There's a video of a massive whale doing that in Japan. Its on a flat-bed truck getting moved and... BOOOOM!.. Well, more of soft burping noise and then all this pink gooo gushing out all over the road...Proper minging..Meekon wrote:A fart filter! Whatever next!? Poor cow!Did you know that if you leave a dead cow for long enough the methane builds up and it will eventually explode!?
Sorry not really contributing anything valuable to this discussion! Will shut up now
Share This Page:
Global Warming
Know your limits...Then crush them
In reference to the methane is that why places such as landfills have the burning towers, I know they have them to prevent a massive build up of gas which would make an even larger bang, but does anyone know if thats a co-concern?
If a man has nothing he is willing to die for then he isn't fit to live.
I would basically say dont worry about the future and just enjoy your life as it comes. WE have been told so many times that this and that is goin to kill us but you cant spend your time getting worried over it.
I feel that is why they made that movie recently called "day after tommorow" Not sure if any of you have seen it but its about what will happen when global warming takes place.
I also heard that an ice age happenes every other century like that guy just said so why should we try to stop it when it has to happen anyway???
I feel that is why they made that movie recently called "day after tommorow" Not sure if any of you have seen it but its about what will happen when global warming takes place.
I also heard that an ice age happenes every other century like that guy just said so why should we try to stop it when it has to happen anyway???
I think we wont see the full effects but our kids will .
Good article from new scientist on it all, covering the arguments of the sceptics as well as an overview
__
What is the greenhouse effect?
Warmth from the Sun heats the surface of the Earth, which in turn radiates energy back out to space. Some of this outgoing radiation, which is nearly all in the infrared region of the spectrum, is trapped in the atmosphere by so-called greenhouse gases. For instance, water vapour strongly absorbs radiation with wavelengths between 4 and 7 micrometres, and carbon dioxide absorbs radiation with wavelengths between 13 and 19 micrometres.
The trapped radiation warms the lower part of the Earth's atmosphere, the troposphere. This warmed air radiates energy - again, largely in the infrared - in all directions. Some of the radiation works its way up and out of the atmosphere, but some finds its way back down to the Earth's surface, keeping it hotter than it would otherwise be. This is the greenhouse effect.
Are water and carbon dioxide all we have to worry about?
No. Other gases can absorb infrared radiation and contribute to greenhouse warming. These include methane, ozone, CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and nitrous oxide (released by nitrogen-based fertilisers). Of these, methane is the most important. Its concentration in the atmosphere has more than doubled since pre-industrial times. Sources of methane include the biological activity of bacteria in paddy fields and the guts of cattle, the release of natural gas from landfills and commercial oil and gas fields, and vegetation rotting in the absence of oxygen - for instance, in the depths of man-made reservoirs. Recent studies suggest this last source could be responsible for up to a fifth of global methane emissions. Molecule for molecule, other substances are even more potent greenhouse gases. A single molecule of either of the two most common CFCs has the same greenhouse warming effect as 10,000 molecules of CO2.
And the greenhouse effect is a thoroughly bad thing?
Not quite. Without it, the planet wouldn't be warm enough to support life as we know it. The problem is that beneficial natural levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are being boosted by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. If nothing is done to curb emissions of CO2, for example, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will probably be more than double pre-industrial levels by the end of the 21st century.
How do we know what these levels were?
The most informative measurements have come from bubbles of air trapped in Antarctic ice. These show that for at least the past 400,000 years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have closely followed the global temperatures as revealed in ice cores, tree rings and elsewhere.
If it's all so precise, why is there so much confusion and uncertainty about global warming? Surely if we know how much CO2 is entering the atmosphere and how much energy each molecule can trap, we ought to be able to calculate the overall warming effect?
It's not that simple. For example there is no easy formula for predicting what future increases in CO2 levels will do to the average global temperature. While we can calculate that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will force roughly 1 °C warming, the planet is more complex than that. It could respond by magnifying the effect, but it could also conceivably damp down the warming. These feedbacks involve essential planetary processes, such as the formation of ice, clouds, the circulation of the oceans and biological activity.
