Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Global Warming Can be Good ?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
24 replies to this topic

#1 Jove

Jove

  • Members
  • 2,739 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Very South Jersey
  • Local time:05:28 AM

Posted 13 December 2009 - 07:51 AM

When the poles melt a little, than more fresh water reaches the land based aquifers by virtue of gravity as water flows toward the equator from both poles, otherwise more water is splashed around and evaporates into the atmosphere creating rain that is moving around the globe.

Therefore more much needed fresh water will be reaching the seven continents !

:thumbsup:

Edited by Amazing Andrew, 13 December 2009 - 11:16 AM.
Mod Edit: Moved from General Chat - AA

When you don't have to worry about your computer anymore, you can start
living again !

vrwqzc.gif
Success is a result, not a goal. . . . Flaubert


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 JohnWho

JohnWho

    Who was running the store?


  • Members
  • 2,611 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA
  • Local time:05:28 AM

Posted 13 December 2009 - 03:04 PM

I'm not sure I fully follow you, Jove.

But, it should be noted: we haven't had "global warming" since 1998, but we have had some polar ice melting. Much of it in the Arctic has recovered and 90% of the Antarctic ice is increasing too.

Water doesn't flow from the poles to the equator because of gravity but because of the various ocean currents.

Google "Thermohaline circulation" and you'll get an idea what I am talking about.


I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


#3 Jove

Jove
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 2,739 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Very South Jersey
  • Local time:05:28 AM

Posted 14 December 2009 - 12:44 AM

Not exactly what I mean, yes the ice melts into the ocean, which is well documented, but I am meaning the ocean is not the only place the melted ice, (water flows to it), is not all glacier meaning that more snow melts, doesn't it flow down from Arctic to Canada and then to the U.S.?

I thought they were still ranting and Raving about Global warming ?

Edited by Jove, 14 December 2009 - 12:45 AM.

When you don't have to worry about your computer anymore, you can start
living again !

vrwqzc.gif
Success is a result, not a goal. . . . Flaubert


#4 JohnWho

JohnWho

    Who was running the store?


  • Members
  • 2,611 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA
  • Local time:05:28 AM

Posted 14 December 2009 - 10:10 AM

Well, rain is good for the plants which are growing faster and healthier than they were 100 years ago due to the higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere, so as far as the flora of the planet is concerned, things are getting better.

We are in a relatively low level of atmospheric CO2, historically speaking, so as we return to what might be considered a "normal" level, we can anticipate a much more fertile planet. The increased rate of growth, as well as healthier plant growth, should go a long way toward feeding all the herbivores on Earth, including us.

As far as the "R & R" regarding "global warming" -

yes, we have been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (around the 1700), so it is reasonable to expect us to continue to do so until we reach whatever is the natural "high", at which time we'll continue in some sort of cool/warm cycle. As far back as scientists can evaluate, this is what has been happening. While it is true that we haven't warmed since a recent high in 1998, and have cooled slightly, from what I've read I expect we will resume warming, perhaps in 2015 or 2030 (there is not agreement on how long this slight cooling will last). We had short cooling periods in the early 1900's, again in the '50's, and the "beware of the coming new Ice Age" scare in the '70's. It appears we may be in another one of those.

When will we stop warming? Well, let's look at this chart:

Posted Image

and we can see that we haven't reached previous, recent (in geological terms) high levels, so we may have a way to go.

When you read that we are currently having "all time" highs, you'll notice they say something along the line of "in recorded history". It should be noted that "recorded history" relates to when we started actually measuring temps using instruments and keeping track of these temperatures. This "record" only goes back to early 1800's, I believe, so, yes, since we've been in the recovery from the Little Ice Age this entire time, it is not surprising that we keep having "all time record highs".

As you look at that chart, you'll see some periods of very rapid temperature drops or rises. Look at the period around 900-1000 AD. Doesn't make our recent warming seem anything near "unprecedented", does it?

The main discussion regarding "global warming" shouldn't center around any of these: (as I've said before)

-Arctic Ice disappearing
-Glaciers retreating
-Coral reef bleaching
-Mt Kilimanjaro losing snow
-Polar bears doing anything anywhere
-Some creature or plant facing extinction
-A change in cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons
-Droughts
-Floods
-Dry rivers
-Computer models or simulations
-A "consensus"
-Al Gore's movie
-Etc. causing etc. by etc. reported by etc., etc.

because as we continue to recover from the Little Ice Age the best we can do is prepare ourselves for the natural changes that will occur as the planet warms.

The argument regarding "global warming" really centers around what part in the warming we, humanity, plays or effects. In this area the primary area of concern, at least by those supporting the "Global Warming is being caused by man's CO2 emissions into the atmosphere", centers on the CO2 in the atmosphere and whether it causes the atmosphere to warm on a global level and, if so, exactly how much warming does it cause. On this topic the science is no where near settled with some saying it is the dominant cause of recent warming to others saying the amount of warming caused by CO2 is negligible and barely recordable by today's instruments.

