Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Global Warming good for the earth?Follow

#1 Apr 15 2009 at 11:24 AM Rating: Default
****
6,580 posts
So I recently got told this interesting argument for global warming.

I heard this through word of mouth, it is not a direct quote of an internet blog, so it is partly my interpretation. That isn't to say it completely conveys my views towards the subject.

Quote:
Firstly:
"We are overdue an Ice Age" - Whilst this may be true, the number of years we (Humans) have brought the ice age forward, compared to the natural progression of the Ice ages, is very small.
Secondly:
why do we want a new Ice Age?
If we think about it, at this point in time, we would not be able to deal with an Ice Age on a massive global scale, however, we are still in an Ice Age, and the next one will not come accross for very long time (We have glaciers and Ice on the polar caps, thus we are still in an Ice age)

The enviromental worries at the moment evolve around heating up the earth (A "bad" thing) and the fuel reserves.

But I ask you this: What is our most abundant source of energy? The Sun. Should we be worried about energy after the sun burns out? No, because when the sun dies, it will take us all with it.
So let's look at the sun, what does it provide? Light and Heat energy.

Let's focus on Heat energy.
Heat energy is an unlimited source of energy (for as I said: when we stop getting energy from the sun, it will be because that star has died and taken u with it.).
As I have mentioned, the Sun is our main source of heat energy.
Heat energy is easilly trapped and converted to other forms of energy. These processes are already being used today: Some eco-settlements harness the heat absorbed in the earth and use it to power their needs.
So, we have he technology to harness heat energy from the sun (on a small scal at least, however, with time, I don't see why we can't evolve this technology to provide this service on a larger (worldwide?) scale.)
The point I'm trying to make is that More heat = more energy, and more energy = longer exoistance for the human race (as what we are seriously lacking is energy).

So...
Global Warming is bad.
Why? Heating up the planet delays the next Ice Age. Why is this bad? A few species die? Welcome to real life: It is nature to continue our species' exitance, even if it compromises other species.
Global Warming is good.
Heat energy is an abundant source of energy. Global Warming = more heat saved within the planet = more heat on the earth = more energy.
Energy is our main problem (read: lack of energy is our main problem)


Heat energy conserved through global warming:
Prolongs the next Ice Age = more time for humans to gain the technology to deal with this
Gives more heat energy to the earth = when harnessed, an unlimited source of energy to fuel the planet.

So driving a big 4X4 will help global warming "increase it". My question now is, what is the most "un-enviromental" (purely in increasing global warming) car I can buy?

#2 Apr 15 2009 at 11:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
What the fUCk is that supposed to be?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Apr 15 2009 at 11:27 AM Rating: Decent
You and whoever told you this are both stupid as ****.
#4 Apr 15 2009 at 11:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Noodles wrote:
So I recently got told this interesting argument for global warming.
You keep saying this word, I do not think you know what it means.

Edited, Apr 15th 2009 2:28pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
#5 Apr 15 2009 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Noodles wrote:
So I recently got told this interesting argument for global warming.
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Edited, Apr 15th 2009 2:28pm by AshOnMyTomatoes


Fixed. Geez, Ash, get your quotes right. Smiley: grin

Also, I heard on NPR last night that they're doing experiments on whether global warming will speed up the death rate of trees in drought. Smiley: frown
#6 Apr 15 2009 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Yeah... you know there are more effects to global warming than everything getting hotter, right? Like the effects of temperature change on species around the world for one. Or how it isn't a uniform change; some places heat up (or cool down!) much more than others. Or how it leads to greater variation; hotter summers, warmer winters, and wackier out-of-season weather in between?

I could go on, but no, this isn't interesting.

An AMUSING argument I heard was some inland folk get ocean-front property if the icecaps melt They wanted it for real estate values.

They've mostly lost their home values in the recession, however.
#7 Apr 15 2009 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Noodles wrote:
I heard this through word of mouth, it is not a direct quote of an internet blog, so it is partly my interpretation. That isn't to say it completely conveys my views towards the subject.

Oh, it conveys enough, don't worry.

#8 Apr 15 2009 at 11:56 AM Rating: Default
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5109251/Trees-are-growing-faster-and-could-buy-time-to-halt-global-warming.html

I giggled. My employees stared at me - it was worth it, though.

Also, for kicks:

http://www.canada.com/life/female+partner+means+more/973613/story.html

I do wonder who decided this research was worth throwing down dollars.
#9 Apr 15 2009 at 12:00 PM Rating: Decent
*****
19,369 posts
Correct definition of interesting wrote:
1. engaging or exciting and holding the attention or curiosity: an interesting book.
2. arousing a feeling of interest: an interesting face.