What effects are the main feedbacks likely to have?
One of the easiest effects to estimate is the "ice-albedo" feedback. As the world warms, ice caps will melt. As this happens, water or land will replace parts of the Earth's surface that were once covered with ice. Ice is very efficient at reflecting solar radiation into space, whereas water and land absorb far more. So the Earth's surface will trap more heat, increasing warming - a positive feedback. Less clear-cut is the impact of the extra water vapour likely to enter the atmosphere because of higher evaporation rates. This added water vapour itself contributes to the greenhouse effect, another positive feedback. But it may also increase cloud cover. The dominant effect of some low-altitude clouds is to shroud and cool the Earth - a negative feedback - but other clouds, such as cirrus, may trap heat at low levels, giving another positive feedback.
Disputes about how water vapour and clouds will influence global warming are at the heart of many of the disputes between mainstream scientists and the handful of greenhouse sceptics. Overall, the majority view is that positive feedbacks could amplify the warming effect by perhaps 2.5 times. But some sceptics believe the feedback effect could be neutral or even predominantly negative.
Why do sceptical scientists think that?
One reason is that something strange has been happening to warming trends in the past couple of decades. While ground-level temperatures around the world have gone up, the warming has failed to penetrate the atmosphere. The atmosphere has actually been cooling in some large areas three kilometres above the Earth. According to computerised climate models, the warming should spread right through the troposphere, the bottom ten kilometres or so of the atmosphere. Sceptics argue that if the models are wrong about how surface warming influences temperatures in the troposphere, they are also likely to be wrong about the movement of water vapour between the surface and the upper troposphere. That in turn may mean they are wrong about water-vapour feedback - one of the vital mechanisms behind global warming.
So does this mean there are some scientists who don't believe in the greenhouse effect or global warming?
No, this is a myth. All scientists believe in the greenhouse effect. Without it the planet would be largely frozen. And all scientists accept that if humans put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere it will tend to warm the planet. The only disagreement is over precisely how much warming will be amplified by feedbacks. And there is a growing consensus that the average global warming of 0.6 °C seen in the past century - and particularly the pronounced warming of the past two decades - is largely a consequence of the greenhouse effect.
Are there other complications?
Yes. A whole series of other feedbacks will influence the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Not all the CO2 that we put into the atmosphere stays there. Some is absorbed by vegetation on land - usually forests - and some is taken up by the oceans. If the rate at which CO2 is absorbed changes, then the rate of build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere will also change - speeding up or slowing down global warming. One way to increase the build-up of CO2 would be to chop down all the tropical forests. Another could be the impact of warming on ocean currents, particularly the global "conveyor belt" that begins in the North Atlantic. When ice forms, the remaining sea water becomes more saline and so denser. This denser water descends to the ocean floor, where it begins a long journey through the oceans that lasts an estimated thousand years. This water carries dissolved CO2 with it on its long journey. Most oceanographers believe that as warming takes hold and ice formation is reduced, these currents could slow down or carry less water, which could mean less CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. This is now taken into account in warming predictions.
This is all very pessimistic. Isn't it true that a warmer planet will absorb more pollution?
Yes indeed. Warmer temperatures and the fertilising effect of more CO2 in the air will stimulate faster growth of trees and other vegetation, which in turn will help to soak up some of the CO2 in the atmosphere. This can already be seen in some places. But plants need other things besides CO2 to grow. They need water, which could be in short supply as greater evaporation rates will dry out soils. Plants also need space, which we are using up for urban development. They also need climatic stability. Recent studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that climate change could soon be so fast that many forests, particularly in northern latitudes, will be unable to adapt and could die off - releasing their carbon into the atmosphere.
What about organisms in the oceans?