This is where the "world's greatest scientists", so to speak, should be debating without any external (political, for example) influence. Remember, increasing CO2 levels are having a positive influence on the planets plant life, so we should be positive that decreasing CO2 levels are something we must do. While one might think that this has already happened, it has not. The media, politicians, certain businesses which will profit heavily, and others have made a concerted effort to make it appear that this has happened, but the truth is that it is not even close to being "settled". Recent disclosures by what is being termed "Climategate" add to this unsettledness by implying that there has been manipulated data and a restriction to the scientific peer review process (among other things) which have both prevented the necessary debate while providing a steady stream of information supporting the Global Warming is being caused by man's CO2 position.

We need honest scientists discussing these things in an open atmosphere.

Then the "R & R" won't stand for "Rants and Raves", it will stand for "Rational and Reasonable".

I'm for that, whatever the outcome.

:thumbsup:


I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


#5 Jove

Jove
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 2,739 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Very South Jersey
  • Local time:05:28 AM

Posted 14 December 2009 - 06:53 PM

John Who,

You seem to be up on this, . ! I guess you are an Environmentaliist,

Big International Convention planned by Nations on BBC News to night concerning Global Warming, . .

I will need to get back and re-read your post, . . very interesting !

I got to get to the Virus forum and check up on a Trojan My scanner picked up.

Will try to get back, . Thanks for the Update and info.

When you don't have to worry about your computer anymore, you can start
living again !

vrwqzc.gif
Success is a result, not a goal. . . . Flaubert


#6 JohnWho

JohnWho

    Who was running the store?


  • Members
  • 2,611 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA
  • Local time:05:28 AM

Posted 14 December 2009 - 07:31 PM

(quote Jove)
John Who,

You seem to be up on this, . ! I guess you are an Environmentaliist,...
(end quote)


Sort of.

I am all for being better stewards of our planet, especially since it is the only one we have right now.

However, we need to do this responsibly. For example, I'm all for stopping some factory from dumping toxic chemicals into a nearby river, but since thousands of species go extinct naturally every year, I'm not in favor of preventing the construction of a much needed Nuclear Power Plant just to preserve a localized purple spotted leaf gecko (although GIECO might not agree with me on this). :thumbsup:

This is another of the primary misconceptions regarding the Global Warming controversy. Until the appropriate world-wide scientists determine and agree on exactly how much, if at all, man's CO2 emissions effect the global atmospheric temperature, blaming anything on "man caused global warming" simply does not make sense. As part of the deception around this misconception, virtually anything that happens in the world is blamed on "global warming" until it is shown that warming was not the cause and then no one hears about the correction to the original assertion.

Here is a complete list of things caused by global warming - none of which have been shown to really be caused by GW. But, the unsuspecting public doesn't hear about the corrections and is left believing the worst about the minor warming we've experienced even though it is well within the range of previous warming trends.

If it weren't for the Internet, I believe that we'd all be easily "steamrolled" regarding the "man's CO2 emissions are causing global warming" concept.


I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


#7 JohnWho

JohnWho

    Who was running the store?


  • Members
  • 2,611 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA
  • Local time:05:28 AM

Posted 14 December 2009 - 07:45 PM

You know, maybe man isn't causing global warming,

but woman is - Global Warming Blamed on Hot Women

:thumbsup:


I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


#8 JohnWho

JohnWho

    Who was running the store?


  • Members
  • 2,611 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA
  • Local time:05:28 AM

Posted 15 December 2009 - 10:08 AM

"As part of the deception around this misconception, virtually anything that happens in the world is blamed on "global warming" until it is shown that warming was not the cause and then no one hears about the correction to the original assertion."

An example from todays media:

Gore: Arctic Ice May Soon Vanish in Summer
(quote)Tells Copenhagen Climate Conference New Data Shows Polar Caps May Melt in Summer Months Within 5-7 Years(end quote)

Not exactly, Al.

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

(quote)In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

(and)

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.
(end quote)


(bold mine, for emphasis)

Further, remember - even if the ice does melt in 30 years it does not mean that man had anything to do with it. It may be a natural consequence of the recovery from the Little Ice Age.

This deception is designed to scare people into thinking we "must act now", but it may have a different effect as it shows once more that spokesman for the AGW by CO2 concept can not always be trusted.


I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


#9 gully786

gully786

  • Members
  • 186 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:28 AM

Posted 15 December 2009 - 02:29 PM

Just a stupid conspiracy theory here cooked by me :thumbsup:

Why is it that when developingcountries such as china, india and others are on the road to prosperity do the americans and the british find id adequete to act on "global warming". This is a ruse to stop them losing the power they have.

Anyway personally i think global warming is a load of ..... pardon the intended imaganation of a swear

And as some1 said in the metro newspaper the earth has been getting warmer since the ice age if that happened lol, and the thing to do is find a way to adapt to the new conditions instead of preventing the inevitable.

