|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Zutronius
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Location: Suncheon
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Whether Global Warming is man-made or not, our way of living is going to kill us one way or another. A society based on green paper money and black liquid from the ground won't last forever. The sad thing we've had the technology to wean ourselves off of oil back in the 1890s (but was suppressed by U.S. big business). Look into some of the work Nikolai Tesla was doing into ether/free energy devices.
With that aside, we as a society/world need to drastically alter the way we live. An economic based on mass consumption doesn't work for everyone nor does it work for the planet. Problem is what's the solution?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
Antarctic ice grows to record levels
By Meteorologist Joe D�Aleo
.
12 Sep 07 - The Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. |
Well, kind of:
Ice core evidence for 20% decline in Antarctic sea ice extent since the 1950s
| Quote: |
Most climate models predict that sea ice should respond to ocean and atmospheric warming with a resulting decrease in sea ice extent. Records of whaling ship locations (de la Mare, Nature 389, 57 (1997) and penguin population survival tend to suggest Antarctic sea ice may be declining � however satellite records of sea ice extent tell a different story.
The advent of satellite imagery since the mid-1970s enabled scientists to remotely �view� Antarctica and measure the extent of sea ice. This data shows little or no change, or possibly even an increase in sea ice extent since the 1970s. So what is happening? Is Antarctic sea ice extent increasing or decreasing? The answer is both! The effect seen depends on the timescale we are considering.
The problem is that there were no reliable records of sea ice extent prior to the mid-1970s, to look at long-term trends.
Enter the phytoplankton.... release chemical signals... which gets trapped in snowfall on the continent. This...reveal the hidden message from the phytoplankton. This message takes the form of methanesulphonic acid or MSA.
MSA is produced from oxidation in the atmosphere of dimethylsulphide, which is itself produced by certain species of phytoplankton and in the Southern Ocean. The distribution of these species is intimately associated with sea ice. Through analysis of ice cores from Law Dome, we have discovered that the amount of MSA in the core is related to the maximum extent of sea ice in that region....
In a recent paper in the journal Science, (Curran et al., November 14, 302, 1203, 2003) we have calibrated the ice core MSA record against satellite records of sea ice extent since the mid 1970s (see Figure 1). Annual MSA concentrations significantly correlate with maximum sea ice extent around the whole of Antarctica, with the highest correlation in the region (80-140�E) surrounding Law Dome.
This calibration enables us to use the MSA record from the Law Dome ice core as a tool to investigate past sea ice extent. So what happened to sea ice extent prior to the 1970s and the satellite era?
The MSA record from ...1840 to 1995. The two main findings presented in the paper are the discovery of these persistent, high-amplitude, decadal fluctuations and the dramatic decrease in sea ice extent over the last ~50 years. The high variability explains why satellite trends are confusing. Detection of long-term change is masked by large fluctuations from decade to decade and it is these decadal fluctuations that have produced apparent short-term increases in the satellite data. The large reduction of the northerly extent of sea ice in the region south of Australia (80-140�E) of 1.5 degrees of latitude equates to a 20% decrease since the 1950s. |
That's what happens when you cherry pick, brutha... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A funny op-ed about the lefties hypocracy in dealing with global warming.
Enjoy your walk to work.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Going all Darwin on your silly butt, how about no naysayers get any benefit from any of the work to manage the problem. E.g., your beach house gone? You get no federal aid. What'cha think? Fair? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Calm down Keane. This article isn't about the naysayers. It's about the hypocrites in the Green Brigade. You know people like Al Gore. The Al Gore that will use more energy in one year than I will in 10 years. The Al Gore who flies in a private chartered jet around the world and back to give speeches for $100,000. Having said that, what shall we do with Al Gore's beach home?
Aside from that, it really doesn't seem many people are taking you all seriously. Live Earth ended up a dud.
At any rate, I am not a denier. We need to introduce more hybrid engines to the market. We need to stop using so much coal, gas and oil. I still believe that we must start deploying nuclear power stations immediately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Pluto"]Aside from that, it really doesn't seem many people are taking you all seriously. [/url]
That's some fine logic. 
FACT: Most of the world takes GW very seriously. It is only in the "advanced", "civilized" and educated USA and Great Britain, for the most part, where significant numbers ostriches still exist.
Next time, do some number checking.
| Quote: |
| At any rate, I am not a denier. |
Really? Then who is "you all?" By definition it's not the person saying it, no? A little consistency, eh?
| Quote: |
| We need to introduce more hybrid engines to the market. We need to stop using so much coal, gas and oil. I still believe that we must start deploying nuclear power stations immediately. |
Why? You seem to think calling the people doing something hypocrites is useful. Might I point out that using current technology to get the word out is not innately hypocritical. This is particularly true if one is carbon neutral or is in the process of getting there. It is, in fact, quite difficult to achieve because the entire developed world is fed by oil, gas and coal. This is simple and obvious logic.
Are you carbon neutral? Gore is or soon will be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
A funny op-ed about the lefties hypocracy in dealing with global warming.
Enjoy your walk to work. Wink |
What does articles like this even prove? Should environmentalist sit at home and do all the preaching over the internet? Why should they be bound to their hometown? Why shouldn't they fly?
Is the skeptics view so groundless and desperate that their only defense is pointing out hypocracy? If it is, it's a wonder anyone with a brain would view them as credible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="keane"]
| Pluto wrote: |
Aside from that, it really doesn't seem many people are taking you all seriously. [/url]
That's some fine logic.
FACT: Most of the world takes GW very seriously. It is only in the "advanced", "civilized" and educated USA and Great Britain, for the most part, where significant numbers ostriches still exist.
Next time, do some number checking.