Once dissolved in surface waters, a lot of CO2 is absorbed by plankton and other marine organisms and turned into organic compounds. Most of this eventually falls to the ocean floor. The strength of this sink for carbon depends on how much life the ocean is producing. It is not clear to what extent global warming will affect the oceans' biological productivity - it could rise or fall. Cooler seas tend to produce more life, but iron dust from expanding deserts could make warm seas more fertile. And some scientists have investigated whether we could boost this effect artificially by seeding the oceans with iron.
Anything else that could shield us from global warming?
Yes, volcanoes. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in June 1991, it threw a huge amount of debris into the stratosphere that partially shielded the surface of the Earth from incoming solar energy. Sulphate particles ejected from the volcano were particularly effective at scattering the sunlight. Computer models successfully predicted that in the short term, the debris would temporarily cool the Earth's atmosphere. The models also predicted that as the volcanic debris cleared in 1992 and 1993, average temperatures would swiftly return first to the level of the 1980s, and then, by the middle of the 1990s, to the slightly higher levels that would be expected with the ongoing build-up of greenhouse gases.
Sulphate particles? Don't we make them, too?
Right again. One of the nice ironies of this story is that burning coal and oil produces sulphate particles - which make acid rain. These particles help to shield the more industrialised countries from the full impact of global warming. In some places, such as central Europe and parts of China, they may have overwhelmed the warming, producing a net cooling. Other aerosols, such as dust from soil erosion and "desertification", can also curb warming. But even if you find the idea of using one form of pollution to protect us from another, there is a problem. Whereas the average CO2 molecule in the atmosphere lasts for about a century, sulphates and other aerosol molecules persist for only a few days. This means two things. First, if you turned down the power stations, the world would get much hotter within a few days. Secondly, aerosols do not accumulate in the atmosphere in the way that CO2 does. If you carry on burning a given amount of fossil fuel, the cooling effect of the sulphates will remain constant, while the warming effect of CO2 will keep on increasing. So sulphates are not a solution.
Will there be global warming everywhere?
Maybe not. Climate modellers admit to being very uncertain about how global warming will affect particular regions. This is because much of our weather depends on circulation patterns, which could alter in unexpected ways. Crudely, however, modellers expect many coastal regions to become wetter, while continental interiors will become drier, causing some deserts to expand. Warming will probably be greatest in polar regions, mirroring climate changes already seen this century in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Existing desert regions, notably central Asia, parts of the Middle East and the Sahel region of Africa, have already experienced some warming.
Local climate could also be altered by changes in ocean circulation. Western Europe could be particularly vulnerable. At present, it is kept exceptionally warm in winter by the Gulf Stream, which is part of the ocean conveyor belt (see "Are there other complications?" above). Take that away and British weather would be like the Hudson Bay in Canada, which is at the same latitude. If the conveyor belt slackens, or the path of the Gulf Stream shifts, that is precisely what could happen. So British hopes of a climate like Bordeaux in the 21st century could be cruelly dashed!
Surely that's a bit sensationalist?
Not really. Ice cores reveal growing evidence of sudden, dramatic shifts in climate over the past 10,000 years that have occurred within a few decades as a result of "flips" in ocean circulation. But most models suggest that the Gulf Stream won't turn off for at least another century.
Are there any other cataclysmic events in the offing?
One fear is that the entire West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets might disappear into the oceans raising sea levels by seven metres or more. Even the most pessimistic experts say this is only a worry if the world warms by about 4 °C, which is outside the range of mainstream predictions for the next century. And a glacial collapse is such a slow process it would take several hundred years for all the ice to slide into the sea.
So how worried should we be?
How lucky do you feel?
Good article from new scientist on it all, covering the arguments of the sceptics as well as an overview
__
What is the greenhouse effect?
Warmth from the Sun heats the surface of the Earth, which in turn radiates energy back out to space. Some of this outgoing radiation, which is nearly all in the infrared region of the spectrum, is trapped in the atmosphere by so-called greenhouse gases. For instance, water vapour strongly absorbs radiation with wavelengths between 4 and 7 micrometres, and carbon dioxide absorbs radiation with wavelengths between 13 and 19 micrometres.
