|
Post by yahadj on Nov 14, 2007 14:05:23 GMT -5
Hmmm, Interesting...
Are we being decieved? Why?
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Nov 14, 2007 15:14:40 GMT -5
|
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on Nov 14, 2007 16:39:35 GMT -5
It can go both ways. My theory is that, if global warming is happening, the earth's rotation is getting equalized around the sun, which means that we could have the same weather as they did in Pre-Historic times (Stoneage/Dinosaurs).
That means there is no more winter, or fall, or spring, in most places, but only summer.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 14, 2007 17:18:23 GMT -5
Global warming is happenning. However, scientists exagerrate it's impact and how much of it is due to human actions. Scientists constantly say the ice caps are melting but they exagerrate the impact of this. not only that they are melting in the north due to heat but in Antartica they are melting in 1 area only due to changes in the wind pattern while in the interior of Antartica and the rest of Antartica it is increasing.
|
|
Japodian
Senior Moderator
Aber dojde donke
Posts: 117
|
Post by Japodian on Nov 15, 2007 14:08:42 GMT -5
It depends how you view dimensions and scientists do not augment it at all. For example the difference in average temperature of about 1 degree centigrade doesn't look so big when you say it, but when you put it in climatological models you've got climate with more and more =>F5 storms, droughts, imbalanced precipitation, heat strikes... It is not the topic about how it gets much warmer but how the climate is becoming more extreme. So small differences in temperature give very big differences in climate scenarios. As for Antarctica what I read says otherwise, it is that in average Antarctica is also losing ice and melting quite rapidly. Ice melting in AntarcticaOther impacts of climate can be quite easily connected with economy, productivity and so on... I wouldn't like to imagine Europe without Golf stream heating its shores which is quite possible to happen if the trend goes on as it goes.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 15, 2007 14:29:59 GMT -5
It depends how you view dimensions and scientists do not augment it at all. For example the difference in average temperature of about 1 degree centigrade doesn't look so big when you say it, but when you put it in climatological models you've got climate with more and more =>F5 storms, droughts, imbalanced precipitation, heat strikes... It is not the topic about how it gets much warmer but how the climate is becoming more extreme. So small differences in temperature give very big differences in climate scenarios. As for Antarctica what I read says otherwise, it is that in average Antarctica is also losing ice and melting quite rapidly. Ice melting in AntarcticaOther impacts of climate can be quite easily connected with economy, productivity and so on... I wouldn't like to imagine Europe without Golf stream heating its shores which is quite possible to happen if the trend goes on as it goes. Actually. Ice is only melting at the Antartic Peninsula and it is more likely due to a change in the wind pattern. Along coastal areas ice is melting at the same rate as before (only the Antartic Peninsula is thje melting accelerated). In the interior of Antartica ice is increasing.
|
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on Nov 15, 2007 14:51:43 GMT -5
^ If the world is getting warmer, the storms are getting more intense... Maybe thats true, maybe not, since it gets a LOT more coverage on the news and a LOT more attention in the media, than before. Maybe now that it's in our faces, we think it's a big deal.
But if it is true, then the increase in Extreme Weather Patterns is the planet trying to tell us to slow down. If not we could be heading for another Ice Age. Scientists say that Mars had a climate that of the earth before, and that it was some sort of Global Warming that burned out the oxygen, and left behind the Carbon Dioxide.
So what exactly can you guys predict for the earths future, and the global warming playing it's role in it? It could be a lot, or very little, depending on how you look at it.
|
|
Japodian
Senior Moderator
Aber dojde donke
Posts: 117
|
Post by Japodian on Nov 15, 2007 17:12:53 GMT -5
The growth of the central part of the continent is actually very small and negligible and it is quite a small number compared to the loss of the ice on the shores which by new research shows global loss, it is along all the coast of Antarctica. The places where it is more exquisite are Pine Bay and Graham Land [Antarctic peninsula] but it is also much greater than normal in other parts of the Antarctic coast.
I do not think it is a sort of modern media exclusive, it is just the plain language of modern geophysics and mathematics with a big addition of chaos theory because when you change some parameters for a very small amount the changes which happen become quite impressive. I do not say that there are not other quite understandable reasons for such behavior but that the human factor has bigger impact than it had and much bigger impact than some people think.
