View Full Version : Global warming
ShadesWolf
03-15-2006, 11:32
Ok this thread has two aspects,
the first is to discuss Globgal warming in general
the second is to tell you about an experiment developed for the BBC by climate scientists, led by Oxford University, using the Met Office climate model.
PART ONE - In General
I have been on this earth almost 37 years and things are a-changing. What I have noticed is as follows.
- We have far more cars on the road. When I first started to working in Birmingham it took me 40 minutes to get to work and over 1 hour to get home. This was at 8.30 AM and 4.30 PM. I then moved closer to work and my hours changed. It then took me 30 minutes to get to work and 35 to get home. This was 7.30AM and 4.00 PM. At ths earlier time in the morning I saw very little cars on the road and my trip home was a nice drive through the country. However, that was over 10 years ago.
Since then my journey into work is far earlier and takes longer. On average it takes me 1 hour to travel in and its almost bumper to bumper. I choose to travel home on a toll road so its an easier journey, but still takes me 40 minutes.
- The weather. What is happening to our climate. Winter was always winter - end of Nov to bigin of MArch and summer had some nice wather and was June to August. But now it seems to be getting later and later each year. I appreciate som parts of the Uk have had some bad snow, but i can remember as a child having snow up to the top of my front door and it lasting for weeks. If we get 2 inches and it last for two day then we are unlucky this year.
- Where have all the birds gone. As a child our garden was always full of Robins, Blackbirds, Sparrows and Thrushes. But this is no longer. So where have they all gone ?
PART TWO - The experiment
If you are interested in taking part then take a look at the link below. I have it running on my PC. I believe this is a worth while cause.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/
This disappearance of birds in suburbia has more to do with the number of cats than global warming.
For Jelly tot:
http://palbum.sourceforge.net/example_album/stuff/nile%20boat,%20from%20an%20old%20national%20geographic.jpg
Vladimir
03-15-2006, 14:06
Something that may be contributing to this problem is some abnormal activity from the sun: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1729038,00.html
At present, the sun is at its quietest. However, Dikpati and her colleagues have calculated that its activity will not only start to rise later this year, culminating in maximum activity around 2010 and 2011, but that this maximum will be one of the most intense every experienced.
'The next sunspot cycle will be 30 per cent to 50 per cent stronger than the previous one,' she said.
Sun spots are down but I believe solar radiation is up. Anyone interested in buying beachfront property in north central Africa?
R'as al Ghul
03-15-2006, 14:43
PART ONE - In General
We have far more cars on the road.
The weather.
Where have all the birds gone. As a child our garden was always full of Robins, Blackbirds, Sparrows and Thrushes. But this is no longer. So where have they all gone ?
More cars on the road - not a miracle, since popultaion grows
The change of weather - I agree but am not sure if it is a matter of perception or a perfectly normal point of a cycle we have yet to understand or man-made.
The birds - Now that is a matter I'm personally interested in.
I don't think that the amount of cats or global warming have much to do with it. I agree with Idaho, though, that cats have probably more influence on the population of birds than global warming.
I observed this: Our architecture has changed, making it impossible for some species, like sparrows to find suitable nests. Robins rely on thick bushes where cats can't invade. If the bushes go, so do the Robins. You also have to keep in mind on what they feed. If their diet consists of mainly insects, take the wren for example, it may prove difficult to find enough in a concrete city environment. Blackbirds need open lawn spaces to feed. Etc....
I feed the birds in my backyard the whole year for the last two years. (please refer to the british society of ornithology if you think that's bad). I am frequently surprised what kind of birds come to my feeder:
great tit, blue tit, crested tit, long-tailed tit, coal tit, blackbird, song-thrush, wren, short-toed treecreeper, nuthatch, jaybird, magpie, Crow/ Raven, 2 different breeds of pigeon, green woodpecker, robins, bullfinch, green finch and chaffinch. Plus two squirrels and several mice. (Cats can't get into the garden)
This is in a city in the so-called Ruhrpott-area. A once industrial area and strongly build up with almost 400.000 residentsin my town. The situation at my parents home is even better (more rural area). All seems almost to be as it was during my childhood.
