PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming



MEGILE
02-10-2008, 12:12 PM
Stop me when I say something wrong:

The earth is in a particularly cold phase.

The earth has been considerably warmer, on the order of 15 degrees.

For 90% of the earth's existence, there has been no ice.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow temperature changes.

-HH-Quazi
02-10-2008, 12:20 PM
I watched Al Gore's show called An Inconveinent Truth. It was allot better than I expected it to be. It showed a very large chunk of the Antartic ice cap that scientists thought would take 20 years to melt just crumble up in 35 days.

MEGILE
02-10-2008, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by -HH-Quazi:
I watched Al Gore's show called An Inconveinent Truth. It was allot better than I expected it to be. It showed a very large chunk of the Antartic ice cap that scientists thought would take 20 years to melt just crumble up in 35 days.

I haven't had the pleasure yet, but will eventually, I'm sure.

Airmail109
02-10-2008, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by -HH-Quazi:
I watched Al Gore's show called An Inconveinent Truth. It was allot better than I expected it to be. It showed a very large chunk of the Antartic ice cap that scientists thought would take 20 years to melt just crumble up in 35 days.

I haven't had the pleasure yet, but will eventually, I'm sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CO2 levels only follow temperature increases for the first one eighth of the change over from a glacial period to a temperate period. The later larger part of the warming is caused by Co2.

All this tells us is that some system we don't know about kick starts global warming at the end of a glaciation period, that increases Co2 levels which in turn increases temperature.

Korolov1986
02-10-2008, 12:59 PM
I can't believe nobody is happy about not shoveling white **** off their driveway for the next few thousand years.

georgeo76
02-10-2008, 01:09 PM
I'm skeptic about GW. But it doesn't seem to matter too much in practice. I'm bassicly in favor of everything we're supposed to do about the problem, if for other reasons.

I still worry much more about arsenic and mercury than I do about methane and C02. Screw the grandkids, I'd rather put up with a broccoli fart than a neurotoxin.

Pirschjaeger
02-10-2008, 01:39 PM
One of Many Solutions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDeXTXYFKAY&feature=related)

Jaws2002
02-10-2008, 02:50 PM
Only if would come sooner. I'm in Canada and could use a bit of better weather.
I was in South Dakota last week and was minus 50!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Al Gore you liar!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

slipBall
02-10-2008, 03:04 PM
Won't someone think of the children!

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/Helenlovejoy.jpg

Monterey13
02-10-2008, 03:37 PM
If the ice is melting so much, then why did they have to dig so deep to retrieve Glacier Girl?

I'm not a believer in all the hype. It's just another way of getting people all worked up and getting them to ok funding for tons of research. Also another way to make tons of money selling hybrid cars and overpriced alternatives to what we have now. Don't fall for it.

That's all I've got to say about the matter. Cheers.

Airmail109
02-10-2008, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Monterey13:
If the ice is melting so much, then why did they have to dig so deep to retrieve Glacier Girl?

I'm not a believer in all the hype. It's just another way of getting people all worked up and getting them to ok funding for tons of research. Also another way to make tons of money selling hybrid cars and overpriced alternatives to what we have now. Don't fall for it.

That's all I've got to say about the matter. Cheers.

Oh god another one. Hype my ***.

Im off to dig up all the information about this from the last thread.

dangerlaef
02-10-2008, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by georgeo76:
I'm skeptic about GW. But it doesn't seem to matter too much in practice. I'm bassicly in favor of everything we're supposed to do about the problem, if for other reasons.


YES! Well I'm not a skeptic, but the logic of many skeptic's case is it's OK to pollute.

There are lots of reasons to stop polluting even if GW (or more correctly AGW) is proven false.

MalaKa911
02-10-2008, 03:47 PM
I'm not a believer in all the hype. It's just another way of getting people all worked up and getting them to ok funding for tons of research. Also another way to make tons of money selling hybrid cars and overpriced alternatives to what we have now. Don't fall for it.

