Because dear god it couldn't have been a natural cycle or increased solar activity, it was those fucking wooly mammoths poluting the place with their damn SUVs

7/26/2005 8:33:03 PM

meteors or volcanic activity alter the atmospheres content on occasion, and causes an ice age

[Edited on July 26, 2005 at 8:36 PM. Reason : there are lots of theories though]

7/26/2005 8:34:12 PM

It got warmer.

7/26/2005 8:46:21 PM

Aren't we supposedly still in an ice age? I probably read that on here at some point.

7/26/2005 8:56:12 PM

^no

we're overdue for the next ice age

7/26/2005 9:16:56 PM

there have been many ice ages, and they come in natural cycles. the fact is, the current global warming trend is going AGAINST the natural cooling cycle.

there are basically 3 major cycles that control climate... here is a few diagrams from the Ruddiman 2003 paper discussing global warming and how it relates to natural cycles and human influence...



This graph is a comparison of atmospheric methane levels to the insolation (absorption of energy from the sun) cycle that is controled by precession, the 23,000 year orbital forcing cycle. note the abberation at the end of the last cycle, highlighted in the graph below:



methane levels compared to orbital forcing cycles. note the digression from the trend at 5000 years ago that coincides with the beginning of large scale irrigation of rice and other crops.





Three graphs of CO2 levels. notice the digression from the projected orbital forcing of carbon dioxide at about 8000 years ago. also note the sharp increase in CO2 levels in the second two graphs with the rise of the industrial revolution ~200 years ago

(the difference between A and B represent the original theory (A) that the bulk of CO2 has come from the industrial era, while B represents the newer theory (Ruddiman) (B) that anthropogenic influence began with the onset of agriculture.



Methane, CO2, and Temperature projected, respectively. The "pipeline" refers to the lag between the release of greenhouse gasses and subsequent temperature change.

[Edited on July 26, 2005 at 9:28 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2005 9:26:42 PM

haha

7/26/2005 9:27:30 PM

DiHydrogen-Monoxide

7/26/2005 10:40:19 PM

the scourge of humanity...

7/26/2005 11:11:12 PM

Quote :

"Aren't we supposedly still in an ice age? I probably read that on here at some point."

There was a mini-Ice Age that lasted from the mid-1400s to the mid-1800s.

7/26/2005 11:31:45 PM

Smath74 = [/thread]

7/27/2005 7:00:15 AM

well obviously smath has it all figured out while the actual scientists of the world still dont agree on this issue

7/27/2005 9:13:24 AM

saying that "the scientists of the world don't agree" is ridiculous. If you can find me one situation in which every scientist in the world agrees, other than something like "human beings breathe oxygen," I'll give you a shiny new quarter.

MOST scientists agree what global warming exists, and most of those agree that it's at least partly due to human actions. See, I don't think many reputable scientists would say that human beings alone are causing global warming. They know as well as we do that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles all the time. However, as smath said, and as many many many geologists and others have said, the current trend far out paces anything before it, and it's not likely that coincidentally we're outputting more CO2 into the atmosphere than has ever been put out in history.

7/27/2005 9:35:04 AM

Lokken

The bread and butter of Fox News.

7/27/2005 10:17:28 AM

Quote :

"and it's not likely that coincidentally we're outputting more CO2 into the atmosphere than has ever been put out in history."

That is a mild exageration. Mt. St. Hellens released more CO2 than the whole of the human race does in several years. A forrest fire in Florida a few years back released more CO2 than the whole of the human race did in the following eight months. So while we are not the largest contributor of CO2, you are right that we are a new player.

All that having been said, the debate about global warming is largely academic. I don't believe many reputable scientists are arguing that global warming will have sufficient impact on humanity to justify doing anything about it beyond perhaps installing wave barriers in a few strategic cities.

[Edited on July 27, 2005 at 10:38 AM. Reason : typo]

7/27/2005 10:38:18 AM

SandSanta

Arent you due for a whinny little JESUS CHRIST post somewhere else? You must be, because you definately never have anything to add to a thread, except capital letters.

faggot

Quote :

"MOST scientists agree what global warming exists, and most of those agree that it's at least partly due to human actions. See, I don't think many reputable scientists would say that human beings alone are causing global warming. They know as well as we do that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles all the time. However, as smath said, and as many many many geologists and others have said, the current trend far out paces anything before it, and it's not likely that coincidentally we're outputting more CO2 into the atmosphere than has ever been put out in history."