I would very much like to know what you have observed in more detail.
Is it personal perception or do you have any statistics?
Originally posted by Vladimir
At present, the sun is at its quietest. However, Dikpati and her colleagues have calculated that its activity will not only start to rise later this year, culminating in maximum activity around 2010 and 2011, but that this maximum will be one of the most intense every experienced.
'The next sunspot cycle will be 30 per cent to 50 per cent stronger than the previous one,' she said
Suns activity is much more active then it has been. Some scientists have speculated it hasnt been this active for a couple milenia. The increased solar radiation would be enough to massively impact earths eco system, but we also have much more CO2 in the air. So the heat doesnt escape into space. Kinda a perfect storm.
It used to be warm enough in england that you could grow wine. Considering we just came out of a minor ice age (1300-1850) its not odd that glaciers are receding. I often find it odd that people mention the glaciers in the alps are receding when they had massively expanded during that minor iceage. At some points they were growing fast enough to swallow up a couple villages.
Personally i'm not too worried about global warming. Technologies are advancing at such a rate that massively polluting energy sources are being replaced quickly. Look at ireland and their massive wind farms. The rapid advancement in nanotechnology are making solar pannels smaller and 100's of times more productive. Once the sun calms down also the temperature will start to ease. What dislike though is goverment not imposing more regulations on industry to pollute less. Industry's that use coal can reduce CO2 emissions by 95%+ now so there should be no reason to be sending out so much CO2.
Many volcanoes are getting ready to erupt. The massive one near the phillipines (forget the name, cuased the year of no summer) has regrown to the size it was before, and looks like it might go off soon. Once the sun calms down also the temperature will start to ease. Sure things might get a bit bumpy for awhile but it will calm down and cool. Nature is like a bucking bronco, you just got to know when to let go.
Personally i'm not too worried about global warming.Me neither- I try not to worry about things I cant change. You make some good points btw. :bow:
GiantMonkeyMan
03-15-2006, 19:55
did you know that cows create more methane than land rovers create co2 and since methane is potentially a more harmful greenhouse gas then i have come to the conclusion that vegitarians are trying to kill the enviroment :furious3:
seriously though i too have noticed the total lack of snow... i live in the south west of england so i probably wouldn't get much snow anyway but we used to get about an inch during the winter... now it has been about 2 years since we have had anything more than a slush that melted in about an hour
Sasaki Kojiro
03-15-2006, 20:26
did you know that cows create more methane than land rovers create co2 and since methane is potentially a more harmful greenhouse gas then i have come to the conclusion that vegitarians are trying to kill the enviroment :furious3:
Vegetarians eat cows? :inquisitive:
I think the solution is less "stop all pollution now" and more "find a better way to do things". Pollution is bad whether or not global warming is occurring.
Suns activity is much more active then it has been. Some scientists have speculated it hasnt been this active for a couple milenia. The increased solar radiation would be enough to massively impact earths eco system, but we also have much more CO2 in the air. So the heat doesnt escape into space. Kinda a perfect storm.
It used to be warm enough in england that you could grow wine. Considering we just came out of a minor ice age (1300-1850) its not odd that glaciers are receding. I often find it odd that people mention the glaciers in the alps are receding when they had massively expanded during that minor iceage. At some points they were growing fast enough to swallow up a couple villages.
Personally i'm not too worried about global warming. Technologies are advancing at such a rate that massively polluting energy sources are being replaced quickly. Look at ireland and their massive wind farms. The rapid advancement in nanotechnology are making solar pannels smaller and 100's of times more productive. Once the sun calms down also the temperature will start to ease. What dislike though is goverment not imposing more regulations on industry to pollute less. Industry's that use coal can reduce CO2 emissions by 95%+ now so there should be no reason to be sending out so much CO2.
Many volcanoes are getting ready to erupt. The massive one near the phillipines (forget the name, cuased the year of no summer) has regrown to the size it was before, and looks like it might go off soon. Once the sun calms down also the temperature will start to ease. Sure things might get a bit bumpy for awhile but it will calm down and cool. Nature is like a bucking bronco, you just got to know when to let go.
you must not forgetting that the magnetic strength of the earth is reducing too. That means the same sun storms will do much more damage to electric machines and an increase of radiation. that combined with less O3 and more CO2 and NOx, more sun activity. And yes Vulcanoes they will cause to earth to cool down for a while. But don't forget it were volcanoes who ended the two gloabel ice ages which covered the complete earth with snow.