Science has no credibility anymore. People now prefer to believe there own theories, usually based on nothing.

"Ou s'en va t'on"...

Airmail109
02-10-2008, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by MalaKa911:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not a believer in all the hype. It's just another way of getting people all worked up and getting them to ok funding for tons of research. Also another way to make tons of money selling hybrid cars and overpriced alternatives to what we have now. Don't fall for it.

Science has no credibility anymore. People now prefer to believe there own theories, usually based on nothing.

"Ou s'en va t'on"... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arhahahahah

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRHAHAHAHAHA

MEGILE
02-10-2008, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Monterey13:
If the ice is melting so much, then why did they have to dig so deep to retrieve Glacier Girl?



Do you base all of your beliefs on straw men?

"If evolution is true, how come we don't see monkeys giving birth to Humans" - anon ID supporter.


Originally posted by Aimail101 :
Oh god another one. Hype my ***.



Relax, rage leads to increased respiration, which increases CO2 output.


Originally posted by dangerlaef:

YES! Well I'm not a skeptic, but the logic of many skeptic's case is it's OK to pollute.


Good point... perhaps it's their profits, perhaps they are eagerly anticpating the rapture..regardless, alternative fuels need investing, because oil will eventually go byebye.

I wouldn't however characterize all global warming... non-accepters? as such.

There are questions, and I have a few of my own.

joeap
02-10-2008, 04:03 PM
+1 to Megile.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-10-2008, 04:11 PM
I always love the whole "it's not getting warmer, it's 50 below out there" BS. Research shows that a likely result of global warming is a sudden ice age. Enough ice melts to change the salinity of the oceans and the currents that bring warm water from the equator north to the pole will stop flowing and if this happens in the fall or winter the winter will most likely not end for another few hundred years! Remember, even though completely dramatized the move "Day After Tomorrow" is based on the non-fiction book "The Coming Global Superstorm". Now despite all the other BS that the author does on his radio show the book is firmly based on real science.

DuxCorvan
02-10-2008, 04:37 PM
Earth temperature has risen the last 20 years. I've been sexually active the last 20 years. Chance? No!

Admit it. I'm HOT! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

MalaKa911
02-10-2008, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MalaKa911:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not a believer in all the hype. It's just another way of getting people all worked up and getting them to ok funding for tons of research. Also another way to make tons of money selling hybrid cars and overpriced alternatives to what we have now. Don't fall for it.

Science has no credibility anymore. People now prefer to believe there own theories, usually based on nothing.

"Ou s'en va t'on"... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arhahahahah

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRHAHAHAHAHA </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What is so funny about that? I think it's pretty sad...

dangerlaef
02-10-2008, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Megile:

..perhaps they are eagerly anticpating the rapture..


I LOL'd

AKA_TAGERT
02-10-2008, 07:42 PM
GW is real..

And to do my part in helping keep the planet cool..

I leave the windows down on my DODGE 2500 with the AC on full everywhere I go!

Yes..

I'm a giver!

HotelBushranger
02-10-2008, 08:30 PM
Well, let's think about it logically.

A lot of money is going to be spend on green technology etc to reduce global warming. IF gw is proven wrong, then it's still a win situation; fossil fuel consumption is reduced by the widespread implementation of green technology.

Now supposing it is assumed global warming is false, or there is enough skepticism to prevent funding for new technology, what happens if it turns out global warming is true, and occurring?

Moral of the story; better safe than sorry.

heywooood
02-10-2008, 08:35 PM
total oil production worlwide since 1900 (http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/worldoilreservesevol.html)

As most of these trillions of barrels have been burned as heating oil, burned to generate electricity, refined into gasoline and burned, or converted into plastics and lubricants etc ...where did all those trillions of metric tons of noxious fumes go??
Tagerts bong?

Nope - they have filled the bubble we breath from and hastened an otherwise slowly changing natural fluctuation of earths climate...
The Tropic zones are already seeing the result in extended drought and as was noted the polar ice is receding at an unlikely rate.

if you want to see something else that is unsettling that has to do with petroleum products, look here (http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1103/1103_feature.html)..it is the size of Texas...
but go ahead and keep throwing your plastic trash on the ground, eventually we wont need boats.

Loco-S
02-10-2008, 09:05 PM
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html


Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

http://deoxy.org/wiki/AliensCauseGlobalWarming

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/Kurbalaganda/GTEMPS.gif

Irish_Rogues
02-11-2008, 06:41 AM
The Sun Also Sets
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV " the sun.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Topics: Global Warming


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves " and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" " by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

buzzsaw1939
02-11-2008, 08:00 AM
Global warming is not a lie, I have witnessed it myself for many years!

Weather its a earthly cycle or man made, or both, it is happening!

I'm just tired of the constant dooms day programs about it, it only breeds stress and hopelessness!

I would like to see more of what we can do about it, because the real poluters aren't paying attention, thier too busy counting thier money! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Monterey13
02-11-2008, 08:16 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif @ Irish Rogues

Pirschjaeger
02-11-2008, 08:17 AM
Global warming is part of regular cycles but that's not where the problem is.

The problem is that we are accelerating the process.

This is what the scientists are actually saying.

Fritz

Irish_Rogues
02-11-2008, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Global warming is part of regular cycles but that's not where the problem is.

The problem is that we are accelerating the process.

This is what the scientists are actually saying.

Fritz

Read again

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

buzzsaw1939
02-11-2008, 01:48 PM
I would question who funded thier study! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Irish_Rogues
02-11-2008, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by buzzsaw1939:
I would question who funded thier study! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/aboutUs/index_e.html


The National Research Council (NRC) is the Government of Canada's premier organization for research and development. We have been active since 1916.

Yeah, better watch that Canadian government... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

heywooood
02-11-2008, 06:25 PM
Is that the same Council that, back in the early '80's went looking for the reason behind the sudden drastic reduction in the caribou population, spoke to several inuit in the Territories - noticed huge piles of remains in and around their cabins and villages....and then blamed it on wolves - allowing those animals to be hunted to near extinction as well? That Council?

on another note - if Canada were smart - they would have erected a chain of giant statues of a hand with the middle finger extended - big enough to be seen from space - and lined them up along the border facing US a long time ago.

FA_Retro-Burn
02-11-2008, 06:39 PM
An unproven theory dedicated to rob the freedoms of the people throughout the globe. Pure hogwash. I say, let hell freeze over or warm over. Ugg... whichever the global warming kooks say at the time. I looks more like it has to do with the Sun's magnetism and sun spot activity. Hehe...IMHO

Airmail109
02-11-2008, 07:21 PM
FIRSTLY) This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.


The reason has to do with the fact that the warming took about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming in the past records, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the natural or non catastrophic warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway (CO2 has also been shown to be the main cause of the largest mass extinction event this world has ever seen through freak vulcanism). From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

The key thing is we're not due for one of these cycles, and they happen over a greater time period.

SECONDLY) Now for Historic Precedence.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071221222544.htm

There is plenty of solid evidence of Carbon Dioxides ability to wreak havoc with the planet.

Greenhouse gases from Siberian Volcanic Traps caused a mass extinction by raising the worlds temperatures by 5 degrees, resulting in a runaway effect that caused even more warming.

The Siberian Traps were not formed by explosive eruptions from classic cone-shaped volcanoes. More commonly, basalt is erupted through fissures, long cracks in the ground, as happens on Iceland today. Such eruptions last for a long time, and the lava bubbles up in huge volumes, spreading sideways from the fissure. They are accompanied by prodigious outpourings of gases, mostly carbon dioxide.

The effect of these gases was devastating. The full story of the havoc they wrought is written in the sedimentary rocks that span the Permo-Triassic boundary. Until the 1990s, geologists had to rely on incomplete or hard-to-date sections in northern Italy, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Reputedly excellent sections in southern China were not available to overseas geologists, mainly for political reasons.

