We ARE melting!!!

Discussion in 'The Guru's Pub' started by Faiakes, Aug 12, 2005.

  1. Faiakes

    Faiakes Master Guru

    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ATI HD 4870
    OK 2 separate articles managed to draw my attention to the following: the ice caps both in the Arctic and the Antarctic have finally begone to melt.

    Article A:
    The Antarctic. Glacier Larsen B has been detached from the main bult of the anatarctic ice for the fisrt time after its formation 12.000 years ago. It weighs 720 Billion tons and it covers an area of 3.250 sq/km (the size of Luxenburg).

    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article303492.ece

    Article B:
    West Siberia.

    THE world's largest frozen peat bog is melting. An area stretching for a million square kilometres across the permafrost of western Siberia is turning into a mass of shallow lakes as the ground melts, according to Russian researchers just back from the region.

    The sudden melting of a bog the size of France and Germany combined could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725124.500

    What can we do?
    I must urge people living in countries which have yet to sign the Kioto treaty to voice their demands on their goverments.

    Don't be apathetic. Don't believe their pathetic lies. They can act, they can reverse this negative trend. They just don't want to because they are simply covering for the rich fossil fuel industrialists which funded them to power.

    If all else fails. Vote, damn it! :p

    You think they want do it anyway? Vote for the green party (or whatever closer to a green party/candidate you have). At least, for once, your vote will have a beneficial effect.

    As long as you can vote, you have them by the balls! Come on! Squeeze a little :D

    It's for your own good and that of the planet. (Plus, I think it will be a good stress relief exercise. Come on, squeeze :D ).

    We are literally going to drown! And I might be OK since my house is higher than 100m altitude, however, 70% of earth's population lives in seashore cities (I heard that number on the news, could someone confirm it via a link?).
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2005
  2. Damnit

    Damnit Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,420
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFI R9 390
    We are not going to drown and Im never voting green party.

    Look at it this way in terms of the ice. If you drop an ice cude into a glass of water it'll raise the level. NOw understand that the glaciers (I.E., the "ice cubes") are already in the water so the level is already up, so to speak. Now if that ice cube in the glass melts, all it is doing is redispersing it's volume. Only the little bitty top of the ice cube aboe the water will effect the volume, but the ice already underwater will have no effect on the water's volume. Now consider the fact that only a very small percentage of the glaciers out there are more than 80% submerged, that 20% will have a very little, if no effect on the ocean level. Maybe an inch if were lucky.

    I dont mind voting and taking action against the problems we have in our world, but I firmly believe that the whole green house effect is a heap 'a BS. If mother earth has gotten by so well for all these billions of years without us, I think it can safely put up with us.
     
  3. Faiakes

    Faiakes Master Guru

    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ATI HD 4870
    OK. you obviously did not read the articles and you are apparently nowhere near in understanding the nature of this problem, so I'll let this one go.

    Please, don't bother posting here again untill you have bothered to put some effort in your post.

    There is a spam thread if you just want to make the numbers, you know.
     
  4. mcnabb311

    mcnabb311 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2X ATI 4870 512MB X-Fired
    I do believe in global warming, and think there should be something done about it. I don't think the Kyoto treaty is the right answer though.

    Like I said in a previous post, population control may be one of our only options. That sucks, but as we become more industrialized we pollute more. If you have less people, you wouldn't need as much industry to sustain the population. But how to implement the idea would be a huge and controversial problem.

    And the only good thing to come out of the Green Party was the idea to legalize weed. Oh, and Ralph Nader. After all, he handed Bush the white house in the first place.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2005

  5. georgi55

    georgi55 Master Guru

    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    BFG GeForce 8800 GT OC 512MB
    Looks like someone skipped their geography and biology class in high school!
     
  6. Phoenix_Inferno

    Phoenix_Inferno Master Guru

    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    eVGA 8800 GTS 320MB
    im guessing u failed ur science classes... ice melts when the atoms within it gain energy (heat) and start to move more, which causes the atoms to be farther apart from each other. this turns the ice into water. so basically.. when ice melts, it expands. meaning it will take up more space.
     
  7. Faiakes

    Faiakes Master Guru

    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ATI HD 4870
    Overpopulation (I think) is not the heart of the problem.

    Our attitude towards energy production/consumption is.

    We are willing to keep burning fossil fuels instead of making a commitment to invest on clean energy production (Wind, Solar, Cold Fusion, Hydrogen etc). The reason is those sciences will require a lot of investment and when they are succesful they will be too cheap to overcharge. Hence, a lesser profit. They'd rather kill us all than make less millions than they already do.

