Meritocratic Isles
November 12, 2018, 10:59:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: All citizens are encouraged to sign up to join the military.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Poll
Question: Global Warming is...
C
A
D
B

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: The Question of Global Warming  (Read 17889 times)
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« on: September 11, 2008, 12:59:45 PM »

Global Warming, the " hot - button"' topic that has everyone talking.  Are the majority of modern scientists that agree with the proposition of global warming true believers or cynics who know how to get funding?  Some people believe that the sheer number of scientists supporting the theory is proof enough that the threat is real, but the scientific method itself does not take into account the number of scientists voicing a belief.  Also, in the 1960's, the majority of scientists were predicting a coming new ice age.  Some dispute than humankind can even have such a large effect on the planet's ecology.  There has been some speculation that the melting ice caps are a result of a solar event, because the ice caps on Mars are shrinking at the same rate as those on Earth.  Solutions to global warming seem to have more to do with transferring the wealth of producing nations to non-producing nations.  So, what is Global Warming:  A.  Mostly a Solar Event.  B.  Mostly Man-Made.  C.  Something that is Politically Useful.  D.  Something that is Scientifically Questionable.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2008, 01:02:32 PM by King Chester » Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2008, 01:27:00 PM »

The number of experiments preformed is part of the scientific method. Scientists recognize that individual experiments have the potential to be very inaccurate. The results of many experiments combined however produce a much more accurate and reliable result.
There is nothing ludicrous about the science of climate change. It is widely accepted that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that it is release when fuel is burned. Carbon dioxide tests of the atmosphere have revealed that its concentration is going up. In addition, global temperatures are rising in general, just as the climate change theory has predicted. Biologists around the world have noticed that summer seasons for plants and animals are getting longer. What is there left to argue?
Logged
Shieldelf
Citizen
Perioikos
*
*

Merit: 8
Posts: 182


Commander, Isles Militia


« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2008, 01:44:52 PM »

You need to add "A cycle of Earth". Earth is constantly heating and cooling itself (average temp) so its just one of those periods.
Logged

Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2008, 02:53:59 PM »

The only way I can think of that the Earth can warm itself is by increase geothermal activity. Could you please describe some of the other natural cycles in which the Earth heats and cools itself?
Logged
Shieldelf
Citizen
Perioikos
*
*

Merit: 8
Posts: 182


Commander, Isles Militia


« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2008, 06:35:11 PM »

The Ice Age. Let me ask my dad about it when he gets back. Hes able to explain it better.
Logged

King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2008, 01:48:13 PM »

Of course, there IS climate change.  The questions are:  1.  What is the driving force behind the change?  and 2.  What (if anything) is to be done about it?

Another recent viewing that WE witnessed on television was about dinosaurs.  After a steady decline of the oxygen ratio in Earth's atmosphere, which had resulted in smaller dinosaurs, there was a long period where the oxygen percentage spiked up, supposedly bringing about the development of T-Rex.  And then the great dinos died out Sad .

If this is an event not caused by humankind, perhaps the solution is to be found in genetic adaptation?  Can food production be tilted toward foods that do well in hotter environments?  How about subterranean farms and cities?

Oh, and regarding the preposterous idea of "Waterworld",  the net effect of the polar caps melting will be minimal.  Think of a glass of ice water.  When the ice melts, the water level is actually lower than when there was solid ice.  The ice melting at the South Pole, there there is a land mass beneath the ice, would raise the world ocean level.  However, the ice melting at the North Pole, which has no land mass beneath the ice, would cause ocean levels to drop.
Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2008, 05:06:36 PM »

While it is possible that we could adapt to many affects of climate change, the melting temperature of ice is something beyond our control.
I would like to see some scientific research backing your argument, Your Majesty. While common sense is an excellent tool, in environments as large and intricate as the planet it is no match for careful scientific measurement and super-computer calculations.
Several scientific studies have concluded that with the melting of ice, sea levels will rise. You can read about these here: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update8.htm
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2008, 07:43:43 PM »

WE were not suggesting that the laws of temperature and chemistry be re-written  Tongue .   Wink

But you make an excellent point regard the relationship between common sense and knowledge.

