Global warming (Climate change)

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Met-Monkey
Registered User
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:39 am

Post by Met-Monkey » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:14 pm

Bobble wrote: I had not even heard of Global Dimming before you mentioned it and I am half way through some wiki articles regarding it. I am not surprised that this phenomenon is not widely reported. A lot of the Global Warming debate is geared towards causing a sense of panic and raising those prices further - nothing like a disaster to make a profit and anything that flies in the face of the "we're all going to die!" scenarios would obviously be ignored.

Interesting reading though...


It's rather ironic don't you think, that all nations across the globe are pumping excessive carbon pollutants into our delicately balanced atmosphere and yet the actual nuclei particles associated with black soot, is in actual fact aiding in the seeding of developmental condensation formation. If we remove our carbon combustion production, replacing it with naturalistic methods such as hydro, solar and turbine or even the cleaner nuclear options, realistically we are removing the nucleus that is slowing down the Global Warming Effect.

Clearly though Global Dimming induced through an increase in carbon particles increasing the condensation potential, thereby increasing cloud cover, decreasing solar intake and subsquent cooling does not appear to be counterbalancing the over excessive production of the global net output of pollutants.

They're coming up with some pretty impressive solutions that could be applied, other than reducing carbon output on a natinal scale. (1) Design and implement a light/solar scatter device made up of many thousands of reflective mirrors, these mirrors will collide with terrestrial solar rays, backscattering the energy back towards its origin. (2) Ships powered by new cylindrical wind turbine technology that spray seperated well refined sea water into the boundary layer of the lower troposphere, this in theory works similar to global dimming by increasing the nuclei compound for condensation to form, in this instance, salt will be used to increase condensation nuclei and ultimately induce the amount of clouds reflectivity, deflecting solar intake into space by manipulating the weather. :P
My Messageboard - UK Weather Forecasting/General Chat - http://met-monkey.co.uk/weather.forum/index.php

Bobble
Registered User
Posts: 3504
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:51 pm

Post by Bobble » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:00 pm

I've seen those proposals for those methods as well as others. The one that seemed like a workable solution was to 'seed' areas of the ocean that were deficient in Iron so that phytoplankton could flourish there. Those guys absorb a lot of CO2!

There were other schemes to increase cloud cover that involved sulphur release in the atmosphere but I wasn't as impressed by that.

VVVZZZ
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:30 am

Post by VVVZZZ » Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:44 am


jhecht
Registered User
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:05 pm
Location: Richmond
Contact:

Post by jhecht » Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:09 am

Is global warming a natural cycle? yes.
Is human consumption of natural resources speeding this upon and more than likely severely altering it? i believe so.

and wow at the al-gore thing... thats just hipocritical no matter how you cut it.
"If you've done everything right, people will think you've done nothing at all." - Futurama
This quote is also immeasurably true for web developers/designers

ScionCrow
Registered User
Posts: 3621
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:59 am
Location: Darkness

Post by ScionCrow » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:42 am

Here's my view on Global Warming, since I do plan to be a meteorologist one day:

I believe it does exist, to an extent. The earth, indeed goes through it's natural cycle of being heated and cooled, as past ice ages can prove that. However, what we are doing is speeding up this cycle drastically due to greenhouse gases, which do trap more sunlight and heat within the atmosphere. From the movie itself, I believe it is true that CO2 levels were stable enough before the internal combustible engine was first introduced, and thousands of years before that. Now, the earth is flooded with CO2 levels much, much higher than it used to be.

Any solutions I can see that can just barely put a dent in it would be to look for alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, water, nuclear even.. something to reduce CO2 levels in the air. Though we can't prevent the next ice age from coming, we can definitely have some sort of effect as to slow it down to push it further back a bit longer. Humans survived one ice age, I'm sure we can survive another.

The polar ice caps is what I'm really worried about... since I know for a fact that (even without reading books or watching movies and after doing some research online), they are melting at an alarming rate. We all know what happen to New Orleans when Katrina struck, which flooded nearly the entire city... well, think of the same thing on every coastline once the ice is completely melted... major issues there.

Basically, I think it exists, and I know there are ways in order to slow the process down. There is no way to prevent such an ice age from happening in full, but it's definitely possible to slightly slow it down. All of this is just my opinion really, none of it may be even true, but I have my views on it.
No longer supporting phpBB. PM or email me regarding support and you will be ignored. I'm fully done with phpBB and everything.

User avatar
Anaximander Thales
Registered User
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:05 am
Location: Alabama

Post by Anaximander Thales » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:02 am


Ehh --
A 'non-partisan group' by a man who openly takes money from big oil, cheerleads the 'war on terror' and doesn't believe in global warming is telling me what about Gore?

Check this Olbermann clip out.

For those that don't want to bother, it basically states that Gore has a 20 room mansion, with several home offices and specialized security to power. Any person with that much space is going to burn energy.

Additionally, Gore participates in a renewable energy program. It costs $4 per 150 Kw/H's (more than average for the non-green energy), and is therefore paying an additional $5893 dollars per year to power his home.

I also love this line from the bottom of the crooks and liars page:
Do you suppose that they are equally up in arms by the fact that taxpayers are paying Dick Cheney's electric bill at the Vice President's mansion? You know, the one that had an $186,000 electric bill in 2001?

