close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Global Warming

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by flathunter, Sep 24, 2004.

  1. There was another article a few weeks back about glacier national park and the soon the be lack there of of glaciers. They said with the extreme rate at which the glaciers are now retreating that they would be all gone in 10-20 years, and its not just there either, its all over the world. sad.....
     

  2. UFM82

    UFM82 The one others want to be

    2,064
    298
    1,268
    The term "global warming" has become such a political term anymore that it brings up issues on both sides. Is it caused by man or is it natural? Are we accelerating the process or can we delay it? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

    With all the research being done on the issue, there is still no way to tell what the extent is. I personally believe that it is NOT an issue that we can do anything about, despite the environmentalists insistence. Remember, 10,000 years ago we were in an ice age and there wasn't any industry back then to pollute the Earth. Plus, given that the phenomonon has only been explored in the past 20 years with extremely limited scientific history to go off of, I don't think we can accurately predict what may happen. Yes, it is a shame to see the glaciers recede- they are objects of beauty to us. However, they may well be a freak of nature that wasn't meant to stay forever. Things change and always will. Nature has it's own way of doing things and I really don't feel that man can have a lasting effect on it. Look at the extreme abuse of our environment that occurred in the first 60 years of this decade. In many cases, nature has come back and is as fine as it ever was. We CAN have a short term influence on nature, but she will always win in the long run. Long after we have disappeared off the face of the Earth, nature will still be there doing it's thing.

    To determine a long term trend, I think we need to be able to go back a lot longer than we can now. In the last 100 years, things have changed. However, 100 years is a miniscule time period in relation to the age of the Earth. I just don't think that there will ever be enough information to determine what the effects are that we are causing.

    UFM82

    It was the 14th coolest summer on record here in Cincinnati since records were kept from back in the late 1800's. Global warming? Not here.
     
  3. I've done some reading/research into global warming back in college a few years ago and I have to agree with UFM82. Most research that has taken place only "tests" short term effects, or has an unrealistic test setting (way too small of a test environment, etc...). I am certainly not an authority on the matter, but I do know those individuals considered to be "the authority" on this matter are in complete disagreement. There are many respected and distinguished individuals in the scientific community on each side of the fence.

    Like UFM82 said - we just don't have any data. It is accepted in the scientific community that the earth is 4.55 BILLION years old +/- 1%! We've got a 100 years of data & in my opinion that is just not enough.

    One things for sure - I'll agree to disagree with anybody with the opposite view! :D
     
  4. i.ve spent a lot of time looking into the warming effect. from what i've read the only people not supporting the idea of the green house effect are about 25% of u.s. scientests. most of the rest of the world and most of our scientests think global warming is a serious problem. even during the warmest peiods of time on this planet the temperture didn't climb like it's climbing now. if we wait till we see if it a planetary shift or something we caused it will be too late. not to make it political-it seems the only ones who think the green house effect isn't real are those with a vested interest.
     
  5. gonefishin'

    gonefishin' Lifestyle Farmer

    579
    0
    721
    It was only about 30 years ago that the "experts" said we were headed for an ice age. The best one was when the Clinton admin. got a bunch of meteorologists together in D.C. to figure out what our weather was going to be like in 100 years. Yes indeed, the same people who can't predict weather a week out are sure what it's going to be in 100 years. I think what is truly amazing is what we don't know.
     
  6. beach front property soon to be available in iceland.
     
  7. DavidWS10

    DavidWS10 Bankless Boat Trash

    315
    0
    721
    Harry, Iceland already has several hunderd, if not a couple thousand miles of beach front property. It's an island in the North Atlantic whose coastline is not encrusted within a glacier: although there is a glacier on the island. I know. I spent 6 months up there in 1984 when I was in the Navy, and went four-wheeling all over the place. But boy is it cold up there during the winter, with only a couple of hours of sunlight a day.
     
  8. i know it's an island. the whole thing is surrounded by beach. soon it'll be surrounded by fla. type beaches. laplanders in bikinies. ekimos in thongs. it ain't natural. neither is global warming.
     