Of course MOST scientists agree global warming exists. because it does. What is up in the air (hehe snort) is how much of an effect humans actually have on it.

7/27/2005 10:44:29 AM

And how much that effect matters.

7/27/2005 10:59:50 AM

But Lokken, if you agree that global warming does exist, then your next logical step (assuming you see it a prblem that will cause large scale difficulties in the futuer) would be to look for ways to control it. Since we cannot hope to control the natural causes of CO2, the only thing lsft to do is control the CO2 we cause.

7/28/2005 10:32:00 PM

but then doesnt the arguement shift back to what they have been saying... what matters is what impact we do have, if we only have a limited time on this earth as we know it then the benefits of our reducing the emissions should outweigh the economic hardships of not doing so, assuming the global warming is going to happen anyway.

7/28/2005 10:40:59 PM

Quote :

"the only thing lsft to do is control the CO2 we cause"

Bull-Shit. Deal with what you know. We, as a species, have developed many useful technologies over the past 5000 years to deal with the effects of global warming, whatever you say they may be. However, we cannot do this unless we are able to use the tools at our disposal, namely fossil fuels.

Possible effects of global warming:
1. rising oceans - as the oceans are predicted to only rise a few inches, problems will only arise during storm surges in un-protected areas. Solution: protect currently unprotected areas.
needed technology: concrete sea walls, requires cheap energy such as from Coal

2. rising surface temperatures - as the predicted temperature rise is only a few degrees, problems will only arise during heat-waves. Solution: more equitable distribution of air-conditioning technology
needed technology: affordable electricity, requires cheap energy such as from Coal

3. shifting weather patterns - if the temperate zone of the planet shifts northward, human assistance may be needed to relocate plant and animal as well as human agricultural systems to new areas. Solution: construction systems capable of constructing new irrigation systems and distribution systems to access the necessary resources
needed technology: affordable portable energy supplies, such as from Oil

4. sudden restoration of an Ice Age - If the temperature drops suddenly, the solution is obvious. Relocation of population centers closer to the equator and more widespread heating technology. See above solutions.

Let me know if I missed any. The fact is, regardless of whether or not we are causing global warming, it is happening. And we are probably going to need every tool in our inventory to deal with possible future shifts. Fossil fuels are THE most potent and useful tool in our tool belt and to restrict its usage right when we might need it most would be suicidal. With cheap energy available, the human race can quite comfortable stand up to whatever mother nature throws at us, just ask Holland.

[Edited on July 28, 2005 at 11:33 PM. Reason : sp]

7/28/2005 11:15:58 PM

I think lonesnark is a paid representative for big oil

that's the only fucking way he could seriously post this sort of thing.

either that, or he's joking

7/28/2005 11:22:51 PM

exagerating, maybe. But not joking. Why, what part of what I said is beyond belief?

7/28/2005 11:25:30 PM

scientists are wrong about science

economists are right about science

7/28/2005 11:44:21 PM

the ice age ended because I turned up the fucking heat, bitches!

7/28/2005 11:51:30 PM

Please O'Lord, could ye in thy wisdom see fit to tap us some air conditioning?

7/29/2005 12:20:52 AM

Look

I've always held a belief that LoneSnark was one of the dumbest posters in this section.

Don't act like this is something new DG.

7/29/2005 12:26:22 AM

Why not just turn the lights off when you leave a room and drive a more fuel effiecent car? This would save us much more money than having to spend more money dealing with a faster global warming that we caused

7/29/2005 1:06:17 AM

LoneSnark is definitely NOT dumb

he's just got a one track mind

7/29/2005 1:14:47 AM

Lonesnark, what you have mentioned above is simply the tip of the iceberg

7/29/2005 1:16:09 AM

icebergs, who needs 'em?!

7/29/2005 1:34:26 AM

I define dumb as someone who thinks economics is a magical fairytale land that solves every problem perfectly and makes the world work.