Incorrect definition of interesting wrote:
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.
6. Slang. excellent; terrific.
#10 Apr 15 2009 at 12:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
So...
Global Warming is bad.
Why? Heating up the planet delays the next Ice Age. Why is this bad? A few species die? Welcome to real life: It is nature to continue our species' exitance, even if it compromises other species.
This isn't the reason most sciencey-type guys say it's bad. Polar bears play well with the public though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Apr 15 2009 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

It is nature to continue our species' exitance, even if it compromises other species.


Right on.


And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


It's all ours! God said so. Joph will explain to you how this works.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12 Apr 15 2009 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Blessed are the meek, buddy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Apr 15 2009 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Blessed are the meek, buddy.
Oh that's nice, 'cause they've 'ad ever such an 'ard time.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#14 Apr 15 2009 at 2:16 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Blessed are the meek, buddy.


I'll have to take your word on that one, I'm afraid. When you find the religion with "blessed are the narcissistic sadistic megalomaniacs" as a tenant, do let me know. OR, you know, if Capitalism becomes a religion at some point, I'd like to know about that, too.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#15 Apr 15 2009 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
I generally don't heed the advice of people who spell 'you' as:
Quote:
(for as I said: when we stop getting energy from the sun, it will be because that star has died and taken u with it.)
Stopped reading after that.

Edited, Apr 15th 2009 10:25pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#16 Apr 15 2009 at 11:51 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
For sh*ts and Giggles.

Quote:
Less than 2C
Arctic sea icecap disappears, leaving polar bears homeless and changing the Earth's energy balance dramatically as reflective ice is replaced during summer months by darker sea surface. Now expected by 2030 or even earlier.

Droughts spread through the sub-tropics, accompanied by heatwaves and intense wildfires. Worst-hit are the Mediterranean, the south-west United States, southern Africa and Australia.

Tropical coral reefs suffer severe and repeated bleaching episodes due to hotter ocean waters, killing off most coral and delivering a hammer blow to marine biodiversity.

2C-3C
Summer heatwaves such as that in Europe in 2003, which killed 30,000 people, become annual events. Extreme heat sees temperatures reaching the low 40s Celsius in southern England.

Amazon rainforest crosses a "tipping point" where extreme heat and lower rainfall makes the forest unviable - much of it burns and is replaced by desert and savannah.

Dissolved CO2 turns the oceans increasingly acidic, destroying remaining coral reefs and wiping out many species of plankton which are the basis of the marine food chain. Several metres of sea level rise is now inevitable as the Greenland ice sheet disappears.

3C-4C
Glacier and snow-melt in the world's mountain chains depletes freshwater flows to downstream cities and agricultural land. Most affected are California, Peru, Pakistan and China. Global food production is under threat as key breadbaskets in Europe, Asia and the United States suffer drought, and heatwaves outstrip the tolerance of crops.

The Gulf Stream current declines significantly. Cooling in Europe is unlikely due to global warming, but oceanic changes alter weather patterns and lead to higher than average sea level rise in the eastern US and UK.

4C-5C
Another tipping point sees massive amounts of methane - a potent greenhouse gas - released by melting Siberian permafrost, further boosting global warming. Much human habitation in southern Europe, north Africa, the Middle East and other sub-tropical areas is rendered unviable due to excessive heat and drought. The focus of civilisation moves towards the poles, where temperatures remain cool enough for crops, and rainfall - albeit with severe floods - persists. All sea ice is gone from both poles; mountain glaciers are gone from the Andes, Alps and Rockies.

5C-6C
Global average temperatures are now hotter than for 50million years. The Arctic region sees temperatures rise much higher than average - up to 20C - meaning the entire Arctic is now ice-free all year round. Most of the topics, sub-tropics and even lower mid-latitudes are too hot to be inhabitable. Sea level rise is now sufficiently rapid that coastal cities across the world are largely abandoned.

6C and above
Danger of "runaway warming", perhaps spurred by release of oceanic methane hydrates. Could the surface of the Earth become like Venus, entirely uninhabitable? Most sea life is dead. Human refuges now confined entirely to highland areas and the polar regions. Human population is drastically reduced. Perhaps 90% of species become extinct, rivalling the worst mass extinctions in the Earth's 4.5 billion-year history.

• Mark Lynas is the author of Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet


Edited, Apr 16th 2009 5:40am by Aripyanfar
#17 Apr 16 2009 at 12:28 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
While I am not throwing in wholeheartedly with the doom, gloom, and calamity crowd who believes global warmiing is an indisputable fact or that even if such a thing is happening that it is a guaranteed recipe for disaster, even I had to shake my head at the thin veneer of what passed for logic in that argument, Noodles. Whosever's blog it is you're reading, I'd recommend you discontinue perusing it as it has apparently caused a discrease in your IQ of at least 5 points. That's dangerous stuff, man.

