• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Environmental News & Global Warming

B

bigbang

Member
global warming, a natural process

Global warming is a natural process mainly due to the way the earth orbits the sun. The distance between the earth and the sun increases and decreases gradually in cycles creating a corresponding increase and decrease of the average temperature of the earth. So earth goes through cycles of warm and cold periods. The severity and the length of these periods depend on how close or how far earth has moved. Carbon is claimed to be the main cause of global warming, many scientists firmly disagree for the same reason I mentioned above. The other information that one should know is that, in the last 100 years, carbon has increased only 0.15%. Do you really think that such small increase can cause such big change? I don't.
 
  • Advertisement
  • S

    Salome

    Active Member
    Global warming is a natural process mainly due to the way the earth orbits the sun. The distance between the earth and the sun increases and decreases gradually in cycles creating a corresponding increase and decrease of the average temperature of the earth. So earth goes through cycles of warm and cold periods. The severity and the length of these periods depend on how close or how far earth has moved. Carbon is claimed to be the main cause of global warming, many scientists firmly disagree for the same reason I mentioned above. The other information that one should know is that, in the last 100 years, carbon has increased only 0.15%. Do you really think that such small increase can cause such big change? I don't.
    From where do you have that information? Reliable source?

    Anyway the destruction done by humans to the planet since the early mankind is not something negligible because it was not part of the natural process thus indeed creates imbalances.

    What do you think how natural is this?




    Really there is no problem with feeding toxic platsic to the animals? There are no consequences?
    This is jut one example out of countless how natural habitat have been shrinked, how species are disappearing by the day (and no this is not natural selection), how our industries affect and change the weather worldwide...

    Waiving it all away with "natural earth cycles" just won't work....might have worked 1 million years ago, not anymore...

    The question is rather what can we still do to preserve what is left...
     
    B

    bigbang

    Member
    Salome, in my argument i meant to draw the attention to the fact that carbon can not be the main contributor to global warming. The fact remains that earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. I compiled my information based on published scientific papers that i had to read as part of my undergraduate degree. Most of these papers studied the carbon concentration in the atmosphere during various geological period and compared it to carbon concentrations recorded within the last 100 years. If you are interested in finding out more about earth cycles or global warming, you should read some scientif journals on climate change.
    Plastics in the environment negatively affect all life forms. Plastics are the cause of an increased level of POP's (persistent organic chemicals) in the environment. POPs are directly related to all kinds of cancers and deformities. I have also written a research paper on POPs, specifically PCBs, present in fish stocks in Detroit river, lake Erie and lake St. Clair in Canada, so I am very well aware of the effects of garbage on the environment. But I did not come across any research papers that studied the relationship between plastics and global warming. it is only logical to assume that plastics in the environment do affect the ability of carbon sinks to absorb carbon.
     
    S

    Salome

    Active Member
    Out of very common logic if that plastic garbage patch in the ocean will like never disappear (considering that enormous time needed for these toxic waste to be depleted it is like never compared to out tiny lifetime) rather keeps refined and find its way into ever smaller organism...this will simply change everything, from wildlife in sea and lands till our human organism (how ironic in the end we swallow the mess we created)...

    I don't need to be a scientist to see when the fine balance, you refer as natural earth cycle once is gone we have a whole new disorder...add to that the carbon emission of the past 200 years, certainly it makes a difference...when ice is melting with such speed in the poles, we won't just have problem of floodings but the changed ocean currents as well...you might know that better how those currents are important and how they can affect the weather as well

    There is a whole school of scientists who are global warming skeptics and disregard the effect of human industries on the environment....sorry but I really find it ridiculous not just because of their skepticism but because if it's up to them we will loose earth in no time...even now that ever more scientists are working on innovative solutions for the environment, chances are that we still face extinction sooner than any other species before
     
    B

    bigbang

    Member
    Salome, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but nothing is in balance. the natural balance you talk about is the way the very first ecologists viewed the natural world. This view is outdated now. Currently, the dominant view in the world of ecology is that nothing is in balance. Evolution as we know it could not have happened, genetic variation prevalent in every species' genome would not exist, and the ability of species to adapt to changing environments would be absent if nature was in balance.