7/29/2005 2:07:41 AM

Quote :

"But Lokken, if you agree that global warming does exist, then your next logical step (assuming you see it a prblem that will cause large scale difficulties in the futuer) would be to look for ways to control it. Since we cannot hope to control the natural causes of CO2, the only thing lsft to do is control the CO2 we cause."

Oh I absolutely agree. I fully support alternate fuel research and would love to have me a hydrogen powered truck that just spits out water vapor.

We definately need to be responsible with our technology and always be aware/researching cleaner more efficient ways to do things.

I just dont agree with alarmists and people who think we are setting the planet up for a doomsday ice age. I just dont think we have that large of an effect on the cycles of the planet.

7/29/2005 9:01:46 AM

Quote :

"Why not just turn the lights off when you leave a room and drive a more fuel effiecent car? This would save us much more money than having to spend more money dealing with a faster global warming that we caused"

But that is not what you are proposing. You are proposing government programs to

As for Kris:
"I define dumb as someone who thinks economics government is a magical fairytale land that solves every problem perfectly and makes the world work."
The world could NEVER work, much less perfectly. All we have are present solutions to current problems. Government has never been able to respond quickly enough to changing circumstances to make the "world work," as a matter of fact neither have markets, but they seem to do "better." But only a fool thinks anything involving fallable human beings will work perfectly.

7/29/2005 11:52:11 AM

Tarzan, I haven't been impressed with anything he's posted in this forum.

Previously stated points:

Quote :

"1. rising oceans - as the oceans are predicted to only rise a few inches, problems will only arise during storm surges in un-protected areas. Solution: protect currently unprotected areas. needed technology: concrete sea walls, requires cheap energy such as from Coal"

Predictions range from a few inches to several hundred feet depending on whose model you go by. Furthermore, covering all the developed eastern/western/gulf coastline with a sea wall is not only expensive but terribly ugly. On sheer scale, this is impractical.

Quote :

"2. rising surface temperatures - as the predicted temperature rise is only a few degrees, problems will only arise during heat-waves. Solution: more equitable distribution of air-conditioning technology needed technology: affordable electricity, requires cheap energy such as from Coal "

Increasing coal use would also increase our output of dangerous gasses to the atmosphere which in turn *could* increase global temperatures even more. Currently, ozone is created by mixing smog with gasseous, natural outputs and that problem would only increase by using more on coal power plants. If we don't get hotter, our air quality in cities will definitely suffer.

At the very least, you could of suggested nuclear power.

Quote :

" 3. shifting weather patterns - if the temperate zone of the planet shifts northward, human assistance may be needed to relocate plant and animal as well as human agricultural systems to new areas. Solution: construction systems capable of constructing new irrigation systems and distribution systems to access the necessary resources needed technology: affordable portable energy supplies, such as from Oil "

Oil supplies are finite and by the time global warming or "shifted weather patterns" become a very noticeable problem, Oil might not fit under "affordable."

Quote :

"4. sudden restoration of an Ice Age - If the temperature drops suddenly, the solution is obvious. Relocation of population centers closer to the equator and more widespread heating technology. See above solutions."

Relocating populations centers is not easy. I'm just going to leave it at this.

Quote :

"Let me know if I missed any. The fact is, regardless of whether or not we are causing global warming, it is happening. And we are probably going to need every tool in our inventory to deal with possible future shifts. Fossil fuels are THE most potent and useful tool in our tool belt and to restrict its usage right when we might need it most would be suicidal. With cheap energy available, the human race can quite comfortable stand up to whatever mother nature throws at us, just ask Holland. "

Fossil fuels may be a direct pathogen with global warming. Increasing their uses is not an acceptable solution. You started your post talking about how the human species developed technologies to adapt nature and ended by concluding that we have to use ineffecient "tools" that may very well have caused our environmental problems in the first place.

Quote :

"I define dumb as someone who thinks economics government is a magical fairytale land that solves every problem perfectly and makes the world work." The world could NEVER work, much less perfectly. All we have are present solutions to current problems. Government has never been able to respond quickly enough to changing circumstances to make the "world work," as a matter of fact neither have markets, but they seem to do "better." But only a fool thinks anything involving fallable human beings will work perfectly."