The trapped radiation warms the lower part of the Earth's atmosphere, the troposphere. This warmed air radiates energy - again, largely in the infrared - in all directions. Some of the radiation works its way up and out of the atmosphere, but some finds its way back down to the Earth's surface, keeping it hotter than it would otherwise be. This is the greenhouse effect.
Are water and carbon dioxide all we have to worry about?
No. Other gases can absorb infrared radiation and contribute to greenhouse warming. These include methane, ozone, CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and nitrous oxide (released by nitrogen-based fertilisers). Of these, methane is the most important. Its concentration in the atmosphere has more than doubled since pre-industrial times. Sources of methane include the biological activity of bacteria in paddy fields and the guts of cattle, the release of natural gas from landfills and commercial oil and gas fields, and vegetation rotting in the absence of oxygen - for instance, in the depths of man-made reservoirs. Recent studies suggest this last source could be responsible for up to a fifth of global methane emissions. Molecule for molecule, other substances are even more potent greenhouse gases. A single molecule of either of the two most common CFCs has the same greenhouse warming effect as 10,000 molecules of CO2.
And the greenhouse effect is a thoroughly bad thing?
Not quite. Without it, the planet wouldn't be warm enough to support life as we know it. The problem is that beneficial natural levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are being boosted by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. If nothing is done to curb emissions of CO2, for example, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will probably be more than double pre-industrial levels by the end of the 21st century.
How do we know what these levels were?
The most informative measurements have come from bubbles of air trapped in Antarctic ice. These show that for at least the past 400,000 years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have closely followed the global temperatures as revealed in ice cores, tree rings and elsewhere.
If it's all so precise, why is there so much confusion and uncertainty about global warming? Surely if we know how much CO2 is entering the atmosphere and how much energy each molecule can trap, we ought to be able to calculate the overall warming effect?
It's not that simple. For example there is no easy formula for predicting what future increases in CO2 levels will do to the average global temperature. While we can calculate that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will force roughly 1 °C warming, the planet is more complex than that. It could respond by magnifying the effect, but it could also conceivably damp down the warming. These feedbacks involve essential planetary processes, such as the formation of ice, clouds, the circulation of the oceans and biological activity.
What effects are the main feedbacks likely to have?
One of the easiest effects to estimate is the "ice-albedo" feedback. As the world warms, ice caps will melt. As this happens, water or land will replace parts of the Earth's surface that were once covered with ice. Ice is very efficient at reflecting solar radiation into space, whereas water and land absorb far more. So the Earth's surface will trap more heat, increasing warming - a positive feedback. Less clear-cut is the impact of the extra water vapour likely to enter the atmosphere because of higher evaporation rates. This added water vapour itself contributes to the greenhouse effect, another positive feedback. But it may also increase cloud cover. The dominant effect of some low-altitude clouds is to shroud and cool the Earth - a negative feedback - but other clouds, such as cirrus, may trap heat at low levels, giving another positive feedback.
Disputes about how water vapour and clouds will influence global warming are at the heart of many of the disputes between mainstream scientists and the handful of greenhouse sceptics. Overall, the majority view is that positive feedbacks could amplify the warming effect by perhaps 2.5 times. But some sceptics believe the feedback effect could be neutral or even predominantly negative.
Why do sceptical scientists think that?
One reason is that something strange has been happening to warming trends in the past couple of decades. While ground-level temperatures around the world have gone up, the warming has failed to penetrate the atmosphere. The atmosphere has actually been cooling in some large areas three kilometres above the Earth. According to computerised climate models, the warming should spread right through the troposphere, the bottom ten kilometres or so of the atmosphere. Sceptics argue that if the models are wrong about how surface warming influences temperatures in the troposphere, they are also likely to be wrong about the movement of water vapour between the surface and the upper troposphere. That in turn may mean they are wrong about water-vapour feedback - one of the vital mechanisms behind global warming.