It is your decision, you can close your eyes and claim it is not happening, listen to the so called "scientists" payed by fossil fuel lobby to speak inaccurate information, or you can open your eyes listen to the voice of uncorrupted scientific community and do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by radovic on Nov 17, 2007 22:05:34 GMT -5
The growth of the central part of the continent is actually very small and negligible and it is quite a small number compared to the loss of the ice on the shores which by new research shows global loss, it is along all the coast of Antarctica. The places where it is more exquisite are Pine Bay and Graham Land [Antarctic peninsula] but it is also much greater than normal in other parts of the Antarctic coast. I do not think it is a sort of modern media exclusive, it is just the plain language of modern geophysics and mathematics with a big addition of chaos theory because when you change some parameters for a very small amount the changes which happen become quite impressive. I do not say that there are not other quite understandable reasons for such behavior but that the human factor has bigger impact than it had and much bigger impact than some people think. It is your decision, you can close your eyes and claim it is not happening, listen to the so called "scientists" payed by fossil fuel lobby to speak inaccurate information, or you can open your eyes listen to the voice of uncorrupted scientific community and do something about it. The growth is about the same as the melting. In the end the ice is growing, however the melting will cause sea lvel increases. However, how much sea levels will rise is often exagerrated. The sealvels will likely rise only 30cm at most and that is equal to the rise that has occured since the 1900s and no one seem's to be mentioning. Plus. The lie about global warming is the solutions and what the true effects will be. Seriously, those anyone really think solar and wind power are enough to prevent it. Or that using a hybrid car or using a different kind of light bulb will help much. Samething goes with biofuels, no one says that the current system of biofuels is the worst option.
|
|
Japodian
Senior Moderator
Aber dojde donke
Posts: 117
|
Post by Japodian on Nov 18, 2007 11:42:04 GMT -5
It is highly unnatural for central Antarctica to grow so since her recent historic climate measured by ice drilling is quite dry and there shouldn't be a lot of precipitation. Actually the growth of the central part and the melting of the coastal parts both are supporting global warming thesis. As for the relations between the growth of central part and ice loss on coastal part, the measurements I've read say that the latest ice loss only from Antarctica produces around 0.4 mm/yr of water rise, while snowfall in central Antarctica is reducing it by around 0.1 mm/yr. So it is quite obvious that the loss is bigger than the thickening. Globally water rise is about 2 mm/yr but in the latest times the ice shelfs became quite unstable and nobody really knows when will some clump of ice with the size of New York or Texas break and rise the water level for much bigger amount.
As for the measures, I think something needs to be done, since the way of living is quite deteriorating our planet. I agree some propositions are quite infantile or even stupid like fuel from herbal sources, especially when dealing with growing Earth population demanding more and more food. But using different light emitters and arranging it differently will. Old light emitters are quite bad, mostly producing heat and not giving enough illumination. Just using newer models of light emitters using not for example 40 W but 14 W can make a big change in energy consumption and by that the use of fuel which powers the power stations.
Wind power is a small and non effective way of producing energy since it needs the right place, permanent wind source and so on... Photovoltaic solar energy is something else, it is not effective now but it is also because of the loss of investment since we are way bellow the physical limit. This is related from the change in design to the change of chemicals used in cells. You also can make simple thermal solar power stations. Just look how regions with no precipitation and whole day sunshine are unused, like Sahara, Atacama and some other desert, which could be used for something useful.
As for cars I think there are to much of them and I think the use of public transport should be promoted. Germany did one great thing it, they made a legislation which made railway free of taxes because of low pollution which gave cheaper tickets and more use of public transport. Not only there is less pollution, but it is quite quicker and comfortable than using a car. As for hybrids I think they are good ideas since the quality of air in urban areas is sometimes horrific and a little improvement is always welcome.
Third thing is intelligent design of living space, use of new materials. It doesn't only pay to environment but also to the person who uses it since the bill for electric energy, gas and water are smaller. Also newer building ideas are quite cheaper because of the materials they use. For example straw bales are quite cheap, they are actually heavy to be ignited by fire and are quite weak heat conductors, so the loss of heat is two times slower than by standard thermal insulators used in mainstream house building. The houses are also quite stable and can be build up to two, three stores which is quite enough for average family needs.
Another thing are new energy sources research like like thermonuclear fusion and the use of nowadays quite safe nuclear fission power stations where by the means of modern design the impact on environment is small and negligible. Average coal power station produces more nuclear radiation by emitting radioactive C-14 in to the atmosphere than average nuclear fission power station. Fusion power stations will even better since there is no remains which would produce nuclear radiation.
The change naturally will not come once instantly, but the bad effects of global warming are present and many things can be done even now. But even now the oil lobby doesn't seem to accept the truth since the only thing they respect is money.
|
|