Global Warming? A big issue? Watch

This discussion is closed.
RK
  • TSR Community Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#21
Report 13 years ago
#21
(Original post by MrsJones)
I don't really have time to indulge this scaremongering.

Seeing that the soundbite includes the word "GLOBAL" prior to warming, take a look at this data of hottest ever recorded temps in various countries, and more importantly the dates.

World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya Sept. 13, 1922 136deg
North America (US) Death Valley, Calif. July 10, 1913 134deg
Asia Tirat Tsvi, Israel June 21, 1942 129deg
Australia Cloncurry, Queensland Jan. 16, 1889 128deg
Europe Seville, Spain Aug. 4, 1881 122deg
South America Rivadavia, Argentina Dec. 11, 1905 120deg
Canada Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada July 5, 1937 113deg
Persian Gulf (sea-surface) Aug. 5, 1924 96deg
Antarctica Vanda Station Jan. 5, 1974 59deg
South Pole Dec. 27, 1978 7.5deg

Lana Koroleva

Temps in deg f obviously.

Your figures not exactly accurate? About as accurate as the rest of your facts.
But single local temperatures do not show trends in areas do they? I mean something can be regularly increading, but can still at times have much lower temperatures than the general trend, just like they can have much higher temperatures.

In the recent past, the general trend for weather can have been much cooler and less serveer than we have now. But it is still possible on occasion for there to be the highest ever temperature recorded them...

...all the general trend of a heating up Earth means is that we are more likely to see record temperatures, not necessarliy have record temperatures. The longer we let things go on as the y are, the more likely we will be to see record temperatures...if things continue as they are now expect record temperatures everywhere soon.

And as for the accurracy of my fact, I they are true. It was only the figure 8/10 I wasn't too sure about exactly, but the trend was all I was hinting at. So to say my figures were as accurrate as the rest of my 'facts' is just stupid...at least my approximate figure is more accurrate than your whole understanding of the differnce between weather and limate and the differnece between single events and general trends.
0
MrsJones
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 13 years ago
#22
(Original post by Roger Kirk)
But single local temperatures do not show trends in areas do they? I mean something can be regularly increading, but can still at times have much lower temperatures than the general trend, just like they can have much higher temperatures.

In the recent past, the general trend for weather can have been much cooler and less serveer than we have now. But it is still possible on occasion for there to be the highest ever temperature recorded them...

...all the general trend of a heating up Earth means is that we are more likely to see record temperatures, not necessarliy have record temperatures. The longer we let things go on as the y are, the more likely we will be to see record temperatures...if things continue as they are now expect record temperatures everywhere soon.

And as for the accurracy of my fact, I they are true. It was only the figure 8/10 I wasn't too sure about exactly, but the trend was all I was hinting at. So to say my figures were as accurrate as the rest of my 'facts' is just stupid...at least my approximate figure is more accurrate than your whole understanding of the differnce between weather and limate and the differnece between single events and general trends.
So if a temp increases we'll call it global warming. Presumeably where it decreases it can be called global cooling due to global warming. Where it stays the same we'll fiddle the results.

The theory needs a bit more "cause and effect" rather than "effect and we'll think up a cause"

Fifty years ago someone like you would have said oil would run out before the end of the twentieth century.

There has always been drifts in weather patterns the same, worse or better than we have now.
0
moomoo2k
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 13 years ago
#23
heyyy that was my argument (about the oil) but yea, that other guy is appearing more and more stupid - there is not a "general trend" at all...like you say certain areas vary don't they! Some places have heated up, others have cooled down. This is because weather patterns are very, very unpredictable.
Also, a lot of recordings are done in heavily populated areas which are obviously warmer than remote areas that aren't densely populated.
0
MrsJones
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 13 years ago
#24
(Original post by Roger Kirk)
But single local temperatures do not show trends in areas do they? I mean something can be regularly increading, but can still at times have much lower temperatures than the general trend, just like they can have much higher temperatures.