  9. Chuck P.

    Chuck P. Here We Go Steelers

    Forget Global Warming...Everyone should be more concerned about THIS
     
  10. I'm currently getting my masters degree in environmental science and we just had a seminar speaker last friday. he was one of the head scientists for the USDA who has just completed the most exhaustive survey on the topic. pretty much everyone who knows anything about the topic (we're not talking about seeing stories on cnn or reading political takes on the issue but actually conducting studies it) agrees across the board that it is happening. yes if you look across large time scales the trend appeards cyclical.... carbon levels and temps go way way up, then go way way down. the thing about it now is the rate at which it is currently accellerating, since the industrial revolution, is exponentially larger than anything found in historical trends. There are also no natural factors that can account for the rise..i.e. volcanoes. It would be almost impossible for someone to say its not occurring after seeing the data and information in that seminar (keep in mind this was a government study too). There is no way someone can say we don't know enough or have enough information on it. If you really want to look and learn about it, you'll find more information than you would ever want to read. the thing no one can agree with is what the impacts will be. That is where we need more studies. I agree the term is now very politicized and no longer scientific. the real debate on the issue is no longer if it is occurring or not, its if we really care or are we willing to do anyting to stop it. as of right now it seems unlikely. and yeah that yellowstone volcanoe is seriously scary. they discovered it because the banks of yellowstone lake were shifting 2 inches ( i think, memories not perfect) in one direction every year. a stand of trees were eventually flooded when it overan its normal banks a while back and they didn't know why. turns out the pressure building underneath is raising one side of the lake up.
     
  11. this is not a political issue but, the responce to it has been.. at this rate we will become the first species to cause it's own extinction.
     
  12. mrfishohio

    mrfishohio Recovering Fishaholic

    I saw somewhere recently how the snow melts & glaciers on some mountain range has retreated. They are further back than ever before & exposing ground that's never been exposed. The story was about how it's affecting the fishing, because of the early run-off the trout aren't able to spawn so the fish stock is depleted. They were trying to find out why the fish were gone, that's what they discovered was the reason. :cool:
     
  13. mrfishohio

    mrfishohio Recovering Fishaholic

    About a bizzilloin years ago when this global warming warning first began, one of the real scary & predictable problems could be crop failures. It was saying how a harvest can survive sustained temps of so high for so long. It noted that if it causes a heat wave for over what the crops can handle, then you have a crop failure. In other words, maybe the corn/wheat(whatever) can go 7 days at 100° but will die at 9 days at 100° so a slight trend along with natural heat waves could be disasterous.
    Lucky for us, the "powers to be" have taken over land all around the world with their global network to bring us food from anywhere in the world. That's what those wars in S. America are about. They are killing the farmers & their sons & taking the land. That's why those nuns were killed, they just happened to be there.....
     
  14. shuvlhed1

    shuvlhed1 Banned

    697
    0
    0
    Doesn't the article say that a thousand years ago these same mussels were in this area during a warm period that they are now attributing to green house gases? Does this mean that the vikings drove too many SUVs????????
     
  15. mr. fishohio, in regards to crop failures, a lot of people use the argument that warmer weather will allow crops to grow better because of a warmer/longer growing season and in areas once out of their temperature range etc. They say bring it on. This is true to an extent. there will be a large spike in crop productivity for a few years but the soils will not be able to support such high productivity and they will not be able to replenish the nutrients as fast as they are being taken out, ultimately leading to huge crop failures and dead fields . on another note, they are having problems in alaska now as the permafrost layer is thawing causing the grownd to become very unstable. lots of the man made structures and even some trees can't be supported and are falling. mabye you wouldn't notice anything in cincy but i bet the people of fairbanks would disagree.
     
  16. by the year 2050 the earths temp will raise 6.5 degrese. dose not seem like much does it. the only prob. it that for the ice age it was only 2.4 dgrese lower than what it is now.also they blame global warming 4 the hurricans that hit flordia.i mean the ones that kept forming. but they arnt going to do anything about it cause their is not enough evedence.to prove it
     
  17. shuvlhed1

    shuvlhed1 Banned

    697
    0
    0
    did you get that information, perch???? the weathermen where I live cant predict the weather 50 minutes in advance. Much less 50 years in advance.
     
  18. Predicting long term trends is MUCH easier than short term realities.

    ODNR predicts good walleye fishing in the next 5 years. They do not predict what will happen at noon tomorrow.

    Here is a good graph of historical temperature readings showing an obvious trend. Extrapolation of that data gives you a guess that, all things staying constant, should be pretty close.

    The data is from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
     
  19. shuvlhed1

    shuvlhed1 Banned

    697
    0
    0
    But as someone already brought up, 30 years or so ago, I think at the first earth day celebration, they predicted global cooling leading to an impending ice age. Did I miss it?