I-Mockery Forum

I-Mockery Forum (http://i-mockery.com/forum/index.php)
-   Philosophy, Politics, and News (http://i-mockery.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Global Warming (http://i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69704321)

Tadao Mar 9th, 2010 04:16 PM

Global Warming
 
So, what I understand global warming to be in it's most basic form is that the ocean is warming ever so slightly, but enough to change currents.

This has an impact on weather, glaciers, and coastal levels.

Is that wrong?

Evil Robot Mar 9th, 2010 05:48 PM

Didn't the earth used to have no atmosphere and was like thousands of degrees? Whatever happened to that?

Tadao Mar 9th, 2010 06:03 PM

I believe it grew an atmosphere and cooled off. That would explain trying to protect the atmosphere. Much in the same way that polluting mars would warm it up so that we can live there.

Colonel Flagg Mar 9th, 2010 08:44 PM

Tad is right - the temperature of the ocean is the driving force for most of the planet's weather. As an example, an oceanic thermal inversion a.k.a. el Nino gives rise to weird weather patterns in the Americas. That's only a relatively small warm water patch across the South Pacific - imagine it over the entire hydrologic surface of the globe.

Wiffles Mar 9th, 2010 09:34 PM

There's an ongoing debate weather this is a cyclical phenomena or human induced. Some say it may even do a reverse, and cool-off the world into an ice age.

Tadao Mar 9th, 2010 09:41 PM

For that to happen, well I don't know. Some one tell me how the ocean rising in temperature is going to create another iceage in the near future please.

Fathom Zero Mar 9th, 2010 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiffles (Post 675461)
There's an ongoing debate weather this is a cyclical phenomena or human induced. Some say it may even do a reverse, and cool-off the world into an ice age.

Yeah, they say it warms up a ton before it plunges into an ice age.

Wiffles Mar 9th, 2010 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadao (Post 675463)
For that to happen, well I don't know. Some one tell me how the ocean rising in temperature is going to create another iceage in the near future please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fathom Zero (Post 675464)
Yeah, they say it warms up a ton before it plunges into an ice age.


According to some scientists, the supposed ice age will start once the ocean's salinity reaches a certain level. With the oceans warming, and ice caps melting. The salinity levels of the ocean drops, this alters our oceans dramatically, and changes the cyclical currents already at play. Creating new weather patterns and ultimately, another ice age.

Timescales are still big, from hundreds to thousands of years. But geologically speaking, rapid.

Tadao Mar 9th, 2010 10:42 PM

I don't understand yet why less salt in the ocean equals ice age yet. You didn't actually say why. Why?

Fathom Zero Mar 9th, 2010 10:45 PM

Salinity affects the movement of water molecules, i.e. heat, I RECALL LEARNING IN THE 7TH GRADE.

Tadao Mar 10th, 2010 12:59 AM

Yeah, in 7th grade it was 1982 for me. I was busy was kinda busy at the time.

Zhukov Mar 10th, 2010 01:40 AM

I'm more worried about rising ocean levels. Well, not in such that I am going to drown in the next few years (I do live on an island, next to the ocean though) but that it's going to displace a lot of people one day.

executioneer Mar 10th, 2010 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Robot (Post 675429)
Didn't the earth used to have no atmosphere and was like thousands of degrees? Whatever happened to that?

i miss those days too

Pentegarn Mar 10th, 2010 08:26 AM

I tend to believe that the Earth is cyclical. If it is getting warmer it is probably supposed to be doing so.

Supafly345 Mar 10th, 2010 09:47 AM

Christ, I started writing an essay here on why environmentalists are insane and why climate deniers are stupid, but shit hasn't this stuff been covered here yet? Yes, the earth does warm and cool in cycles, thats not what is alarming, its the fact that it is deviating from what the natural cycle should be.

But the next ice age is scheduled in 16000 years, so we don't have to worry much about that. And that is a current estimate, including the recent unexpected heat increase. (in the 80s it was an estimate 19000)

Colonel Flagg Mar 10th, 2010 11:50 AM

As I think I said in "that other thread" there is still a lot we don't really understand about how and why the global climate cycles. Devotees of the ALGOR robot seem to point to the industrial revolution as the beginning of a gradual global warming, and claim this to be evidence of the human influenced warming trend which is outside of what we can infer from ice cores and tree rings as "normal" cyclic variation.

Then you have the FOXY contingent who points to a period in time known as "the Medieval Warming Period" where the average temperature increased even though there was no significant contribution from manmade activity.