Totem
#18 Apr 16 2009 at 3:33 AM Rating: Good
****
5,159 posts
bsphil wrote:
I generally don't heed the advice of people who spell 'you' as:
Quote:
(for as I said: when we stop getting energy from the sun, it will be because that star has died and taken u with it.)
Stopped reading after that.

Edited, Apr 15th 2009 10:25pm by bsphil

Actually I'm pretty sure that should just say "us" and it's a simple typo.
#19REDACTED, Posted: Apr 16 2009 at 4:02 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Global Warming is a Global Lie.
#20 Apr 16 2009 at 4:50 AM Rating: Good
***
1,594 posts
Keldrath wrote:
Global Warming is a Global Lie.


dont buy into this hoax. seriously some people are so gullible. or should i say most people?


Because the average temperature of the earth really hasn't been going up? News to me.
#21 Apr 16 2009 at 5:58 AM Rating: Default
Because it isn't.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA

Debate the semantics if you will.

Article wrote:
Wong's take is that melting arctic ice is responsible for the cooling of the oceans. I contend that if that were the case, why did it take until 2003 to show cooling, after a few decades of warming? Also, the UKMET office showed that Earth's temperatures have been cooling for the past five years. Since 75% of the planet is water, that would make sense. Just last week, I wrote about the arctic sea ice returning to 1979 levels just 1 1/2 years after the fear of the biggest summer ice retreat in 2007.

But what about the basics? Ocean temperatures do experience a 'lag' or delay in heating and cooling. That is why Ocean City's surf temperatures are chilly during Memorial Day weekend, but warm significantly by Labor Day weekend. The average Northern Hemisphere's peak heat (air temp) is in mid-July, while the Atlantic Ocean's peak heat (water) is in mid-September. The ocean temperature peaks in mid-September coincide with heightened hurricane activity.

So, could these reports indicate that melting cools the oceans and has a negative feedback on warming? Is this just a speed bump in the general trend of warming? Does this 'surprise' almost sound like they are dissapointed that the warming trend has not continued so far? Or is this just part of a natural cycle, such as the seasons, but on a larger scale? With regard to cycles, we have only been sampling and studying a small part of Earth's history and have perhaps jumped to conclusions about the impact of carbon dioxide (there are more potent gases such as methane that don't make headlines). What do you think? What about the 'surprise' of the scientists? Please share in the comments section below.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/13/global-warming-update-winter-2008-coldest-seven-years
Newsbusters wrote:

Global temperatures were also the coldest since 2001:

* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C). The presence of a moderate-to-strong La Niña contributed to an average temperature that was the coolest since the La Niña episode of 2000-2001.

* While analyses of the causes of the severe winter storms in southern China continues, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory scientists are focusing on the presence of unusually strong, persistent high pressure over Eastern Europe, combined with low pressure over Southwest Asia. This pattern directed a series of storms across the region, while northerly low level flow introduced cold air from Mongolia. Unusually high water temperatures in the China Sea may have triggered available moisture that enhanced the severity of these storms.

* Record Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in January was followed by above average snow cover for the month of February. Unusually high temperatures across much of the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere in February began reducing the snow cover, and by the end of February, snow cover extent was below average in many parts of the hemisphere.


http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22205/Clouds_Mitigate_Global_Warming_New_Evidence_Shows.html

Heartland.org wrote:
Clouds Mitigate Global Warming, New Evidence Shows
Environment & Climate News > November 2007
Environment
Environment > Climate: Alarmism
Email a Friend
Written By: Steven Milloy
Published In: Environment & Climate News > November 2007
Publication date: 11/01/2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

In a study published in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters on August 9, researchers at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) provide more real-world evidence of the self-regulating nature of the Earth's atmosphere.

If the self-regulatory mechanism is confirmed by additional research, it will represent yet another deal-breaker for the hypothesis that has propped up climate alarmism thus far.


Positive Feedback Theory

Key to predictions of runaway global warming are alleged "positive feedback" cycles that supposedly will build upon each other to cause runaway global warming. Existing climate models, for example, assume a warmer atmosphere will cause an increase in high-altitude cirrus clouds--a positive feedback into the climate system since cirrus clouds trap outgoing radiation emitted by the Earth.

When you feed a warming scenario envisioning the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels--which would on its own create no more than 1.2º C of warming--into a climate model that has been turbocharged with positive feedback factors such as cirrus clouds, the resulting estimated warming increases by 250 percent to 3º C.


Self-Regulating Clouds

However, many scientists have questioned the validity of the hypothetical positive feedback mechanism. Massachusetts Institute of Technology atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, for example, proposed the "iris effect" in 2001 as an explanation for why the amplified warming has never materialized.