So does this mean there are some scientists who don't believe in the greenhouse effect or global warming?
No, this is a myth. All scientists believe in the greenhouse effect. Without it the planet would be largely frozen. And all scientists accept that if humans put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere it will tend to warm the planet. The only disagreement is over precisely how much warming will be amplified by feedbacks. And there is a growing consensus that the average global warming of 0.6 °C seen in the past century - and particularly the pronounced warming of the past two decades - is largely a consequence of the greenhouse effect.
Are there other complications?
Yes. A whole series of other feedbacks will influence the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Not all the CO2 that we put into the atmosphere stays there. Some is absorbed by vegetation on land - usually forests - and some is taken up by the oceans. If the rate at which CO2 is absorbed changes, then the rate of build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere will also change - speeding up or slowing down global warming. One way to increase the build-up of CO2 would be to chop down all the tropical forests. Another could be the impact of warming on ocean currents, particularly the global "conveyor belt" that begins in the North Atlantic. When ice forms, the remaining sea water becomes more saline and so denser. This denser water descends to the ocean floor, where it begins a long journey through the oceans that lasts an estimated thousand years. This water carries dissolved CO2 with it on its long journey. Most oceanographers believe that as warming takes hold and ice formation is reduced, these currents could slow down or carry less water, which could mean less CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. This is now taken into account in warming predictions.
This is all very pessimistic. Isn't it true that a warmer planet will absorb more pollution?
Yes indeed. Warmer temperatures and the fertilising effect of more CO2 in the air will stimulate faster growth of trees and other vegetation, which in turn will help to soak up some of the CO2 in the atmosphere. This can already be seen in some places. But plants need other things besides CO2 to grow. They need water, which could be in short supply as greater evaporation rates will dry out soils. Plants also need space, which we are using up for urban development. They also need climatic stability. Recent studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that climate change could soon be so fast that many forests, particularly in northern latitudes, will be unable to adapt and could die off - releasing their carbon into the atmosphere.
What about organisms in the oceans?
Once dissolved in surface waters, a lot of CO2 is absorbed by plankton and other marine organisms and turned into organic compounds. Most of this eventually falls to the ocean floor. The strength of this sink for carbon depends on how much life the ocean is producing. It is not clear to what extent global warming will affect the oceans' biological productivity - it could rise or fall. Cooler seas tend to produce more life, but iron dust from expanding deserts could make warm seas more fertile. And some scientists have investigated whether we could boost this effect artificially by seeding the oceans with iron.
Anything else that could shield us from global warming?
Yes, volcanoes. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in June 1991, it threw a huge amount of debris into the stratosphere that partially shielded the surface of the Earth from incoming solar energy. Sulphate particles ejected from the volcano were particularly effective at scattering the sunlight. Computer models successfully predicted that in the short term, the debris would temporarily cool the Earth's atmosphere. The models also predicted that as the volcanic debris cleared in 1992 and 1993, average temperatures would swiftly return first to the level of the 1980s, and then, by the middle of the 1990s, to the slightly higher levels that would be expected with the ongoing build-up of greenhouse gases.
Sulphate particles? Don't we make them, too?
Right again. One of the nice ironies of this story is that burning coal and oil produces sulphate particles - which make acid rain. These particles help to shield the more industrialised countries from the full impact of global warming. In some places, such as central Europe and parts of China, they may have overwhelmed the warming, producing a net cooling. Other aerosols, such as dust from soil erosion and "desertification", can also curb warming. But even if you find the idea of using one form of pollution to protect us from another, there is a problem. Whereas the average CO2 molecule in the atmosphere lasts for about a century, sulphates and other aerosol molecules persist for only a few days. This means two things. First, if you turned down the power stations, the world would get much hotter within a few days. Secondly, aerosols do not accumulate in the atmosphere in the way that CO2 does. If you carry on burning a given amount of fossil fuel, the cooling effect of the sulphates will remain constant, while the warming effect of CO2 will keep on increasing. So sulphates are not a solution.