So they argue. And argue. It's like a bad SNL sketch. "You shut up!" "No, you shut up!" (repeat ad.lib.) It's actually funny when you see it happen in a scientific forum like the ACS. And sad at the same time. :(

We'll likely not know the full story, or understand the implications of our actions today until after whatever is in store for us is already in full swing. And by then, it will be too late.

I believe it's called "fiddling while Rome burns".

TheCoolinator Mar 10th, 2010 02:07 PM

The co-founder of Green Peace said it the best.....

"The environmentalist movement has been hijacked and turned into something completely different then what it should have been"

Watch the Great Global Warming swindle free on google video

The first thing my environmentalist professor taught us was to NOT be anthropocentric. Meaning to not believe that the world revolves around humans because it does not. We have very little bearing on what happens to the earth in the grand scheme of things. Do we really have the ability to change the climate? I say No but that doesn't mean we don't have the ability to literally make a complete mess of things.



As long as they keep the greenie's focused on the global warming plan and keep that money coming in for all the so called climate scientists then big industry will continue to destroy and pillage until there is nothing left. CO2 as a pollutant is a red herring!

Colonel Flagg Mar 10th, 2010 02:34 PM

How naive. :rolleyes

Tadao Mar 10th, 2010 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator (Post 675565)
In green houses all over the world they pump in CO2 to accelerate the growth of plants.

I bet people are having a volley ball tournament inside the CONTAINED green house while they are pumping in Co2.

The Leader Mar 10th, 2010 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator (Post 675568)
The first thing my environmentalist professor taught us was to NOT be anthropocentric. Meaning to not believe that the world revolves around humans because it does not. We have very little bearing on what happens to the earth in the grand scheme of things. Do we really have the ability to change the climate? I say No but that doesn't mean we don't have the ability to literally make a complete mess of things.

But in Om Sannolikheten För Sekulära Förändringar I Atmosfärens Kolsyrehalt, Högbom explained how he had calculated that industry was putting as much CO2 into the atmosphere as there would have been produced naturally. You don't think that could do something?

Tadao Mar 10th, 2010 03:19 PM

All we have to do is live in green houses!

The Leader Mar 10th, 2010 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator (Post 675565)
In green houses all over the world they pump in CO2 to accelerate the growth of plants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator (Post 675568)
CO2 as a pollutant is a red herring!

Wait, wait, wait, do you think that people are saying that CO2 is a pollutant? You know what plants breath, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator (Post 675565)
I attack the global warming myth from the left not from the right and it crumbles every time.

How does it crumble? All you have ever posted about it is that it is a lie being perpetuated by scientists and big business. You have never posted any studies or actual information that would show the theory to be incorrect/impossible. The closest you came was when you posted that link to a clearly biased "documentary."

TheCoolinator Mar 10th, 2010 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Leader (Post 675579)
You don't think that could do something?

No, because CO2 is not a pollutant.

If industry just pumped out CO2 and water vapor I would be very pleased. The problem comes in when they start pumping out other stuff. Hence why industrial sectors have to be inspected regularly that their emissions don't contain real harmful chemicals. Scrubbers on smoke stacks do not absorb CO2 because it's an irrelevant gas. They focus mainly of the poisonous particulate from the creation of the energy.


Here is another way to think of it. All living organisms exhale CO2. There are 6 billion people around the world exhaling CO2 at one time plus the rest of the animal kingdom. You would think that much CO2 gas would have killed us the minute the human race got up to 5 billion.

The Leader Mar 10th, 2010 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator (Post 675584)
No, because CO2 is not a pollutant.

If industry just pumped out CO2 and water vapor I would be very pleased. The problem comes in when they start pumping out other harmful chemicals. Hence why industrial sectors have to be inspected regularly that their emissions don't contain real harmful chemicals. Scrubbers on smoke stacks do not absorb CO2 because it's an irrelevant gas. They focus mainly of the poisonous particulate from the creation of the energy.


Here is another way to think of it. All living organisms exhale CO2. There are 6 billion people around the world exhaling CO2 at one time plus the rest of the animal kingdom. You would think that much CO2 gas would have killed us the minute the human race got up to 5 billion.

I'm quoting this to preserve it.:lol

Dimnos Mar 10th, 2010 03:38 PM

Red Herring...
Quote:

The expression red herring is an idiom referring to a device which intends to divert the audience from the truth or an item of significance. For example, in mystery fiction, an innocent party may be purposefully cast as highly suspect through emphasis or descriptive techniques; attention is drawn away from the true guilty party.
Im pretty sure he is saying it is not a pollutant. However I too wish to know how it "crumbles" because you attack it "from the left".


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:46 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.