But what I'm also worried about is the amount of nuclear waste in the seas. If you know that 2Kg of Plutonium properly spread can destroy life as we know it...
Vegetarians eat cows? :inquisitive:
No, the point he was making is precisely the opposite... They don't. :idea2: :p
did you know that cows create more methane than land rovers create co2 and since methane is potentially a more harmful greenhouse gas then i have come to the conclusion that vegitarians are trying to kill the enviroment :furious3:
We all make methane but I believe CO2 is a more much powerfull green house gas than methane. Before there were Chlorophyta the whole atmosfere existed out of N2, CH4,... The sky was even red because of the big amount of CH4.
We all make methane but I believe CO2 is a more much powerfull green house gas than methane. Before there were Chlorophyta the whole atmosfere existed out of N2, C2H4,... The sky was even red because of the big amount of C2H4.
Methane is worse. Hence why rainforests pumping the stuff out turns the 'rainforests keep greenhouse gas levels down' thing upside down.
Marcellus
03-17-2006, 00:12
We all make methane but I believe CO2 is a more much powerfull green house gas than methane. Before there were Chlorophyta the whole atmosfere existed out of N2, C2H4,... The sky was even red because of the big amount of C2H4.
Methane is 23 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Alexanderofmacedon
03-17-2006, 01:17
You don't have to be too knowledged about Global Warming to prevent it. Try using products with CFC's less and you'll help.
Can't people live without spray deodorant or hair spray?:dizzy2:
You don't have to be too knowledged about Global Warming to prevent it. Try using products with CFC's less and you'll help.
Can't people live without spray deodorant or hair spray?:dizzy2:
CFCs don't cause global warming. CFCs have largely been removed from aerosols.:inquisitive:
Avicenna
03-17-2006, 15:37
Suns activity is much more active then it has been. Some scientists have speculated it hasnt been this active for a couple milenia. The increased solar radiation would be enough to massively impact earths eco system, but we also have much more CO2 in the air. So the heat doesnt escape into space. Kinda a perfect storm.
It used to be warm enough in england that you could grow wine. Considering we just came out of a minor ice age (1300-1850) its not odd that glaciers are receding. I often find it odd that people mention the glaciers in the alps are receding when they had massively expanded during that minor iceage. At some points they were growing fast enough to swallow up a couple villages.
Personally i'm not too worried about global warming. Technologies are advancing at such a rate that massively polluting energy sources are being replaced quickly. Look at ireland and their massive wind farms. The rapid advancement in nanotechnology are making solar pannels smaller and 100's of times more productive. Once the sun calms down also the temperature will start to ease. What dislike though is goverment not imposing more regulations on industry to pollute less. Industry's that use coal can reduce CO2 emissions by 95%+ now so there should be no reason to be sending out so much CO2.
Many volcanoes are getting ready to erupt. The massive one near the phillipines (forget the name, cuased the year of no summer) has regrown to the size it was before, and looks like it might go off soon. Once the sun calms down also the temperature will start to ease. Sure things might get a bit bumpy for awhile but it will calm down and cool. Nature is like a bucking bronco, you just got to know when to let go.
Quite simply, industries use coal because it's cheaper and doesn't use as much land as wind farms. It's all to do with the economics. Anyhow, coal is going to run out soon.
Is the volcano you're thinking about Mount Pinatubo?
Vladimir
03-17-2006, 16:08
you must not forgetting that the magnetic strength of the earth is reducing too.
Again, more "earth according to the Discovery Channel (BBC)" on my part. It states that magnetic north is moving again and before long we'll have another polarity shift.
Methane is 23 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Sunlight breaks down Methane while plants consume CO2 and other pollution. Advanced Urban Planning techniques and bioengineering (which only advanced societies can develop) can help reduce both.