    As if that wasn't enough few of us are ecologically minded. How many of us completely shut off the PC (if at all!). I actually unplug it completely because of the 7-8 lights from all the adaptors that consume power 24/7, same with video, TV.

    But that is time consuming. All those devices should have shut off terminators so that they don't consume any power when they are not used. But again companies don't bother and neither does legislation.
     
  8. dukeman

    dukeman Guest

    Where did the ice come from in the first place?

    plus i think it is pretty funny that you are worried about global warming but yet you have a computer that uses alot of juice. maybe you should practice what you preach and send your system to me in the sake of saving the planet.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2005
  9. gram_vaz

    gram_vaz Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,924
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    Leadtek 6800GT 350/1100
    ^ relics from the ice age i believe.
     
  10. dukeman

    dukeman Guest

    so by having the ice melt is it not just nature restoring the planet to what it should be?

    there was no ice in the beginning so there should not be any ice now.
     

  11. gram_vaz

    gram_vaz Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,924
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    Leadtek 6800GT 350/1100
    btw, your pc doesn't take up that much juice. a crt monitor takes up more juice than your tower. just get lcd for your displays and tv.

    and trying to do good for the environment is moot. most of the damage done by the west to the environment was done when we didn't know better. the damage that's going to be done by developing countries like china and india within the next 50 years is what's really going to screw up this planet.

    and there are still uncertainties about global warming. it may not be as bad as many make it out to be where so much ice is going to melt that most coastal cities are going to sink beneath waters. and even if the ice caps melt it may be a natural process of our planet. many believe this is a prelude to an ice age which happens every 10k years or so.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2005
  12. gram_vaz

    gram_vaz Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,924
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    Leadtek 6800GT 350/1100
    if all that ice melts and the world goes back to being the way it should be a great deal of terra firma is going to be swimming with the fishes. i personally think that if that ever happens by the time it does we will have the technology to control our climate and much of humanity is going to be pioneering the universe by then.
     
  13. mcnabb311

    mcnabb311 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2X ATI 4870 512MB X-Fired
    Getting rid of gasoline would be the best thing to do, I agree. Don't expect it to happen until the wells start to dry up though.

    Exploring the options of Hydrogen cells, and other energy sources is great but industry creates alot of pollution problems as well (I'm an Indusrial Operator). The problem with this is it's not easy or inexpensive to control emissions. We certainly do our best but it's not always possible, and we have an alloted amount of X material we're permitted to release over Y period of time without facing repurcussions.

    Alot of these "green" treaties only cover the 1st world. Industries have already been moving to 3rd world countries because of the cheap labor market. Now alot of industry move there because of the lax laws too. This shifts a balance out of 1st world nations and threatens economies. People say the US is a huge polluter, but I would think that other 3rd world countries are probably just as bad. They have no regulations, EPA, DEQ.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2005
  14. gram_vaz

    gram_vaz Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,924
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    Leadtek 6800GT 350/1100
    it seems the polar ice caps weren't formed by an ice age. it's formed through a natural process of a planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_caps

     
  15. dukeman

    dukeman Guest

    this kind of counters the myth of global warming.


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

    Key claim against global warming evaporates
    Satellite and weather balloon data based on faulty analyses, studies find


    For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

    Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

    The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.

    While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

    Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data.

    "But most people had to conclude, based on the fact that there were both satellite and balloon observations, that it really wasn't warming up," said Steven Sherwood, a geologists at Yale University and lead author of one of the studies.

    Oops!
    Sherwood examined weather balloons known as radiosondes, which are capable of making direct measurements of atmospheric temperatures.

    For the past 40 years, radiosonde temperature data have been collected from around the world twice each day, once during the day and once at night.

    But while nighttime radiosonde measurements were consistent with climate models and theories showing a general warming trend, daytime measurements actually showed the atmosphere to be cooling since the 1970's.

    Sherwood explains these discrepancies by pointing out that the older radiosonde instruments used in the 1970's were not as well shielded from sunlight as more recent models. What this means as that older radiosondes showed warmer temperature readings during the day because they were warmed by sunlight.

    "It's like being outside on a hot day—it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said.

    Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data—which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were—the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling.

    The discrepancy between surface and atmospheric measurements has been used by for years by skeptics who dispute claims of global warming.

    "Now we're learning that the disconnect is more apparent than real," said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and a lead author of another of the studies.

    Argument evaporates
    According to Santer, the only group to previously analyze satellite data on the troposphere -- the lowest layer in Earth's atmosphere -- was a research team headed by Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in 1992.

