• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warming and all that stuff.

Climatologists developing models of global warming factor in a variety of causes. It is indeed very scary stuff. One of those factors is the motive force driving bull crap, that is to say boivine flatulence.
Methane Also Increasing
Levels of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, have risen 145% in the last 100 years. Methane is derived from sources such as rice paddies, bovine flatulence, bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel production.
Click to expand...

It's making me a nervous wreck.

Gene
 
Thanks, varwoche. That's now a bookmark for me. I'll try to remember to use it when we get into these.
 
It doesn't, in the end, really matter if human activity is the major cause of global warming. Global warming is happening, it is already causing problems for us, and the warming trend doesn't appear to be slowing down. Quite the opposite, actually; it is accelerating.

Given that, it seems fairly clear that we are headed for a major climate shift if we can't do something to arrest the warming trend. A major climate shift could well lead to mass extinctions and the eventual collapse of human civilisation. Human civilisation is where it is because we have a 6 billion population. Reduce that population sufficiently, and we will not have enough excess to be able to afford our cultural and scientific endeavours.

Whether or not we caused global warming, we almost certainly want to do something to stop it if we can.
 
politas said:
It doesn't, in the end, really matter if human activity is the major cause of global warming. Global warming is happening, it is already causing problems for us, and the warming trend doesn't appear to be slowing down. Quite the opposite, actually; it is accelerating.

Given that, it seems fairly clear that we are headed for a major climate shift if we can't do something to arrest the warming trend. A major climate shift could well lead to mass extinctions and the eventual collapse of human civilisation. Human civilisation is where it is because we have a 6 billion population. Reduce that population sufficiently, and we will not have enough excess to be able to afford our cultural and scientific endeavours.

Whether or not we caused global warming, we almost certainly want to do something to stop it if we can.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if we want to stop global warming, because the cure could be worse than the disease (especially if we're minor contributors to a natural trend). However, I do think we should at the very least be investing significant resources into adapting to global warming. Fortunately, thanks to the internet, air-conditioning, and mass transportation systems I think the 1st world is actually fairly well poised to survive global warming. The third world could be facing hundreds of millions of deaths and the wiping out of entire countries and cultures, though. Also, we could lose a huge amount of biodiversity. But the overall survival of the human species doesn't seem to be particularly threatened -if this is mostly a normal macrotrend and not human evironmental "externalities" coming back to bite us in the ass.
 
Where I live, Winters are definitely a lot warmer now than they were when I was young. Regardless of whether it is down to human activity or not, I think it's obvious that things are warming up. We (New Zealand) have just had large icebergs from the South Pole floating past. Don't think that has happened before in recorded history (could be wrong). The amount of crap we belch in to our atmosphere has to be having some detrimental affects. Apparently there is also great concern over the way pollution is causing the oceans to become more acidic. Think we need a lesson in good housekeeping.
 
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1978534,00.html
Climate change sceptics issued with challenge

Britain's leading climate scientist has challenged those who question the impact of the human population on global warming to defend their claims that car and factory emissions of carbon dioxide are not heating up the planet.
Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, said yesterday he planned to defeat so-called 'deniers', first on-line and later at a public debate
Click to expand...

I think this story is worth following. If it does get going, here's an example of the rebuttal case :

Yesterday [weather forecaster Piers] Corbyn welcomed the challenge. 'I relish the prospect of a debate,' he told The Observer. 'There is no evidence that carbon dioxide is involved in global warming. The rise in global temperatures that we have seen over the past few decades is due to changes in the sun's energy output and to changes in the Earth's magnetic field.'
Click to expand...
These are claims that need some substantiation, but are, it is said, denied a forum. Professor Thorpe's proposal would serve admirably.
 
Here are some southern hemisphere shipping references concerning icebergs.

Temperature was colder then, so I don't think you can assume a temperature/iceberg correlation.

[1] On January 2, 1868 the 1326 ton clipper "Mermaid" arrived in Lyttelton after an 89 day passage from GB and it was reported that, " When in the vicinity of Cape Leeuwin, Captain Rose and his officers had an anxious time avoiding 30 huge icebergs." Are icebergs seen off Albany or Margaret River ever these days ?

[2] In February 1877, the "City of Auckland" was 1200 miles WNW of Cape Horn and ran into a patch of icebergs with fog which kept them all busy for an afternoon. How common would this be these days in summer ?

[3] In 1893 (after arriving in Nelson in September 92), the iron sailing ship "Margaret Galbraith" was homeward bound around Cape Horn. Mr. N.H. Burgess the 2nd Officer reported that from three days north of the Falklands to about one weeks sailing north of the Falklands they were "among the ice," which culminated with a days sailing past a single giant berg "40 to 50 miles long," The account suggest the ship may have been only making 3 to 5 knots around this time, certainly at night one would expect them to throttle back. They had a close call on first encountering the ice north of the Falklands.
It may be partly by chance that the length of this iceberg was reported because the sailing people seemed more impressed by the height of ice encountered than the extent of any particular piece. The 40 to 50 mile long berg mentioned above was reported as being 1000 ft asl at the NE end.