In the recent past, the general trend for weather can have been much cooler and less serveer than we have now. But it is still possible on occasion for there to be the highest ever temperature recorded them...

...all the general trend of a heating up Earth means is that we are more likely to see record temperatures, not necessarliy have record temperatures. The longer we let things go on as the y are, the more likely we will be to see record temperatures...if things continue as they are now expect record temperatures everywhere soon.

And as for the accurracy of my fact, I they are true. It was only the figure 8/10 I wasn't too sure about exactly, but the trend was all I was hinting at. So to say my figures were as accurrate as the rest of my 'facts' is just stupid...at least my approximate figure is more accurrate than your whole understanding of the differnce between weather and limate and the differnece between single events and general trends.
After trying to find max and average temps for london for the past few decades I understand why it's easier to spout off theorisms rather than work from accurate data. I too have given up.
0
IZZY!
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#25
Report 13 years ago
#25
i m sure in 45 years time scientist will be able to invent something good which would be able to withstand floodings, perhaps bigger dams or much more effective coastal defense. in 45 years there is a possibility that a new solution to fossil fuels will be invented, perhaps better nuclear technologies.
0
moomoo2k
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 13 years ago
#26
yea, but who's gonna pay for those dams? and who wants to look at massive coastal defences? what about poorer countries, and islands? and what about tornadoes and droughts and other effects of global warming? (i'm not saying this stuff is going to happen by the way)? and the debate isnt really about fossil fuels running although that's fun too
0
IZZY!
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#27
Report 13 years ago
#27
(Original post by moomoo2k)
yea, but who's gonna pay for those dams? and who wants to look at massive coastal defences? what about poorer countries, and islands? and what about tornadoes and droughts and other effects of global warming? (i'm not saying this stuff is going to happen by the way)? and the debate isnt really about fossil fuels running although that's fun too
in 45 years, poor countries will become much richer. approximately 45 years ago , these poor countries just got their independence. I m sure richer countries will be interested in investing in poorer countries. in 45 years loads of things may change as much as things have changed from 50s. People have invented loads of things in 45 years and will do so or even making progresses much faster especially in rich countries, where there is prosperity and stabilization.
0
moomoo2k
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 13 years ago
#28
i'm not saying technology isnt going to progress a lot in 45 years...but why are poorer countries certainly going to become richer? and why would richer countries invest in them? i mean they're investing in poorer countries already i.e. South Africa and China, but only because they stand to gain...but they arent going to care about little islands in the Pacific archepelago, for example...and what about the other supposed effects of global warming, how do we stop those?
also, you're point about richer countries being stable, how much of their wealth is dependent on fossil fuels? when these do run dry the economies will not be able to sustain the kind of growth they are now (and yes i know they'll invent new resources, but it's easy enough to assume something will happen)
i'm not even in favour of the idea that in 50 years we're going to need all this protection from the elements, but you're points so far haven't made much sense

on a side, related to finite resources...i had one little theory to do with batteries. If you look at technology and consider how amazing it is and how much progression has occurred in just the last 5, 10 or 15 years, the one thing holding it back the most has always been batteries. I see no reason why we should be limited by them as much as we are, and one idea I had about their production being so slow comparatively is to do with oil companies, with huge economic power, actually stopping it...why can't we run cars off of electricity or batteries effeciently or effectively?
0
usa1981
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#29
Report 13 years ago
#29
(Original post by spikdboy)
Well, think about it. The Earth is getting warmer. Ice will melt. Water will raise. Cities will submerge.
Yes, it's a problem.
The water will not raise in the Ice melts. There is no proof of global wraming there will awlays be flexation in tempture.
0
moomoo2k
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 13 years ago
#30
...yes it would. If the ice caps all melted we'd be ****ed...any idea how much water is in an average sized ice berg? If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). Of course if the antarctic was melted we'd all be dead because it would be about 30 degrees celcius hotter but anyway...if ice caps melt there would be trouble
0
midloon
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 13 years ago
#31
Ive just been revising stuff about Glaciers and global warming. Basically the threat of massive sea level rise is pretty much media hype because many glaciers are actually advancing - not all retreating like the media would like us to think. Although some glaciers are retreating, this may just be due to natural climate changes (the temperature fluctuates naturally.)