This is an opinion piece I read this morning: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188176,00.html
Make all the Polish jokes you want but I’m sure the scientists referenced knows a lot more about CO2 levels than I.
Vladimir
03-17-2006, 16:09
It's all to do with the economics. Anyhow, coal is going to run out soon.
I'd like to see your source on that. Coal is EVERYWHERE in the US.
Edit: oops.
Alexanderofmacedon
03-17-2006, 16:54
CFCs don't cause global warming. CFCs have largely been removed from aerosols.:inquisitive:
They don't cause it, but they do deplete the ozone layer, which does in turn cause it. You may be right about the CFC's being removed from aerosols, I don't know. I haven't heard anything.
Originally posted by Tiberius
Quite simply, industries use coal because it's cheaper and doesn't use as much land as wind farms. It's all to do with the economics. Anyhow, coal is going to run out soon.
Is the volcano you're thinking about Mount Pinatubo?
We arnt near to running out of coal, we have 200+ years worth of coal at our current ussage levels left just on the U.S.A.'s seaboard. Of coarse it comes down to economics, but government can force some regulations on the industry's to use the technology out there now that can elminate 95%+ of the CO2 and all of the sulfur. Might be pinatubo, the one i was thinking of went off in the 1800's, cooled the earth enough to have snow in july.
Originally Posted by Gertgregoor
you must not forgetting that the magnetic strength of the earth is reducing too.
Again, more "earth according to the Discovery Channel (BBC)" on my part. It states that magnetic north is moving again and before long we'll have another polarity shift.
Its been droping in strength since the 1400's. There's about 200 years left at this rate till there is either a shift or we lose all magnetic polarty. Which would turn earth into a frying pan. It isnt certain weather it will switch this time or just die, but since it has happened many times in the past it probably will. Also the reduced magnetic field combined with the increased solar radiation produced by the sun is helping to increase the tempature on earth.
Methane is 23 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Well how come that while now there's about 0.032% CO2 in the atmosphere that it's as warm as before chlorophyta while then the sky would have seen red because of the methane. The sky couldn't be looking red from (0,
032/23=0.00139) only 0.00139% of methane, would it?:dizzy2:
(I'm not saying you are wrong just find it curious.) of course there's still methane in atmosphere, about 0.00016 if I remember correctly. As 0.00016*23 would be 0.00368. That means the effect of methane on the global warming is about 10 smaller as CO2. But that would also mean that the only a small increase of CH4 would mean a much bigger effect than CO2 would. SO why are all those scientist worrying about CO2? (ofcourse you also have NOx and H2O)
Its been droping in strength since the 1400's. There's about 200 years left at this rate till there is either a shift or we lose all magnetic polarty. Which would turn earth into a frying pan. It isnt certain weather it will switch this time or just die, but since it has happened many times in the past it probably will. Also the reduced magnetic field combined with the increased solar radiation produced by the sun is helping to increase the tempature on earth.
That's what they think. But they can't completly predict how it would go. And it doesn't have to be completly gone for having effect. And yes it will help the world to warm up. But it won't be good for Sattelites, electricty networks, air travelling,...
It would also make a small increase in cancer. Tough this wouldn't be anything spectacular. But ofcourse if the Ozon layer will get more holes and get thinner it might have a 'lil more effect.
hey don't cause it, but they do deplete the ozone layer, which does in turn cause it. You may be right about the CFC's being removed from aerosols, I don't know. I haven't heard anything.
yes, CFC's do react with O3 and thinnen the ozon layer. And the ozon layer filters alot of radiantion but also short-wavelength light. And how more short-wavelength light reaches the earth surface how more light will be transformed into long-wavelenght light. And how more long-wavelength how higer the tempratures. And the increase of UVB and UVC radiation isn't to good either.
Marcellus
03-18-2006, 13:17
Well how come that while now there's about 0.032% CO2 in the atmosphere that it's as warm as before chlorophyta while then the sky would have seen red because of the methane. The sky couldn't be looking red from (0,
032/23=0.00139) only 0.00139% of methane, would it?:dizzy2:
(I'm not saying you are wrong just find it curious.) of course there's still methane in atmosphere, about 0.00016 if I remember correctly. As 0.00016*23 would be 0.00368. That means the effect of methane on the global warming is about 10 smaller as CO2. But that would also mean that the only a small increase of C2H6 would mean a much bigger effect than CO2 would. SO why are all those scientist worrying about CO2? (ofcourse you also have NOx and H2O)
Methane is, kg for kg, 23 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so if you were to release equal amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the methane would do much more damage. The total effect of all the methane is the atmosphere is most likely less than the total effect of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, however.
Methane is, kg for kg, 23 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so if you were to release equal amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the methane would do much more damage. The total effect of all the methane is the atmosphere is most likely less than the total effect of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, however.
how come? Because there is a luch bigger increase of CO2? or...?
Marcellus
03-18-2006, 16:49
There's a lot more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there is methane, which is why the total effect of all the methane is the atmosphere is less than the total effect of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By my quick calculations, the total effect of the CO2 is very approximately ten times the total effect of the CH4.
There's a lot more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there is methane, which is why the total effect of all the methane is the atmosphere is less than the total effect of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By my quick calculations, the total effect of the CO2 is very approximately ten times the total effect of the CH4.
Well how come that while now there's about 0.032% CO2 in the atmosphere that it's as warm as before chlorophyta while then the sky would have seen red because of the methane. The sky couldn't be looking red from (0,
032/23=0.00139) only 0.00139% of methane, would it?:dizzy2:
(I'm not saying you are wrong just find it curious.) of course there's still methane in atmosphere, about 0.00016 if I remember correctly. As 0.00016*23 would be 0.00368. That means the effect of methane on the global warming is about 10 smaller as CO2.
yeah I figured that but doesn't tat also mean that a small increase of methane will cause much more effect then an increase of CO2?
Marcellus
03-19-2006, 22:01
yeah I figured that but doesn't tat also mean that a small increase of methane will cause much more effect then an increase of CO2?
An increase in the amount of methane produced would indeed do more damage than a similar increase in the amount of CO2 produced. However, I imagine the increase in the amount of CO2 produced is much greater than the increase in methane produced.
Papewaio
03-20-2006, 05:21
Also got to figure out which wavelengths the gas blocks out... if 100% of a certain range of wavelengths is blocked then an increase in those gases will have no effect... while an increase in a window of unblocked wavelengths will have a large effect...
Also got to figure out which wavelengths the gas blocks out... if 100% of a certain range of wavelengths is blocked then an increase in those gases will have no effect... while an increase in a window of unblocked wavelengths will have a large effect...
well the atmosphere pretects us, wel it would have a few hundred years ago, from most light that has shorter wavelengts then UVA (that would mean UVB,UVC) and the shorter radiowaves and the longer radiowaves (some of the radiowaves in the middle arn't blocked.) Blocking doesn't mean 100%, perhaps filtering is a better word. But when talking about global warming it is the infra-red light that is partially kept from disappearing to outer space and kept here to warmen the atmosphere (ever been in such a infra-red sauna?).
I believe CO2 H20 (as a gas ofcourse), CH4 and NOx are the ones who block infra red. It's the O3 layer that's blocking UVB, UVC,... O3 layer hasn't much to do with global warming but it protects us from radiation.
Papewaio
03-20-2006, 22:51
But not all gases block the same range of wavelengths within the infra-red.
So there are windows which let out the infra-red... increasing the gases that block these windows (within the infra-red range) has different effects ... if the window is fully blocked (100%) extra gases will not filter out other window ranges, while a small amount of gas that blocks an unfiltered range will have a much larger effect... gases that do block infra-red generally do not block the same set of wavelengths (makes sense as it is related to shape of the molecules).
But not all gases block the same range of wavelengths within the infra-red.
So there are windows which let out the infra-red... increasing the gases that block these windows (within the infra-red range) has different effects ... if the window is fully blocked (100%) extra gases will not filter out other window ranges, while a small amount of gas that blocks an unfiltered range will have a much larger effect... gases that do block infra-red generally do not block the same set of wavelengths (makes sense as it is related to shape of the molecules).
yeah but about all infra-red light give warmth,...I believe.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.