[4] The same "Margaret Galbraith" on a 123 day passage to Napier arriving 15, January 1895, was surrounded by ice for six days in the vicinity of 44 S Latitude and 25 E Longtitude.

[5] The 1000 ton plus iron sailing ship "Himalaya", on a 109 day voyage from Liverpool to Wellington, departed 9, November 1894 and arrived 25, February, 1895. The captain reported seeing several icebergs off the Cape (of Good Hope) and then, ".. that from the Cape to the Crozets was a most trying time as icebergs were in sight for a distance of two thousand miles."
Click to expand...
 
ynot said:
Where I live, Winters are definitely a lot warmer now than they were when I was young.
Click to expand...
Only die-hards and cultists still deny the actuality of global warming, the argument has shifted to the cause. The die-screaming-and-kickings are certain it's anything but anthropogenic, they're an eclectic bunch. The pragmatists - maximum two degrees of separation from Lomborg - concede an anthropogenic component, but argue that it's best financially to do nothing. The realists shrug and say it's too late anyway, buy the ticket take the ride, we'll come out the other end somehow. The thread running through it all is that drastic changes to the prosperous world's economies and lifestyles are not justified. They will not be perfectly judged, as time will tell, so should not be embarked upon at all.

The status quo is such a comfortable environment for so many influential people - isn't it always? - that it's going to be very well defended.
 
Dave1001 said:
Fortunately, thanks to the internet, air-conditioning, and mass transportation systems I think the 1st world is actually fairly well poised to survive global warming. The third world could be facing hundreds of millions of deaths and the wiping out of entire countries and cultures, though. Also, we could lose a huge amount of biodiversity. But the overall survival of the human species doesn't seem to be particularly threatened -if this is mostly a normal macrotrend and not human evironmental "externalities" coming back to bite us in the ass.
Click to expand...
I'm glad to hear the First World is air-conditioned, that'll reduce the impact on agriculture and water-supplies no end. And glad that it's less at threat than other, less-favoured parts without much money. More at threat than the species as a whole, but what the hey, you're a member of that as well. This take on the situation must give you great comfort.
 
BobK said:
Here are some southern hemisphere shipping references concerning icebergs.

Temperature was colder then, so I don't think you can assume a temperature/iceberg correlation.
Click to expand...
Sailors were real men in those days. The second half of the 19thCE is notorious for its seasonal variability, in all waters. It's rather like an early engine transmission juddering as it shifts gear. That's just my impression, and I do tend towards the allegorical.

These northern (and southern) ice intrusions are a good deal rarer these days, as the base ocean temperatures rise. And break-ups of large ice-sheets aren't regular occurrences, nor are they going to be - there's a resource issue, as in not many of them available.
 
CapelDodger said:
I'm glad to hear the First World is air-conditioned, that'll reduce the impact on agriculture and water-supplies no end. And glad that it's less at threat than other, less-favoured parts without much money. More at threat than the species as a whole, but what the hey, you're a member of that as well. This take on the situation must give you great comfort.
Click to expand...

No great comfort. I just don't see worst case realistic scenarios as threatening to the survival of the human species -or even a threat to the enlightment/science & technology-based civilization. I suspect the University of Colorodo will persist. Some truly awful things seem likely to happen, especially if we don't start gearing up for mass transportation of populations living in coastal areas and below sea level, and solving many other global warming related logistical challenges that are likely forthcoming.
 
BobK said:
Here are some southern hemisphere shipping references concerning icebergs.

Temperature was colder then, so I don't think you can assume a temperature/iceberg correlation.
Click to expand...
Thanks - I Did Not Know That! The media made such a big thing of it at the time (as they do).
 
ynot said:
Thanks - I Did Not Know That! The media made such a big thing of it at the time (as they do).
Click to expand...
You have to appreciate that the Merchant Marine was a very important part of late 19thCE Western society, economically and culturally. Sea-lanes and the men that plied them (let alone the men that owned the ships and filled them and insured them and provided credit at a price to them all) were the economy. Shipping news was human interest material at the time, particularly in the Southern colonies when most families had sea-going members.

(I have the Merchant Marine in my own family background, and I suspect in my blood :) .)
 
Dave1001 said:
No great comfort. I just don't see worst case realistic scenarios as threatening to the survival of the human species -or even a threat to the enlightment/science & technology-based civilization.
Click to expand...
If I'm not being presumptuous, how do you see the threat to yourself and yours?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom