Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Climate change

climate change global warming man made energy

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#41
OrbitalResonance

OrbitalResonance

    Cosmic Emperor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,233 posts
  • LocationDeep Space
The intent of my pot was in reference to the natural world, not human populations. You are right, i have not thought about the modifications that humans have evolved. These changes have perhaps weakend the ability of the biosphere to react to temperatures. I am reluctant on the global desertification world view though. Farmland is more susceptible to deserts then forest i see.

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan


#42
Azureous

Azureous

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts
wow you guys are brilliant! i love this place! i had not heard of the OPEC cartel preventing the commercialization of the fuel efficient car, but i have heard of them buying out the patents for electrical motors only to never be seen again (true or not i haven't researched into). If this world gets screwed over cause of their actions then i can say humans were truly stupid. I guess how we should react to global warming depends on how much our actions have been accelerating it. if we are primarily responsible it is within our power to stop/slow it down. nuclear energy will be the quickest route out but solar power will be the key. We forget that energy is conserved, any energy we release from nuclear fission/fusion will remain on this planet as heat and will be absorbed chemically(a cause and effect of global warming). In the case of solar power, we are releasing no extra energy, energy that was meant to be absorbed by the ground will follow a process to be release through our cars, computers etc. and back into the air. what effect that has i don't know, but it is probably less than adding energy carelessly. With conservation of energy in mind i think you can work out which methods are best, geothermal(i'm not a fan of), wind and solar have the same source(sun). If we put more energy (via nuclear or solar satellites/space elevator) into the earth we must also take it out. That's what it means to be eco-friendly, minimal influence on the environment. IF HOWEVER we are not the prime cause of global warming then mass technology will be the key. we can protect ourselves, and live in domes. we can save the planet via terra-forming (control the weather and energy flow) 1. block out the sun with solar panels lol! 2. pump greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere 3. pump heat out of the earth 4. pump heat out of the mantle. 5. regulate the energy/heat If the world is ending don't say oh shit, ask yourself how you can help fix it(and trust me, its not in buying green products). I like to believe humanity is smart enough to prevent something that should be so trivial less the selfishness. Besides... don't underestimate our scientists, given the resources they can easily fix something like this. a problem of the future will be solved by solutions of the future think ahead and try to see how humanity evolves as a whole. You don't expect humans 100 years ago to be able to solve something like this, why expect us to solve a problem that is further in the future. we have at least 30-60 years left until the situation becomes imminent, considering how we are going now, i think we're doing fine.

#43
Guest_gogators91_*

Guest_gogators91_*
  • Guests
The website future timeline blatantly states that a rise of 2 degrees will disrupt the world. I cannot begin to tell you how wrong this is.

First of all, the only reason global warming is considered "bad" is because polar bears will become extinct, and sea levels will rise. Polar bears are specialists, and along with pandas, are nature's losers. They would have become extinct even without human intervention. I do, however, agree that sea level rises may be a bit disruptive, but the benefits of global warming outweigh the dangers.

The polar ice caps will melt. So? The world survived in pristine condition without ice caps for hundreds of millions of years. Only in the Eocene, 33 million years ago, did the ice caps come about. Infact, when they did, a partial mass extinction occured. Ice caps are deadly to life. Where do you think life survives better?

Here?

Posted Image

Or Here?

Posted Image

Global warming is also saving our society. Right now, the Earth should be cooling down, and ice caps should be advancing on Canada. If we hadn't pumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere, the human race would be screwed ( well, at least the ones living in Northern climates ).


As you know, plants eat CO2. The additional CO2 global warming brings will increase photosynthesis in plants, allowing for nature to thrive.

We should embrace global warming, and enjoy the endless summer http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/thumbsup.gif

Posted Image

#44
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,635 posts
  • LocationLondon

The website future timeline blatantly states that a rise of 2 degrees will disrupt the world. I cannot begin to tell you how wrong this is.

Oh sorry - I didn't realise your personal opinion was right and the experts with their decades of research were all wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.

#45
Guest_gogators91_*

Guest_gogators91_*
  • Guests
Temperatures were lots of degrees higher in the past. For example, in the Mesozoic, temperatures were 10 degrees higher, resulting in more plant growth, which resulted in more massive herbivores, which resulted in more massive carnivores.

Posted Image

Abundance of food means that creatures grow larger. An example of this is the blue whale, that eats krill. It swims in so much krill that the water is pink. Stating that rises of more than 6 degrees cause " large mass extinctions " is ludacris.

#46
Caiman

Caiman

    Funky Duck

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England
[merged with existing climate change thread]

The website future timeline blatantly states that a rise of 2 degrees will disrupt the world.

Regardless of the fact that the Earth can and will continue to support life whatever state it is in, that doesn't mean climate change will not be massively disruptive to the status quo that we currently enjoy. A rising sea level for instance will have major consequences for many major human settlements around the world, how is that not disruptive?

~Jon


#47
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl

The website future timeline blatantly states that a rise of 2 degrees will disrupt the world. I cannot begin to tell you how wrong this is.

First of all, the only reason global warming is considered "bad" is because polar bears will become extinct, and sea levels will rise.


If you read my posts on the 'global warming' issue, then you will know where i stand on the subject. That being the case, there are some problems i have with your post.

First off, the public is confused as to what Global Warming actually is and that is basically Climate Change has dramatically increased thanks to how the human race has impacted the environment. I do not agree with this nor understand how humans in 100 years could drastically change the environment as the pro-global warmers state.

What you are talking about is natural climate change and that is exactly what is happening on the planet right now. Climate Change is not Global Warming by definition. So yes, everything that the Global Warming people say is going to happen will happen, but it isn't directly related to human impact!!!! Maybe a fraction of it is.

Global Warming is considered bad because the environmentalists fear that humans are destroying this planet with pollution and CO2 and oil spills and w/e else they can link to so-called Global Warming.

The truth is that there have always been climate changes in the past, as you colorfully mentioned. We are just monitoring this one too closely and are getting freaked out about it as supposedly more natural disasters strike human population than in the past!
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#48
Guest_gogators91_*

Guest_gogators91_*
  • Guests
Are you not reading anything that I am saying, and only reading the first sentence?

#49
OrbitalResonance

OrbitalResonance

    Cosmic Emperor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,233 posts
  • LocationDeep Space
Regardless of what they read, their opinions are not going to be changed just like that.

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan


#50
Guest_gogators91_*

Guest_gogators91_*
  • Guests

We are overreacting even if it was manmade, which is certainly possible. It was 3 degrees warmer 120,000 years ago.


Exactly. If the world rose 6 degrees ( like it has hundreds of thousands of times in the past ), the worst we would have is coastal flooding. As I said, when the ice caps first started to form, a mini-mass extinction took place. The world was a hothouse in the Mesozoic, and life survived better than it does today.

With global warming:

Posted Image

Without:

Posted Image

#51
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl

Are you not reading anything that I am saying, and only reading the first sentence?


Um, no I left two sentences up because those were the two that I had problems with and wanted to let you know the difference between Global Warming and Climate Change and they are different!!!

And Polar Bears are part of why the activists are so angry but that's not the only reason.

I thought you are describing natural climate change? No?
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#52
Guest_gogators91_*

Guest_gogators91_*
  • Guests
I was talking about human induced global warming.

You are right, i have not thought about the modifications that humans have evolved. These changes have perhaps weakend the ability of the biosphere to react to temperatures. I am reluctant on the global desertification world view though.

Farmland is more susceptible to deserts then forest i see.


Human changes have not weakened the biosphere. You seem to ignore the vast areas of unspoiled wilderness everywhere! For example, I used to live in Los Angeles. Los Angeles is one of the most polluted, dirty, overpopulated, and nasty cities in the world, and you guess what? In the middle of the city, there are hundreds of square miles of unspoiled wilderness, full of deer, mountain lions, bears, and coyotes!

Posted Image

Global desertification? Who is pushing that on you? That is crazy!

Increased CO2 content = more efficient photosynthesis = more plant growth = more food for animals

#53
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,635 posts
  • LocationLondon
The level of ignorance here is breathtaking.

#54
Guest_gogators91_*

Guest_gogators91_*
  • Guests
Please explain.

#55
OrbitalResonance

OrbitalResonance

    Cosmic Emperor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,233 posts
  • LocationDeep Space
He is not ignorant, he has a completely different base of view revolving around a set of evidence. Both parties here have completely different views and seem to be hostile to the other. Im threading both ideas right now. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." —F. Scott Fitzgerald Please continue to present evidence.

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan


#56
Guest_gogators91_*

Guest_gogators91_*
  • Guests
Evidence? I've got plenty! http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/thumbsup.gif

History is the best evidence for the effects of climate change. 130,000 years ago, the average temperature in Europe was 3 degrees celcius warmer than at present. Hippos, lions, rhinos and elephants roamed the English countryside.

Back before the ice age, mammals were more diverse. There was deinotherium, chalicotheres, and brontotheres, and hundreds of thousands more. Now, elephants and rhinos are the only large megafauna alive.

#57
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl

Evidence? I've got plenty! http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/thumbsup.gif

History is the best evidence for the effects of climate change. 130,000 years ago, the average temperature in Europe was 3 degrees celcius warmer than at present. Hippos, lions, rhinos and elephants roamed the English countryside.

Back before the ice age, mammals were more diverse. There was deinotherium, chalicotheres, and brontotheres, and hundreds of thousands more. Now, elephants and rhinos are the only large megafauna alive.



^Someone with common sense!!!!
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#58
Innsertnamehere

Innsertnamehere

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 121 posts
The problem isn't the actual temperature, it is actually true that life thrives more in warmer climates. but you also have to remember that global warming doesn't make things warm and rainy, but rather warm and very dry. The question is, what supports more life, a desert or the arctic? Another important thing is that the tempurature won't kill the animals, but rather the speed in which the tempurature changes. If the temperature were to rise 6 degrees in the next 60,000 years, animals would adapt and everything would be fine. But if the temperature goes up 6 degrees in 100 years, animals are givin only a couple of generations to adapt, and can't. Because the can't adapt to the warmer climate fast enough, the go extinct. So what you will see is that the animals that survive the next century are the ones with the shortest lifespans, which means they can adapt better, and can therefore survive.

#59
Guest_gogators91_*

Guest_gogators91_*
  • Guests

The problem isn't the actual temperature, it is actually true that life thrives more in warmer climates. but you also have to remember that global warming doesn't make things warm and rainy, but rather warm and very dry. The question is, what supports more life, a desert or the arctic? Another important thing is that the tempurature won't kill the animals, but rather the speed in which the tempurature changes. If the temperature were to rise 6 degrees in the next 60,000 years, animals would adapt and everything would be fine. But if the temperature goes up 6 degrees in 100 years, animals are givin only a couple of generations to adapt, and can't. Because the can't adapt to the warmer climate fast enough, the go extinct. So what you will see is that the animals that survive the next century are the ones with the shortest lifespans, which means they can adapt better, and can therefore survive.


Where do you get the idea that global warming makes things dry?

Warm = wet
Cold = dry

You have to realize that deserts are not the driest places on Earth, but rather, Antarctica is. Parts of Antarctica haven't seen rain for 2 million years. During the ice age, many parts of the world that are lush forests turn into either desert or grassland. There are almost no places on the Earth where rainforest remains. It is only during the warm periods, when rainforests remain.

Ice age:

Posted Image

What supports more life? The ice caps or deserts?

Easy. Deserts.

For example, Antarctica is a hellhole. The world would be better without it. Temperatures can drop to -120 degrees F, and winds can rush over 200 miles per hour. Inland, there is no food, and the only animals that live here are tiny insects, with antifreeze in their blood.

Right now, the world should be cooling down at the exact same speed that it is warming now. The world never has a mass extinction when it cools down ( even though ice caps are deadly ), so the world will never have a mass extinction when it warms up.

World cooling: No mass extinction. Deserts expand through the middle of the U.S, rainforests become grasslands, glaciers expand up South America.

World warming: No mass extinction. Life grows in prosperity. Plant life thrives and spreads. With more plants comes more massive animals.

#60
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,635 posts
  • LocationLondon


World warming: No mass extinction. Life grows in prosperity. Plant life thrives and spreads. With more plants comes more massive animals.

That's just total nonsense and goes against everything the scientists are saying. Please note the part I've highlighted in red.

World warming (at current rates): Mass extinctions, ocean acidification, melting of glaciers, drying of lakes and rivers, extreme drought and food shortages, extreme flooding, rising sea levels, more wildfires, extreme hurricanes, more pests and invasive species both plant and animal, more diseases, collapse of food chains, loss of habitat, etc. etc etc...

Keep on spouting your nonsense but you're 100% wrong. Fact.

Mainstream science with mountains of peer-reviewed, empirical evidence supports everything I've said here.

Benefits to plants from CO2 are offset by negative effects from drought, weeds and increased temperature.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: climate change, global warming, man made, energy

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users