Hmmm -- I'd rather pay the ~$30,000 dollar bill than the ~186,000 dollar bill. But that's just me -- I could be wrong.
Last edited by Anaximander Thales on Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
A cat almost always blinks when hit in the head with a ball peen hammer.

webcritters
Registered User
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:45 am

Post by webcritters » Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:06 am

Gore, and his recent video is a joke. Nuclear energy is the solution to global warming....it's not our cars or what kind of light bulb we use that's the problem...it's these coal and natural gas power plants that produce greenhouse gas emissions....many countries are using nuclear energy...yet we are not thanks to Gore, and these big corporations that don't want to make the switch...constantly brainwashing us.
Image
If you like corvettes, help my forum here!

User avatar
Anaximander Thales
Registered User
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:05 am
Location: Alabama

Post by Anaximander Thales » Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:58 pm

Nuclear energy is the solution?

What do we do with the spent fuel rods? Under current plans, the plant itself stores, in huge water tanks, the spent fuel for 10 years after they pull it, and then it is placed into a container for burial someplace else. Unfortunately, people aren't real pleased with the idea of storing radioactive material in their back yard. I believe Nevada was the last place they've thought about. I believe there was a huge uproar about it too.

I'm not say this is a bad option, but the spent fuel is a huge question. No one is going to be happy storing material like that. Irrational fear perhaps, but just try to store next to my house.

If there were ways to reprocess the uranium and use it again, then great. France has tried doing that, but found that they produced more in radio-active water than uranium (correct me on the facts here if I'm wrong -- I seem to remember that being the problem though).

There are other ways to produce energy besides coal and nuclear energy, though. Wind, solar, hydro-electric dams. We have parts of the desert that will probably not be occupied for many years that will be great for wind turbines and/or solar panels. Many states have rivers for creating hydro-electric plants.
A cat almost always blinks when hit in the head with a ball peen hammer.

webcritters
Registered User
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:45 am

Post by webcritters » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:26 am

You sound like a greenpeace activist. solar and dam cannot produce the amount of energy we require....nuclear can. we would store the spent fuel rods until they lose radioactivity...approx. 100,000 years. - not next to your house. obviously we would store it in a safe location where people wouldn't be exposed to it's radiation. it would be more irrational to continue what we are doing now in my opinion.
Image
If you like corvettes, help my forum here!

Bobble
Registered User
Posts: 3504
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:51 pm

Post by Bobble » Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:52 pm

No-one so far has mentioned that around 18% of the world's greenhouse gases can be directly attributed to the farming of cattle. What do you suggest we do about this?

VVVZZZ
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:30 am

Post by VVVZZZ » Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:46 am

We may need a drug that makes cows and bulls stop farting.

Or we could eat less beef and drink less milk.

Strangely enough, Alberta has a very strong beef industry, along with a very strong oil industry. If Alberta separated, Canada would pass Kyoto with flying colors!

(and no, I don't want Alberta to separate)

webcritters
Registered User
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:45 am

Post by webcritters » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:18 am

Bobble wrote: No-one so far has mentioned that around 18% of the world's greenhouse gases can be directly attributed to the farming of cattle. What do you suggest we do about this?


i heard cow tipping might help. :roll:
Image
If you like corvettes, help my forum here!

User avatar
Anaximander Thales
Registered User
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:05 am
Location: Alabama

Re:

Post by Anaximander Thales » Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:10 am

webcritters wrote: You sound like a greenpeace activist.

This moves your argument along by what means??
webcritters wrote: solar and dam cannot produce the amount of energy we require....nuclear can.

Okay -- give me a source.

Here's an article that lists advantages, disadvantages, and several different types of solar capturing device.

One disadvantage:
cost in initial outlay and large plots of land needed for the cells.

One advantage:
Facilities can operate with little maintenance or intervention after initial setup and are pollution free.

Here's the article on wind power. It does say that wind power may not be the best solution as the sole producer of power, but it has the potential to be. It also says that it would be a great supplemental form of power, and is generally used by people in remote locations with 1 Kw batteries and/or supplement with diesel or solar cells if necessary.

I noticed that you didn't bother to mention hydro-electric. Here's the wikipedia article, but that speaks only on dams. There is also a process for using electrolysis to pull out hydrogen for electrical generation, but that's still a new technology.

Combined, all of these energy producing technologies can produce the energy required and have less of an environmental impact than nuclear power. Additionally, it's all renewable.

I will grant you that we may not run out Uranium before we come up with a better means for energy production. But, I'll address my concerns below.
webcritters wrote: we would store the spent fuel rods until they lose radioactivity...approx. 100,000 years. - not next to your house. obviously we would store it in a safe location where people wouldn't be exposed to it's radiation.

Again where? Where are we going to store these materials. It's easy to say "We'll store it some place safe." But as it appears now, only Yucca Mountain is considered. This means that several states will have trucks carrying radioactive material through major cities. What happens if an accident occurs?

Again, what happens if an accident occurs? What about Three Mile Island? What about Chernobyl?

You may claim that something like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island won't ever happen -- again -- but, you can't guarantee it 100%. I would rather see the landscape having large solar cells, wind turbines and dams and be able to walk through it rather than looking at a piece of salted land that will kill me if I stay in a location to long.
webcritters wrote: it would be more irrational to continue what we are doing now in my opinion.
A cat almost always blinks when hit in the head with a ball peen hammer.

User avatar
CiDhed
Registered User
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:24 am

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by CiDhed » Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:33 am

It's all about politics at this point. Its a natural cycle of the earths atmosphere and that has been proven by ice ages and other major climate changes that our planet has had in the past.

Global warming is a THEORY. The political gears have been started up to push this theory as truth and by what i have read here it looks to be working.

User avatar
bbrian017
Registered User
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by bbrian017 » Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:10 pm

I just want my kids to not be stuck with the mess were making thats all.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”