Government may not be able to respond quickly to problems but it is the only entity that can tackle very large and very global issues. Specifically, the US government could in fact spearhead a lot of environmental initiatives in conjunction with the private sector that would lead to a gradual sustained decrease in US pollution.

No magic is needed.

[Edited on July 29, 2005 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

7/29/2005 2:39:53 PM

Quote :

"well obviously smath has it all figured out while the actual scientists of the world still dont agree on this issue "

Smath is a scientist. Believe it or not but some people on TWW have real credentials.

7/29/2005 4:49:41 PM

7/30/2005 11:17:12 PM

I find it intersting that efficiency hounds like loneshark (yes, you are an efficeincy hound when it comes to your dollar and your dollar only) support such inefficient sources of energy as oil.

7/31/2005 2:12:08 AM

$2.25 for enough energy to power a large color television set for over three months is inefficient?!?!

[Edited on July 31, 2005 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

7/31/2005 10:58:32 AM

I swear to God you can't possibly be an engineer.

7/31/2005 1:36:13 PM

Quote :

"$2.25 for enough energy to power a large color television set for over three months is inefficient?!?!"

I swear to god you are a fucking idiot. The amount of oil necessary to create enough energy to run your fucking TV is not efficient at all. Oil via what it takes to make the oil and its derivatives capable for use is not at all efficient.

7/31/2005 3:47:35 PM

I am an engineer. And as an engineer I am a wiz at math. What you fail to realize is that there is a radical difference between energy conversion efficiency and financial efficiency.

The average human consumes far fewer calories per day than can be extracted from a single gallon of gasoline. Gasoline is able to supply such volumes of energy with no effort on your part beyond earning $2.25 in wages.

[Edited on July 31, 2005 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2005 4:03:44 PM

But in reference to energies, Gasoline is by far the least effiecient.

7/31/2005 4:05:22 PM

So what if a gasline engine barely attains a thermal efficiency of 10%, its financial efficiency cannot be denied.

As an engineer, they do not pay me to maximize thermal efficiency, they pay me to minimize costs and maximize revenues.

[Edited on July 31, 2005 at 4:10 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2005 4:08:42 PM

no, you are paid to do the job right.


and in the long term, gasoline is not a financially effecient source of power.

[Edited on July 31, 2005 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2005 4:11:40 PM

You are begging the question. Your assertion is far from defensible given the available history. Even if you are right, the average automobile is owned for less than 10 years. If it turns out that my car which I have owned for 10 years is no longer cost effective, I will scrap it and buy one that is.

[Edited on July 31, 2005 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2005 4:47:49 PM

can we make more gasoline? Is it renewable? The answer is no. The most cost effiecient source of energy is renewable. Oh and I'm not begging the question at all. I'm pointing out that you are paid to do the job right.

7/31/2005 4:49:55 PM

How the hell are you replying so quickly!?!? You don't give me enough time to rethink what I wrote!

And, no, the most cost effective form of energy is the form of energy that is most cost effective. Nothing else matters but costs and benefits. Gasoline is still cheap, obviously cost effective today. And using the 10-year contract rate I deduce oil is going to be equally cost effective at that time, barring unforseen changes.

7/31/2005 4:54:41 PM

Actually oil is by far not the cheapest. Shit, biodiesel is cheaper than oil and runs cleaner yes and it is renewable

plus we could grow our energy needs here instead of having to import it.

[Edited on July 31, 2005 at 5:27 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2005 5:22:30 PM

and its renewable... you forgot the renewable part, smackr

7/31/2005 5:23:18 PM

Quote :

" As an engineer, they do not pay me to maximize thermal efficiency, they pay me to minimize costs and maximize revenues. "

Which is why you need to change your major to Math right now.

Increasing demand for a commodity that will not go into increased production will raise its price won't it?

Consider a year ago gas was nearly a dollar cheaper here in NC and I'm willing to bet a year from now it will be a dollar more expensive.

It is not a viable energy source, and your ideas are terrible.

7/31/2005 5:47:10 PM