From OUR own use of the internet search engines, we have found http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

Data on this site confirms OUR hypothesis regarding the effect of a  melted northern polar ice cap, however, OUR estimation of the amount of water that would be produced by a melted southern polar ice cap (because it is on land and above the water level of the ocean) was vastly off due to OUR miscalculation on the AMOUNT ice on the Antarctic continent.

OUR current understanding is, at the present rate, by the projected year of 2100 C.E./A.D., the ocean level may rise as much as 50 centimeters (or 15 and 78/100 inches).
Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2008, 12:11:52 PM »

Thank you, Your Majesty.
It seems that we can all agree that climate change is real and that it will have a negative effect on our civilization. All that is left to debate is how great the effect of man-made greenhouse gasses is on the Earth's climate.
Let us start with the well established facts:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
2. One way carbon dioxide is formed is by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas.
3. In the year 2004, an estimated 27,245,758,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide was created due to human activity.
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2008, 09:44:49 PM »

This IS proving to be educational  Smiley

Though WE again state the we believe politics to be interfering with science, WE must also state the the wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
provides an excellent overview of the wider topics of this discussion.

WE have three ideas that humankind might employ to cool the planet:
1.  More nuclear power plants (with impenetrable security) and the decommissioning of dirtier, archaic power plants.
2. Windmill/Turbine Atmospheric Carbon Extractors (Certainly, this technology ought to exist!).
3. Aerosol Forcing resulting in "Global Dimming" (Let's "wake-up" some volcanoes people, or maybe simulate it).
« Last Edit: September 16, 2008, 12:18:29 PM by King Chester » Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2008, 12:02:59 PM »

Please check that hyperlink. It does not seem to be functioning properly.
1. Nuclear power is a proven technology. Some countries has done an excellent job of using and recycling this form of fuel. There are several safety concerns regarding the disposal of unusable radioactive waste along with the threat of such waste falling into the hands of terrorists. I am confident that governments can set up the regulations and procedures to use this form of power responsibly and effectively.
2. Windmill: wonderful idea. Wind-generated electricity is a viable source of energy for many regions, and are also a safe, clean, and effective technology. Carbon extractors have not been used extensively, and could be helpful in undoing the damage we have already done to the atmosphere. Studies should be done however on how these extractors might affect the ecosystems around them.
3. Global dimming: no. Reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth seems like extremely risky business. Seeing that the entire biosphere would become darker, it would be impossible for even our super-computers to tell us exactly what the effects might be. Also, many of the Earth's most horrific extinctions were caused at least partly by increased volcanism. If the public was nervous about the Large Hadron Accelerator, this would never fly.
Logged
King Chester
Geronta
Perioikos
*

Merit: 16
Posts: 183



« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2008, 12:32:48 PM »

The hyperlink to the wikipedia article has been corrected  Embarrassed  Smiley

1.   Nuclear Waste.  Hmmm, there's that old saw about sacrificing virgins to volcanoes.  Would the temperature of the magma be enough to destroy the radioactive waste material?

2.  Yes, but there are one or two negatives:  A.  The reliability of the wind in a given area, and B. the initial pollution in manufacturing the windmill-turbine carbon extractors and maintenance parts.

3.   Grin  Thought that one might raise a red flag with you.  Still, you are asking for decreased temperatures, which could be just as big a shift in the biosphere as artificially adjusting the amount of sunlight.  But, okay, no volcanoes.  How about gigantic orbital solar shades?  These could easily be removed in case of ill effects.
Logged
Kadoshim
Archon Basileus
Spartiate
*
*
*

Merit: 14
Posts: 407



« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2008, 12:48:13 PM »

1. Sounds like a fun science experiment to me.

2. Of course, this form of electricity generating is only effective in places that are continuously windy. Such places include hundreds of feet high, where winds can be both prevailing and fast, as well as certain areas near the coastlines of oceans and large lakes.

3. Yes, the solar shades could be removed, but keep in mind the potential consequences. One bad global harvest year caused by decreased levels of sunlight could lead to the starvation of millions of people and deadly conflicts over decreased food supplies. It does not seem like a responsible risk to take.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!