Analyzing a limited set of data, Lindzen hypothesized cirrus clouds and associated moisture work in opposition to surface temperature changes. The data seemed to indicate that when the Earth's surface warms, clouds open up to allow heat to escape. A cooling surface, in turn, causes clouds to close and trap heat.

This elegant, self-regulatory, atmospheric mechanism was soon attacked for being based on limited data and the inability of other researchers to identify the effect in other cloud and temperature data sets.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080611184722.htm

SD wrote:
ScienceDaily (June 12, 2008) — Climate experts agree that the seriousness of manmade global warming depends greatly upon how clouds in the climate system respond to the small warming tendency from the extra carbon dioxide mankind produces.

To figure that out, climate researchers usually examine natural, year-to-year fluctuations in clouds and temperature to estimate how clouds will respond to humanity¹s production of greenhouse gases.

When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth's climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.

This seemingly simple mix-up between cause and effect is the basis of a new paper that will appear in the "Journal of Climate." The paper¹s lead author, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a principal research scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, believes the work is the first step in demonstrating why climate models produce too much global warming.

Spencer and his co-author, principal research scientist William (Danny) Braswell, used a simple climate model to demonstrate that something as seemingly innocuous as daily random variations in cloud cover can cause year-to-year variation in ocean temperature that looks like -- but isn't -- "positive cloud feedback," a warmth-magnifying process that exists in all major climate models.

"Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years," said Spencer, "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes -- that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback."

The paper doesn't disprove the theory that global warming is manmade.

Instead, it offers an alternative explanation for what we see in the climate system which has the potential for greatly reducing estimates of mankind's impact on Earth's climate.



Now, pay attention, because this is important.

A couple of these articles do not dispute that global warming on the part of mankind is occuring.

Any and all ******** about 'discredited scientists' and ear-shattering shrillness about big oil will be met with raucous laughter and the greatest degree of derision possible.

All I'm saying at the moment is

Quote:
Because the average temperature of the earth really hasn't been going up? News to me.


Pay attention.
#22 Apr 16 2009 at 6:23 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Anoyingly, Global Warming could drop temperatures in Great Britain. That is if rising sea levels adversely affect the North Atlantic Current. Everywhere else gets hot, Britain still has ***** weather. Such is life.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#23 Apr 16 2009 at 6:28 AM Rating: Default
****
6,580 posts
Kavekk wrote:
You and whoever told you this are both stupid as @#%^.
Be interesting to hear why, instead of just "you're stupid".
bsphil wrote:
I generally don't heed the advice of people who spell 'you' as:
Quote:
(for as I said: when we stop getting energy from the sun, it will be because that star has died and taken u with it.)
Stopped reading after that.

Edited, Apr 15th 2009 10:25pm by bsphil
bsphil, you've seen me posting on Alla for a long time and you know I don't type "u". It was a typo and should have said "taking us with it", put your ego away please, you're usually helpful.

What most of you seem to be focusing on is the negative points of heating up the earth. But what if you could take the heat out and convert it into other useful forms of energy? As (I think) I mentioned, there already exists the technology to take heat from the ground and the sea and convert it to a more useful source of energy, if we could expand this technology to be used on a much larger scale, we could be onto something.

A lot of you seem to look at heating up the sea (for example) and focus on the negative effects of hotter water. You miss the point that we can take the heat out of the water and convert it into something useful. The more heat in the water = the more we can take out = more energy. This way you can maintain the desired water temperature, whilst harnessing more energy.

I don't think it's worth focusing on the negative impacts of a hotter planet, because the general idea I can see from this argument is that we would be trying to rise the temperature of the planet so that we have more heat energy which we can convert and use - we can still keep the actual end temperature the same. Does that make sense? Heat up the planet and use that extra heat for powering civilisations. Don't heat up the planet and just let it stay hot.

As I have said a few times now: We have the technology to take heat out from the ground and the sea and convert it into other forms of energy.
#24 Apr 16 2009 at 6:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Noodles wrote:
As I have said a few times now: We have the technology to take heat out from the ground and the sea and convert it into other forms of energy.
When the ability to do this on a mass scale and in a way which maintains the overall global climate is a reality rather than a theory, let me know.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Apr 16 2009 at 6:37 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Global warming: Change you can believe in. Yes we can!

Heheh.
That campaign slogan is a gift that just keeps on giving.

Totem
#26 Apr 16 2009 at 6:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Any and all ******** about 'discredited scientists' and ear-shattering shrillness about big oil will be met with raucous laughter and the greatest degree of derision possible.


Your ego is writing checks your flaming skill can't come close to cashing.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 120 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (120)