    "This was used by some critics to say 'We don't believe in climate models, they're wrong,'" Santer told LiveScience. "Other people used the disconnect between what the satellites told and what surface thermometers told us to argue that the surface data were wrong and that earth wasn't really warming because satellites were much more accurate."

    The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles.

    But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique.

    After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming.

    Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories.

    "When people come up with extraordinary claims -- like the troposphere is cooling -- then you demand extraordinary proof," Santer said. "What's happening now is that people around the world are subjecting these data sets to the scrutiny they need."
     

  16. flexmaster

    flexmaster Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,149
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Saphire X1800XT 512mb/ 6800 GO
    The planet is a lot colder than it was when Dinosaures lived on the planet, in fact they didnt even have ice back then. Also if all the ice melts the ocean won't raise more than a foot. A little warming wont hurt us, technology is advancing rapidlly and soon we wont even have to worry about it.
     
  17. dukeman

    dukeman Guest

    the way i see it if the north and south pole melt think of all the land that will be exposed.

    plus there is the runes that were in AVP that will be exposed. of course then the aliens will kill all of us but it will still be cool.
     
  18. Tom F

    Tom F Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,821
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Saab 900
    Wow...how much more of a warning can nature give us?

    Why do some people have an issue with 'going green'?

    The problem with the ice caps melting isn't the increased ammount of water in the oceans, the thing is that the oceans will expand with the heat. Thats where the problem lies.

    I was in Canada a few days back. They were complaining on the radio that the petrol price was averaging over $1 CAD/litre for the first time. That's less than £0.40 per litre. Here, it's more than twice that - about £0.85 per litre

    The main problem is all the hydrocarbons we are burning - and i think the only way we can maybe start to take control of this would be to increase oil prices. Or something. Or offer grants to people buying cars with smaller engines. Or something...

    When i was in Vancouver, i was shocked at how big the vast majority of the cars were things like Ford F-350s, Chevy Suburbans, etc.

    I can understand, if you live out in the middle of nowhere, then by all means you are justified having some big truck.

    But, when you are in a city, then do you really need a 4.5 tonne H2 or a Dodge truck with a 5.7 V8?

    For driving around town (oddly enough the time when a vehicle consumes the most fuel), IMO there is no excuse to drive something like that.

    I'm not trying to point the finger, i'm just trying to illustrate my point. I manage fine with a 1.2...and yet people feel they are justified in having engines sometimes more than five times as big...for driving around town? Our Audi A4. can do 750 miles on a tank (65 litre tank) of diesel.

    Maybe if there was a higher tax on fuel, people would be discouraged from buying a car with such a massive engine, and maybe start thinking about if they actually need it.

    I know there are many other problems too, but i think that would deffinetly be a good place to start. This planet is seriously cool. Why ruin it?
     
  19. dukeman

    dukeman Guest

    Al Gore, is that you?
     
  20. Faiakes

    Faiakes Master Guru

    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ATI HD 4870
    Well let's see:
    - My AMD 3500+, has Cool'n'Quiet, which drops the consumption down to less than half.
    - My 2 external disks are only on when I use them to back up data.
    - I don't have a sound card, I use the onboard AC'97.
    - I have an LCD, instead of a CRT.
    - The speakers are almost always off (like right now). I only use them when I'm watching a DVD or play a game.
    - I unplug the PC when I'm not using it.
    - I didn't buy a DVD player because of the PC DVD.
    - I have no lights on, when I use the PC (like now).

    Besides I never said that using a PC is not ecological. I talked about leaving it on 24/7, even when there is no need it shoulb be on.

    To macnaab311:
    That is good point (about 3rd world countries). China in particular is one of the biggest polluters and it will soon become #1. The US alone is estimated (last I heard on the news, about 10 months ago) to be responsible for 25% of the world's CO2 emitions. Very large coal energy sector, crappy cars ( sorry about that but you know it's true :)).

    But you are right, tight laws in the US prevent other kinds of pollution (toxic waste and liquid chemicals) which are anything but regualted in developing countries.

    Which is why I am focusing on the Kyoto treaty. I think it foresees those problems (although I have yet to read the actual document. Er hem., loweyes, you think you could find it? :)). It allows for industrial nations to "buy" pollution "points" from non-industrial nations.

    Perhaps an enhanced version of the Kyoto treaty would do more justice, although I don't think developing nations would ever agree to it. (and perhaps they are right. The western world managed to pollute ALL of the world and now that the 3rd world has a chance to enter the industrial age we're telling they can't for the sake of the planet, which we have destroyed though, not them.)
     

Share This Page