Nothing daunted, British geologists Tony Hallam of the University of Birmingham and Paul Wignall of the University of Leeds obtained a modest travel grant from the Royal Society, and went to China in 1991. What they found amazed them: the rock record was complete, and it told the story of the crisis millimetre-by-millimetre as they worked their way through the rocks from bottom to top.

Hallam and Wignall focused on sections around the Meishan township. Working up through the succession, the last rocks deposited in the Permian were limestones containing diverse and abundant fossils, such as foraminiferans (microscopic shelled protozoans), brachiopods (lamp shells), and conodonts (jaw elements from primitive fish-like vertebrates). Rarer fossils include cephalopods (coiled molluscs that are distant relatives of the modern squid and octopus), sea urchins, starfish and small crustaceans called ostracods, all typical of warm, shallow seas. Near the top, there is extensive burrowing in the limestones, indicating conditions of full oxygenation. Clearly, life at this time was diverse and abundant.

Then, suddenly, everything changes. The thick, burrowed limestones disappear, and with them the abundant fossils. The limestone is capped by a mineral-rich layer containing lots of pyrite - a classic marker of very low atmospheric oxygen. On top of this are three layers of limestone, mudstone and clay, encompassing about half a million years. These layers, numbered as beds 25, 26 and 27 in the Chinese system, tell how the crisis unfolded, so let's look at them in more detail.

The oldest layer, bed 25, is a thin band of pale-coloured clay 5 centimetres thick in which fossils are very rare, just a few foraminiferans and conodonts. Under the microscope, this clay contains small iron-rich pellets and decayed pieces of quartz that indicate it was formed from an acidic "tuff", an amalgam of volcanic fragments and ash from an explosive volcanic eruption - presumably the Siberian Traps.

The next bed up, number 26, consists of 7 centimetres of dark, organic-rich limey mudstone in which fossils are slightly more abundant - there are brachiopods, clams and cephalopods. Based on the relatively diverse fossils, and on geochemical evidence, oxygen levels during deposition of bed 26 were low but not anoxic.

Together, beds 25 and 26 form a distinctive dark-on-light marker band that has been detected elsewhere in China, which is useful for geologists who wish to make correlations from location to location. This "ash band" has been detected so far in 12 provinces throughout China, covering at least a million square kilometres. Whatever created it was extremely far-reaching.

Bed 27 indicates some degree of environmental recovery. The 17-centimetre-thick layer of limestone is full of burrows, so bottom conditions were not especially low in oxygen. The lower part of the bed contains occasional Permian brachiopod fossils near the base. Near the top, the conodont Hindeodus parvus appears for the first time: this is the globally accepted marker for the beginning of the Triassic period. (Geological boundaries are marked by the appearance of fossils, not their disappearance. The major event happened at the base of bed 25, but no significant new species appeared until the middle of bed 27.)

What does it all mean? One of the stories the Meishan section tells is of a dramatic extinction event. In the late 1990s, Jin Yugan and his colleagues from the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, and Doug Erwin from the National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC, undertook a huge sampling programme. They found that at the base of bed 25, 116 marine species suddenly disappeared, representing 94 per cent of the total. Then, in the following 500,000 years stretching to the top of bed 27, new species appear then disappear with alarming speed. Overall a further 45 species dropped out, one at a time. Clearly something terrible happened at the base of bed 25 and its ramifications continued for half a million years.

But what exactly happened? Fortunately, the Meishan rock section, and other sections elsewhere, contain a record of environmental changes through the Permo-Triassic crisis, in the form of isotopes of oxygen and carbon. Both elements have two stable, naturally occurring isotopes whose ratios fluctuate depending on environmental conditions. The isotope ratios are locked into the skeletons of organisms during their lifetimes, so careful recordings from the shells of bivalves or foraminiferans, for example, can give a detailed picture of atmospheric and oceanic conditions through time.

Oxygen isotopes are used as a palaeothermometer. Oxygen occurs in two forms, oxygen-16 and oxygen-18. These are incorporated into the calcite skeletons of marine creatures at different rates depending on the water temperature, more oxygen-18 at low temperatures, and more oxygen-16 at high. At the base of bed 25, the main mass extinction level, there was a sudden shift in the oxygen isotope ratios indicating a worldwide rise in temperature of 6 ?C. This may not sound much, but it would have a profound effect on the world's ecology. Climatologists have been getting very excited recently about a half-a-degree rise in global temperatures.

The carbon isotopes suggest what might have caused the temperature increase. They show a massive shift towards the light isotope, carbon-12, exactly at the time of the big extinction. Pulses of carbon-12 in the geological record are usually indicative of a volcanic eruption or a large die-off (plants, animals and bacteria concentrate carbon-12 in their bodies and release it when they die). Both certainly happened at the end of the Permian. But the carbon-12 pulse is far too big to be explained by these mechanisms alone. Calculations of global carbon budgets have suggested that, even if every plant, animal, and microbe died and was buried, altogether they would only account for about one-fifth of the observed carbon shift. The Siberian Traps would have added another fifth. Where did the remaining three-fifths come from?

The extra carbon-12 was probably buried, frozen deep under the oceans in the form of gas hydrates. These are extraordinary accumulations of carbon-12-rich methane locked up in cages of ice at very high pressure. If the atmosphere and oceans warm up sufficiently, these gas reserves can suddenly melt and release their contents in a catastrophic way. The explosion of gas through the surface of the oceans has been termed a "methane burp". A very large methane burp at the end of the Permian could have produced enough carbon-12 to make up the deficit.

The cause of the burp was probably global warming triggered by huge releases of CO2 from the Siberian Traps. Methane is a greenhouse gas too, so a big burp raises global temperatures even further. Normally, long-term global processes act to bring greenhouse gas levels down. This kind of negative feedback keeps the Earth in equilibrium. But what happens if the release of methane is so huge and fast that normal feedback processes are overwhelmed? Then you have a "runaway greenhouse". This is a positive feedback system: excess carbon in the atmosphere causes warming, the warming triggers the release of more methane from gas hydrates, this in turn causes yet more warming, which leads to the release of more methane and so on. As temperatures rise, species start to go extinct. Plants and plankton die off and oxygen levels plummet. This is what seems to have happened 251 million years ago.

The effects were profound and long-lasting. In the Meishan section, the Permo-Triassic boundary in bed 27 is followed by a succession of dark limestones and shales containing sparse fossils. This seems to represent a post-apocalyptic world, in which CO2 levels were still very high and the oceans and atmosphere were starved of oxygen. The 6 per cent of species that survived the initial onslaught were struggling. Normal recovery processes had not yet kicked in. When oxygen levels fall, plants and photosynthesising plankton in the sea normally replenish it by absorbing excess CO2 and generating oxygen. After the crash at the end of the Permian, perhaps oxygen levels had been driven so low, and so much of plant life had been killed, that this was impossible.

The surviving species were a very poor sample of what had lived before: thin-shelled molluscs that required very little food and swam languidly over the black, deoxygenated muds, and the "living fossil" Lingula in its shallow burrows. Near the end of the Permian period, each region of the world had its own fauna and flora. Afterwards, the survivors became cosmopolitan. It took 20 or 30 million years for coral reefs to re-establish themselves, and for the forests to regrow. In some settings, it took 50 million years or more for full ecosystem complexity to recover. Geologists and palaeontologists are only just beginning to get to grips with this most profound of crises.

THIRDLY) "CO2 has NEVER driven climate change. Post WW2 CO2 emissions rose dramatically yet the Earth entered a "mini ice age" from the mid 1940's to the mid 1950's. In the 1700's another "ice age" occurred. In medieval times the British Isles experienced a climate more akin to the Mediterranean area of today.Vineyards flourished as did an era of intellectual and cultural prosperity."