At the moment we are in an interglacial stage - next comes a glacial stage. boom it gets colder. will that be out fault as well?

I do agree that the pollution we emit is unacceptable and we do need to cut down on the levels of fossil fuels burnt. but its a bit hypocritical to tell poorer countries going through industrialisation to stop using fossil fuels or start using more expensive alternatives when we did it in the past all as well. Though America has no excuse (damn that Bush)
0
moomoo2k
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#32
Report 13 years ago
#32
i'm not saying massive sea level rise IS going to occur, but IF ice bergs begin melting it will be noticeable. And when have we told industrialised countries to stop using fossil fuels? Part of the Kyoto protocol, although i'm not a huge fan of it (it being the kyoto protocol), permits poor countries to pollute more
0
MrsJones
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 13 years ago
#33
(Original post by moomoo2k)
yea, but who's gonna pay for those dams? and who wants to look at massive coastal defences? what about poorer countries, and islands? and what about tornadoes and droughts and other effects of global warming? (i'm not saying this stuff is going to happen by the way)? and the debate isnt really about fossil fuels running although that's fun too
With all the dams there can be massive amounts of hydro electric, free, clean. Perhaps it's god's wish we alter the climate to take advantage of this supply.
0
moomoo2k
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 13 years ago
#34
thing is i dont think he or I meant dams...pretty sure he just meant coastal defence...and there's a lot of disadvantages with generating electricity via dams too...look at the controversy over the Yangtze dam
0
Tomorrow2Day
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 13 years ago
#35
The main cause of a general rise in water level as climates change will not be glaciers melting but the expansion of the water itself.

Likewise, the idea that what we will see is "global warming" is also now discredited - what we will see is climate change - in many places this will mean temperatures rising, in others temperatures will fall dramatically. Here in Britain, it is possible that we will see a Syberian temperature range if the Gulf Stream fails (which is a very real possibility).

The five warmest years ever recorded were 1995, 1997, 1998, 2001 and 2002.

We are already seeing the coral reefs, thousands of years of life, dying under hotter temperatures.

For those who voted UKIP, BNP or Conservative because they were worried about immigration, imagine Bangladesh's population of over two hundred million fleeing the country because at times it is almost entirely submerged? Because they watched their houses and villages destroyed by tidal devastation the recent tsunami only hinted at?

The Hadley Centre's most advanced computer simulations predict a temperature rise of 5.5 degrees C if business continues as usual. Half a degree more destroyed 90% of life on earth last time it happened.

Climate change is very real and very much man-made - while you can quote scientists and pressure groups that refute this, they are generally discredited, in the employ of oil companies like Exxon Mobil or not even climatologists. There is scientific consensus - the one in three hundred climatologists who rejects man-made global warming is not worth our time, of which we have little.

Whatever the exact change, the least likely result of all is no change - and no change, or close to, is what has kept man alive for the last few thousand years. We are going to see something incredible - and while we don't know precisely when, precisely what or precisely how much we know it will involve the earth getting a lot warmer, sea levels rising, increased flooding of low-lying countries, glaciers disappearing (and indeed most glaciers are retreating - many by up to eighty metres a year), rivers drying up, droughts and wildlife being decimated.

Some of it is irreversible - but the idea that we will ever be at a stage where "climate change" is irreversible is ridiculous. We cannot take the attitude that since we have already burnt our hands, we may as well walk into the fire. The only question as far as I am concerned is how badly we will have to be burned before we turn around and walk away.
0
milady
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#36
Report 13 years ago
#36
I think most people are agreed that climate change is happening; that there is global warming.