The world is not small enough for our generation to ruin and its not small enough to save at the so called brink of no return

PS I wouldnt mind a warmer earth as all we get in the UK is a lot of cold and rain

#10 JohnWho

JohnWho

    Who was running the store?


  • Members
  • 2,611 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA
  • Local time:05:28 AM

Posted 15 December 2009 - 10:03 PM

Setting aside the science, or lack thereof, for a moment, gully786, there is so much money and politics invested in the idea that we humans need to do something regarding "Global Warming" or, more recently, "Climate Change" (when the warming stipped) that the answer to "why" is fairly obvious.

We are talking "BIG money", here, too, example: Al Gore's organization spent $300 million on advertising alone - (Gore unveils $300 million warming campaign) - and this is just his group. Many billions of $$$'s are at stake here.

It is difficult to debate or discuss "Global Warming" with these people who support that we are causing it, too. They will say that the science is settled, that there is a consensus, that the debate is over, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The "science" should be debated regarding exactly what the effect of atmospheric CO2 has on the temperature of the atmosphere - does it dominate or is it barely measurable?

A "consensus"? - recently 1400 scientists spoke up for AGW, while 32,000 have spoken against it. While neither list is comprised of "climate scientists" only, the fabricated "fact" that a consensus exists becomes more and more evident to even casual observers every day.

How can the "debate" be over when any attempt to debate the AGW concept is thwarted by the supporters of the concept?

The recent "Climategate" release of emails, data, and programs from one of the primary climate centers providing information to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) somewhat corroborates, among other things:

That there appears to have been a deliberate manipulation of data, possibly hiding information that did not fit the AGW concept;

the "peer review process" appears to have been manipulated to promote the AGW concept while stifling opposing scientific points of view and data;

information that should have been provided under the Freedom of Information Act has been withheld, partially provided, or altered;

and some grant or tax money may have been used to provide false data and information in order to further the AGW cause and garner further funds.


Not the way I envision science, that's for sure.

Edited by JohnWho, 15 December 2009 - 10:05 PM.


I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


#11 Jove

Jove
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 2,739 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Very South Jersey
  • Local time:05:28 AM

Posted 15 December 2009 - 10:41 PM

I agree somewhat with gully, besides that Al Gore is a lot of COMQuats Anyway !

But, No one ever mentions air traffic as I got a Glimpse of it on Sept.11 2001, when they showed the skies over America Clearing via a Radar Screen,

Now that looked like a slightly warmed sky to me, . . and that was just the morning !

Did Good Old Al the Bullitzer Prize Winner mention that in his Big Old Book ??

Edited by Jove, 15 December 2009 - 10:41 PM.

When you don't have to worry about your computer anymore, you can start
living again !

vrwqzc.gif
Success is a result, not a goal. . . . Flaubert


#12 groovicus

groovicus

  • Security Colleague
  • 9,963 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Centerville, SD
  • Local time:03:28 AM

Posted 16 December 2009 - 12:12 AM

Umm... what is this 'Bulliter Prize' of which you speak?

#13 Jove

Jove
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 2,739 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Very South Jersey
  • Local time:05:28 AM

Posted 16 December 2009 - 12:30 AM

I don't know, . . some prize that there awarding in Sweden, . . I think ?

But may be its the No Bell, for persons who already have little ding-a-lings, . .

Not to be disrespectful but the main jist of my message is No Mention of Upper atmospheric Air Traffic, I am wondering if this could compare with the automobile traffic concerns in some way?

When you don't have to worry about your computer anymore, you can start
living again !

vrwqzc.gif
Success is a result, not a goal. . . . Flaubert


#14 JohnWho

JohnWho

    Who was running the store?


  • Members
  • 2,611 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA
  • Local time:05:28 AM

Posted 16 December 2009 - 09:24 AM

OSLO, Norway - Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

Both the IPCC and what Gore says (including his "An Inconvenient Truth" movie) about "global warming" are full of misconceptions, deceptions, half-truths, and false information.

The Prize appears to have been given for "good intentions" rather than good, accurate scientific information.


Regarding Gore, who has said "I am not a scientist", but is believed by many whatever he says regarding science - he recently said that the "exterior of the Earth is extremely hot, several million degrees" (video of Gore h e r e). Not quite, Al, at the core the earth may be 7-9000 degrees, just slightly less than "millions of degrees". :thumbsup:

His movie, which is incredibly still being shown on TV (and maybe in schools), is full of false information and deceptively presented "facts". Here's one organizations discussion of the movie - 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie.

You can find a number of other sites discussing these politely called "errors" very easily.


I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


#15 Guest_Abacus 7_*

Guest_Abacus 7_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 16 December 2009 - 11:54 AM

:flowers:

There you go, Jove. They are actually are working on the Traffic in the Sky, Mate. Give them time and Money, they will go further up.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/a...ZlIdcHufgExqX2w

:thumbsup:

Edited by Abacus 7, 16 December 2009 - 12:00 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users