This is one of a number of popular myths regarding temperature variations in past centuries. At hemispheric or global scales, surface temperatures are believed to have followed the "Hockey Stick" pattern, characterized by a long-term cooling trend from the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" (broadly speaking, the 10th-mid 14th centuries) through the "Little Ice Age" (broadly speaking, the mid 15th-19th centuries), followed by a rapid warming during the 20th century that culminates in anomalous late 20th century warmth. The late 20th century warmth, at hemispheric or global scales, appears, from a number of recent peer-reviewed studies, to exceed the peak warmth of the "Medieval Warm Period". Claims that global average temperatures during Medieval times were warmer than present-day are based on a number of false premises that a) confuse past evidence of drought/precipitation with temperature evidence, b) fail to disinguish regional from global-scale temperature variations, and c) use the entire "20th century" to describe "modern" conditions , fail to differentiate between relatively cool early 20th century conditions and the anomalously warm late 20th century conditions.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/Images/MJNH1.JPG

After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2?C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.

The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.

The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5?C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. The mid-century cooling can be seen in this NASA/GISS animation, which shows temperature variation from the annual mean for the period from 1880 through 2006. The warmest temperatures are in red.

Climate models that take into account only natural factors, such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions, do not reproduce 20th century temperatures very well. If, however, the models include human emissions, including greenhouse gases and aerosols, they accurately reproduce the 1940 to 1970 dip in temperatures.

How aerosols will influence the climate over the coming century is unclear. While aerosol emissions have fallen in Europe and the US (and in the former Soviet Union after 1991), they are now rising rapidly in China and India.

The picture is complicated because different kinds of aerosols can have different effects: black carbon or soot has warming rather than a cooling effect, for instance. Then there is the question of how all the different aerosols affect clouds. Climate scientists acknowledge that the aerosol issue is one of the key uncertainties in their understanding.

Airmail109
02-11-2008, 07:27 PM
That chart on page one is also a load of bollocks. In fact its way off the mark, and misleading. THIS is a decent one.

http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/posters/ac/images/ac_02_02_e.gif

Airmail109
02-11-2008, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by FA_Retro-Burn:
An unproven theory dedicated to rob the freedoms of the people throughout the globe. Pure hogwash. I say, let hell freeze over or warm over. Ugg... whichever the global warming kooks say at the time. I looks more like it has to do with the Sun's magnetism and sun spot activity. Hehe...IMHO

Yeah blatantly

Global warming, also known as Climate Change, is a STUPID theory by a bunch of tree-hugging liberal hippies that states unless we go back and live in caves, the polar ice caps will melt and life as we know it will cease to exist. This theory comes from a bunch of idiotic scientists who really have no clue what they're talking about...after all, they're only scientists, who ever wants to listen to them? I mean sure, I admit they were right about the world being round...and the planets going around the sun... and lightning being caused by opposite charges between the earth and the sky, not Zeus...and worms and rats not appearing out of nowhere...and stars being balls of gas burning millions of miles away, not holes in heaven...and the brain being the center of the nervous system, not the heart...and lead poisoning being able to kill you...and cigarettes being bad for you, and everything else ever discovered or invented, but still! They're wrong!

They're all a bunch of liberal crackpots who have a political agenda, so who wants to listen to them? It is almost exclusively believed by left wing bleeding-heart Democrats who are influenced by rich environmental lobby groups and opposed to the economy and anyone with a job. One of these bleeding heart socialist Democrats, Al Gore, has made a propaganda video regarding global warming entitled An Inconvenient Truth which uses heartless fear-mongering, and all kinds of heartless, cruel, un-American facts in an attempt to get people to consume less and sabotage the American economy, culminating in Ford going out of business, which will mean that the terrorists will win. Republicans would never use this type of fear mongering for political gain, never! So stop criticizing us, after all, you don't want the terrorists to come get you, right? These global warming people are the same tree hugging hippies that said DDT was bad for the environment back in the 70s and 80s!