But as to how recent or serious the effects will be, I don't think anyone knows.

I read about some climatologists building a computer model of how great temperature change would be by the year 2070 (I think). By changing various inputs etc into the computer (some of the values they put in had to be guessed or estimated) they got hugely different results - one was a rise of 11 degrees, very serious, another was a drop of 2 degrees and so on.

So no one can really know what the actual rate would be.

There are so many factors which influence the weather - some unforseeable, such as the global dimming or whatever they've just started talking about.

What annoys me is when people's fears about global warming (some future uncertainty) are exploited by politicians to further their own ends. A politician here is using it as a sort of excuse to introduce nuclear power stations (when that is definitely not the reason he wants them).
0
HearTheThunder
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#37
Report 13 years ago
#37
Yeah it's a very big issue. It's all very well saying that we, the UK are going to JUST make our Kyoto Protocol agreements and that we have PLANS to produce a more eco-friendly country in the future. But you know we're running out of time very quickly in the grand scale of things, a lot of damage to the Ozone layer has already been done and it doesn't help with it being 'inconvinient' for America to cut back on their emissions and they'll do what THEY want (even though Mr Bush said that isolationism turned out to be dangerous). We need to do something now, not in the future.
0
RK
  • TSR Community Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#38
Report 13 years ago
#38
(Original post by MrsJones)
After trying to find max and average temps for london for the past few decades I understand why it's easier to spout off theorisms rather than work from accurate data. I too have given up.
Fear not any more Mrs Jones...amazingly, just by chance, when I had too given up on finding any data to show this one way or another, I come across something completely unrelated to what I was looking for at the time...this things was mean temperatures and mean rainfall data by month, season and year for Engalnd and Wales for every year from 1914 to this year. (I'd prefert it if the data went back further and was perhaps for the whole world, but at least we have it for a significant time.....over 90 years aint't too bad and I'd guess the UK is pretty typical of trends in Western Europe (though obviously not in actual temperatures ).

Here is the link:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/...ics/ewtemp.txt

Anyway, I said that the general trend was for increasing temperatures, with 8 of the hottest 10 years being recent (or words to that effect)

Well, the 10 hottests years, based on mean tempertaure were, in order and in Celsius:

1990 10.27
2002 10.23
1999 10.21
2003 10.19
2004 10.18
1989 10.14
1949 10.11
1997 10.10
1921 10.07
1995 10.03

I think you may agree that the recent trend is for temperature increase, 6 out of the last 10 years are in top 10 highest average temperatures. Three of the last 5 years are in the top five.

And while this doesn't prove the trend I spoke about, it does back up somewhat what I was saying. If this trend does continue it will be a sure sign. Now I don't claim to be a meterlogical expert, but some people who do claim to be one are saying the same thing: that this trend is a sign for global warming. And from all the evidence we have there is a strong case for global warming being casued, either in part or in full, by the Greenhouse effect.

I'm sure that if we were to look for similar data in other countries....which I'd imagine is even harder to find than this, or for data further into the past (just for the record, when was the last time the Thames froze over? I Tudor times it happened nearly every year and they had winter fairs out on the ice), then we would find similar and more long term patterns.
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#39
Report 13 years ago
#39
(Original post by Ellie4)
Not by most people's definition. If you say global warming, people think burning fossil fuels and human causes. I think we're just coming out of the last Ice age
The last ice age ended 11,000 years ago, and global temperatures have stagnated since then but are now beginning to rise:
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/Image3.gif

But then again, if you look at now compared to the last 420,000 years, it doesn't seem so significant:
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/Image5.gif

From this site:
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBo...f_climate.html
0
StarFishy
Badges: 0
#40
Report 13 years ago
#40
The problem is, people never do anything about anything until it's too late!
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (225)
27.71%
No (587)
72.29%

Watched Threads

View All