Will there be global warming everywhere?
Maybe not. Climate modellers admit to being very uncertain about how global warming will affect particular regions. This is because much of our weather depends on circulation patterns, which could alter in unexpected ways. Crudely, however, modellers expect many coastal regions to become wetter, while continental interiors will become drier, causing some deserts to expand. Warming will probably be greatest in polar regions, mirroring climate changes already seen this century in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Existing desert regions, notably central Asia, parts of the Middle East and the Sahel region of Africa, have already experienced some warming.
Local climate could also be altered by changes in ocean circulation. Western Europe could be particularly vulnerable. At present, it is kept exceptionally warm in winter by the Gulf Stream, which is part of the ocean conveyor belt (see "Are there other complications?" above). Take that away and British weather would be like the Hudson Bay in Canada, which is at the same latitude. If the conveyor belt slackens, or the path of the Gulf Stream shifts, that is precisely what could happen. So British hopes of a climate like Bordeaux in the 21st century could be cruelly dashed!
Surely that's a bit sensationalist?
Not really. Ice cores reveal growing evidence of sudden, dramatic shifts in climate over the past 10,000 years that have occurred within a few decades as a result of "flips" in ocean circulation. But most models suggest that the Gulf Stream won't turn off for at least another century.
Are there any other cataclysmic events in the offing?
One fear is that the entire West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets might disappear into the oceans raising sea levels by seven metres or more. Even the most pessimistic experts say this is only a worry if the world warms by about 4 °C, which is outside the range of mainstream predictions for the next century. And a glacial collapse is such a slow process it would take several hundred years for all the ice to slide into the sea.
So how worried should we be?
How lucky do you feel?
grow up you stupid little boy!Redhand wrote:are u?tonyh762 wrote:are you really that ignorant?Redhand wrote:Show me evidence of global warming being species ending.
one day when you learn to shave and have learnt something of the world you'll have the ability to think and reason, then and only then should you impart your thoughts to the rest of the world.
who cares who wins
how old are you?Redhand wrote:lol
I grow wild on my as% what you cultivate on your face.
Take it somewhere else Sir Hyperbole-alot...i ain't interested.
Go shower with the boys.
with a smart mouth like yours, you are going to get your backside kicked if you ever do get the balls to join the military.
Edit by Stix
who cares who wins
Look Tony,
I don't know what yer problem is...ever since you signed up you've been attacking and aggressive to posters. fine. But if you do it to me im gonna react. You very well may of served under the Queen, but so have alot of blokes on here. Doesn't give you a special ticket to be a twat.
As for arse kickings, i've done em, and they've been done to me. But its not my mouth thats the problem.
I don't know what yer problem is...ever since you signed up you've been attacking and aggressive to posters. fine. But if you do it to me im gonna react. You very well may of served under the Queen, but so have alot of blokes on here. Doesn't give you a special ticket to be a twat.
As for arse kickings, i've done em, and they've been done to me. But its not my mouth thats the problem.
listen, you're a boy nothing more, you havent earnt the right to gob off.Redhand wrote:Look Tony,
I don't know what yer problem is...ever since you signed up you've been attacking and aggressive to posters. fine. But if you do it to me im gonna react. You very well may of served under the Queen, but so have alot of blokes on here. Doesn't give you a special ticket to be a twat.
As for arse kickings, i've done em, and they've been done to me. But its not my mouth thats the problem.
once/if to get into the military, you'll understand.
until then keep quiet with your smart comments.
yes i was aggresive with people here, why? because they deserve it!
you need to learn where in the pile of shit you sit, youre near the bottom, where i and everyone else was once, the sooner you accept it the better off you'll be.
im warning you now if you join the military (what branch by the way?) you will incur the wrath of everyone that wears a pair of boots, and they'll all be aimed at your arse!
understand?
who cares who wins
