck (basically EVERYTHING) gets an increase of price.

^^ Doesn't understand the value of a dollar.

^^ Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology proposed the iris hypothesis.

 

 

 

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf

 

 

 

And the team at the University of Alabama Huntsville found some evidence potentially supporting it.

 

 

 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2 ... 9698.shtml

 

 

 

If this is right it could explain why the world hasn't warmed this century and we might not get any further warming.

 

 

 

 

 

The clouds article you quote was published in 2001. Its predictions have been taken into account in IPCC publications since then, which still predict a problem of CO2 induced global warming. Interestingly, clouds may also produce positive feedback which would send the climate change into overdrive, and so there have been prominent scientists (e.g. from Oxford University) suggesting that the warming might be 12oC rather than 3oC.

 

 

 

I doubt that you can view this New Scientist article, since you have to be a subscriber (my university is), but here's the link anyway: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18324575.600 - here is a quote:

 

 

 

But it's when we come to the third feedback mechanism that things get really sticky. Clouds are clearly linked to water vapour. A lot of water vapour in the air eventually forms clouds. During their short lives, clouds produce both positive and negative feedbacks. We all know that during the day, they can keep us cool by reflecting the sun's harsh rays. And at night they keep us warm, acting like a blanket that traps heat rising from the ground. But which of these effects wins out depends a lot on the height at which the clouds form, their depth, colour and density.

 

 

 

Researchers still know surprisingly little about how many and what sort of clouds are up there. Last year, for instance, it emerged that there may be vastly more heat-trapping cirrus clouds in the upper atmosphere than anyone had thought. Some studies suggest that, taken globally, the cooling and warming effects of clouds may largely cancel each other out. But nobody is sure. And small changes in either the area of cloud cover or the types of clouds that form could change things radically. So for modellers of our future climate there are two issues. Will global warming change clouds? And will the changes produce positive or negative feedback on the climate?

 

 

 

A first guess would suggest that extra evaporation and water vapour in the atmosphere will make more clouds. But it may not be so simple. Higher evaporation rates in the heat of a greenhouse day may "burn off" clouds without them ever producing rain. Equally, clouds may "rain out" more quickly, leaving clearer skies rather than cloudier ones. The fear is that clearer skies will amplify, rather than damp down global warming.

 

 

 

And there is growing evidence that this clear-skies effect could already be under way. One of the foremost experts on clouds and climate, Bruce Wielicki of NASA's Langley Research Center, has found that there are fewer clouds these days in the tropics. Since the mid-1980s, he says, the rising and descending motions of air that cover the entire tropics, for example in the Hadley circulation cells (see Diagram), appeared to increase in strength. The result was faster formation of storm clouds in areas where the air rises - what meteorologists call the inter-tropical convergence zone - but with the clouds raining out more quickly, which left the rest of the tropics drier and less cloudy.

 

 

 

New research showing a decrease in "earthshine", the sunlight reflected from the Earth onto the moon, is still controversial (New Scientist, 5 June, p 10), but seems to confirm both that the Earth's cloud cover is falling and that the reflectivity of clouds plays a vital role in controlling the planet's radiation budget, says Peter Cox, head of climate chemistry at the Met Office.

 

 

 

 

So, the take-home message is: don't rely on clouds to save the day...

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: also, you say "the world hasn't warmed this century" - I don't know where you got that from, but I'm not sure that I believe it - and even if it is true, the "century" has only lasted 8 years so far. (see various myths here: http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... th/dn11462 )