[. |
You should take your own advice. About half the world's population survive on 2 dollars or less a day. Many more have little more than that. GW is WAY down on their list of priorities.
STOP claiming your opinion as fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
Aside from that, it really doesn't seem many people are taking you all seriously. [/url]
That's some fine logic.
FACT: Most of the world takes GW very seriously. It is only in the "advanced", "civilized" and educated USA and Great Britain, for the most part, where significant numbers ostriches still exist. |
Next time, do some number checking. |
You should take your own advice. About half the world's population survive on 2 dollars or less a day. Many more have little more than that. GW is WAY down on their list of priorities.
STOP claiming your opinion as fact. |
How is income distribution an indicator of support of the GW theory? Next time, use the correct numbers. This "opinion" is fact. It has only been in the US, GB and a handful of other nations that GW has been discounted by a majority of the population.
Times change:
Developed and Developing Countries Agree: Action Needed on Global Warming |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
Aside from that, it really doesn't seem many people are taking you all seriously. [/url]
That's some fine logic.
FACT: Most of the world takes GW very seriously. It is only in the "advanced", "civilized" and educated USA and Great Britain, for the most part, where significant numbers ostriches still exist. |
Next time, do some number checking. |
You should take your own advice. About half the world's population survive on 2 dollars or less a day. Many more have little more than that. GW is WAY down on their list of priorities.
STOP claiming your opinion as fact. |
How is income distribution an indicator of support of the GW theory? Next time, use the correct numbers. This "opinion" is fact. It has only been in the US, GB and a handful of other nations that GW has been discounted by a majority of the population.
Times change:
Developed and Developing Countries Agree: Action Needed on Global Warming |
Again a few thousand people in a few countries does not represent the majority of the GLOBAL population.
Again if most people are surviving on a few dollars a day, GW is going to be the least of their concerns. Food, clothing and shelter are going to be their main concerns. It is simply common sense. Should they have children they will have even more priorities to take care of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gunther
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Location: opposingdigits.com
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
A chronology of climate change
During most of the last billion years the Earth did not have permanent ice sheets. Nevertheless, at times large areas of the globe were covered with vast sheets of ice. Such times are known as glaciations. In the past 2 million to 3 million years, the temperature of the Earth has changed (warmed or cooled) at least 17 times, some say 33, with glaciations that last about 100,000 years interrupted by warm periods that last about 10,000 years.
The last glaciation began 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. The Earth was a lot colder than it is now; snow and ice had accumulated on a lot of the land, glaciers existed on large areas and the sea levels were lower.
15,000 years ago: The last glaciation reaches a peak, with continental glaciers that cover a lot of the sub-polar and polar areas of the land areas of Earth. In North America, all of New England and all of the Great Lakes area, most of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota and the North Dakotas, lie under ice sheets hundreds of meters thick. More than 37 million cubic kilometers of ice was tied up in these global sheets of ice. The average temperature on the surface of the Earth is estimated to have been cooler by approximately 6 degrees Celsius than currently. The sea level was more than 90 meters lower than currently.
15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago: Global warming begins. The sheets of ice melt, and sea levels rise. Some heat source causes approximately 37 million cubic kilometers of ice to melt in approximately 9,000 years. Around 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice leave Scandinavia. Around 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice leave Canada. This warming is neither stable nor the same everywhere. There are periods when mountain glaciers advance, and periods when they withdraw. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to place, with some areas affected while others are not. The tendency of warming is global and obvious, but very uneven. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: About 6,000 years ago, temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The ocean of the world is some three meters higher than currently. A lot of the present desert of the Sahara has a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species.
4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation.
Anyone else find something fishy about the final sentence? |
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GB25Aa02.html
IMHO Global Warming is real... and it's got nothing to do with Gore or you & me driving around in our auto's... It's nature taking it's course. Pollution is real too but the two don't have any relation!!!
I think this says it all...
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7496 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Again a few thousand people in a few countries does not represent the majority of the GLOBAL population. |
You've never taken a statistics class? How did you manage that? Fake degree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gunther wrote: |
| IMHO Global Warming is real... and it's got nothing to do with Gore or you & me driving around in our auto's... It's nature taking it's course. Pollution is real too but the two don't have any relation!!! |
Fine. Support that scientifically. Sun? Already covered. What else you got?
I'll follow your link and get back to you on it tomorrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Zero emissions needed to avert 'dangerous' warming
| Quote: |
* 16:56 11 October 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Catherine Brahic
Only the total elimination of industrial emissions will succeed in limiting climate change to a 2�C rise in temperatures, according to computer analysis of climate change. Anything above this target has been identified as "dangerous" by some scientists, and the limit has been adopted by many policymakers.
The researchers say their study highlights the shortcomings of governmental plans to limit climate change.
A warming of 2�C above pre-industrial temperatures is frequently cited as the limit beyond which the world will face "dangerous" climate change. Beyond this level, analysis suggests the continents will cease to absorb more carbon dioxide than they produce. As the tundra and other regions of permafrost thaw, they will spew more gas into the atmosphere, adding to the warming effect of human emissions.
The end result will be dramatic ecological changes, including widespread coastal flooding, reduced food production, and widespread species extinction.
Established model
...They modelled the reduction of industrial emissions below 2006 levels by between 20% and 100% by 2050. Only when emissions were entirely eliminated did the temperature increase remain below 2�C.
A 100% reduction of emissions saw temperature change stabilise at 1.5�C above the pre-industrial figure. With a 90% reduction by 2050, Weaver's model predicted that temperature change will eventually exceed 2�C compared to pre-industrial temperatures but then plateau.
..."People are easily misled into thinking that 50% by 2050 is all we have to do when in fact have to continue reducing emissions afterwards, all the way down to zero," Lenton says. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