The following are causes liberals attribute to global warming:

1)Being serious
2) Sea levels are rising because the USA is sinking under the immense weight of 300 million fat people.
3) The release of KFCs
4) The exponential growth of the human population
5) The use of fossil fuels (i.e. Vaseline)
6) Praying
7) Christians
8) Al Gore's Private Jets
9) George W. Bush
10) Your wide-screen plasma TV with built-in electricity waster.
11) Eating meat
12) Editing this
13) You
14) Trees
15) Cow farts
16) You breathing
17) You reading this article
18) Smoking
19) Trying to prevent Global Warming
20) Thinking about trying to prevent Global Warming
21) Thinking
22) An alarming increase in the release of post-modern Oxymorons from university landfills. This has been monitored by the LandShatSat satellite network since the 1800's

The decrease in the number of pirates has been cited by these stupid, tree-hugging hippies as proof that humans are irreversibly raping our planet. This does not mean anything though, as temperatures have been known to be bouncing around constantly and reached record highs since the hottest period of mankind, the Ice Age. Of course, these "bouncings" were all minor and had natural causes, but so does this! I'll get back to you later about what the natural cause is, but I assure you that there is one! Humans aren't the cause of global warming! They also aren't the cause of deforestation, or pollution of any kind! I read on Fox News that pollution is actually good, and we should actually make more of it! So there's nothing to worry about!

Even if global warming is true, which it probably isn't, the Bible clearly states that we can not put animals and the environment ahead of human beings. Bleeding heart left wing socialist flag-burning children claim that global warming will have a profound impact on Earth. Some even say that New York will be underwater, but why would anyone not want that to happen? It'll make a great place to take a submarine! Some other bleeding wing left heart socialist child-burning tree huggers insist that the melting polar ice caps will permit antediluvian diseases to thrive. But who cares? We need less people on Earth anyway! There is some evidence that religious fanatics across America may be jumping on the environmental bandwagon, but our brave leader George W. Bush is helping to putting an end to that by branding anyone who speaks out against global warming as an environmental-Nazi.

Proposed ways to combat global warming:

1) Become a pirate
2) Stop farting
3) Desert civilization and start living off the land again
4) Don't vandalize this page
5) Don't vote Republican
6) Run your Air Con full blast all year long
7) Burn down your neighbourhood
8) Assasinate Al Gore
9) Become paranoid
10) Continue not thinking
11) Eat more beef
12) dont serious
13) Call it something else
14) Enter a 'Warm Age'


Or, and the point of this post

15) Make so much Global Warming that it gets so hot humanities wiped off the face of the planet, solving the problem of global warming

HotelBushranger
02-11-2008, 08:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Korolov1986
02-11-2008, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
15) Make so much Global Warming that it gets so hot humanities wiped off the face of the planet, solving the problem of global warming

It'd solve more than the problem of global warming.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Badsight-
02-12-2008, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by MalaKa911:
Science has no credibility anymore. People now prefer to believe there own theories, usually based on nothing.
actually this is true (for the modern age)

people believe what is convienant for them

like when richard dawkins lumps all faiths together as if they all have the same credibility (or lack of) , they are hearing what they want to hear

because of the internet , we are surrounded by infomation , & misinfomation

by searching , you can find viewpoints that suit/back-up your dispostion

buzzsaw1939
02-12-2008, 05:11 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif....Aimail is only person I've ever seen that can put out a grade a report on any subject, then end up like a cat thrown into a dog kennel!... Ya gotta love him! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Blood_Splat
02-12-2008, 08:58 AM
What if it was just the earth's axis shifting a little?

thefruitbat
02-12-2008, 10:20 AM
I'm all for it, Costa del Kent, bring it on, i'm off to check my vineyard, burp

fruitbat