    I get the feeling that you think I don't care about the environemnt. The truth is the complete opposite. I live my life the most environmently friendly way possible. I don't use chemicals to clean, I recycle everything, I don't spray my lawn or fruit trees, I use natural soaps and laundry detergents, I buy only recycled paper, I use recyclable cloth bags for shopping, light bulbs that don't contain any Mercury or PCB cooling liquids, ... and I encourage you and everyone who reads this post to do the same. I remember when I used to go fishing or swimming along Lebanon's beaches, I consistently collected the any plastic bags I came across, people called me crazy, I'm talking 20-30 years ago, way before this wave of love for the environment had hit anyone. I still do it now. Anyway, again the point I want to stress is the global marketing of Carbon as being the cause of global warming, which is more appropriately called now "climate change". There are reasons why big countries are stressing and marketing this issue, one of which is tax. Look up Carbon Tax or Carbon Capture Technology. This carbon thing is going to be the biggest money grab for governments around the world since the invention of tax. Read about those two subjects and you'll get a better idea about what I'm talking about.
    Cheers
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Out of very common logic if that plastic garbage patch in the ocean will like never disappear (considering that enormous time needed for these toxic waste to be depleted it is like never compared to out tiny lifetime) rather keeps refined and find its way into ever smaller organism...this will simply change everything, from wildlife in sea and lands till our human organism (how ironic in the end we swallow the mess we created)...

    I don't need to be a scientist to see when the fine balance, you refer as natural earth cycle once is gone we have a whole new disorder...add to that the carbon emission of the past 200 years, certainly it makes a difference...when ice is melting with such speed in the poles, we won't just have problem of floodings but the changed ocean currents as well...you might know that better how those currents are important and how they can affect the weather as well

    There is a whole school of scientists who are global warming skeptics and disregard the effect of human industries on the environment....sorry but I really find it ridiculous not just because of their skepticism but because if it's up to them we will loose earth in no time...even now that ever more scientists are working on innovative solutions for the environment, chances are that we still face extinction sooner than any other species before
    the most dangerous phase human beings represent against the delicate balance on this planet is when ignorant populations begin to industrialize, they will generate plenty of waste without having enough knowledge of how to adequatly dispose of it.

    with china and india - where close to half of the planet's population live in almost total ignorance - taking fast steps on the industrialization path, the situation is going to get much worse, and polution will sky rocket offsetting the balance dramatically.

    the garbage patchs in the pacific and the atlantic will continue to grow until they begin to represent a threat or an oportunity to the economy of the power brokers.

    a tree will soon become something people only see in a preserve, and the last tree will soon be cut down to publish a book of tree pictures.

    what an ugly future we are making..
     
    Dirty Dragon

    Dirty Dragon

    Well-Known Member
    As far as I know, there is no proof that global warming is man made and not simply part of a natural cycle. That's not to downplay the dangers of the current trajectory of humankind, that is consuming resources and blindly industrializing in a scary pace under the misleading label of "growth". But those dangers and global warming as not as related as they are made out to be.
     
    S

    Salome

    Active Member
    Salome, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but nothing is in balance. the natural balance you talk about is the way the very first ecologists viewed the natural world. This view is outdated now. Currently, the dominant view in the world of ecology is that nothing is in balance. Evolution as we know it could not have happened, genetic variation prevalent in every species' genome would not exist, and the ability of species to adapt to changing environments would be absent if nature was in balance.

    could you pls link any articles or studies supporting this view?

    how do they explain the effect of industries on the environment?

    how does being in balance contradict evolution?


    the garbage patchs in the pacific and the atlantic will continue to grow until they begin to represent a threat or an oportunity to the economy of the power brokers.
    It's damage is here to stay for the next few thousands of years, don't know what we really could do about it....maybe nature should simply claim back what we have taken so carelessly

     
    F

    false Morel

    New Member
    I don't need to be a scientist to see when the fine balance, you refer as natural earth cycle once is gone we have a whole new disorder...add to that the carbon emission of the past 200 years, certainly it makes a difference...
    Well, actually it's not that you don't have to be, you can't be a scientist to view it that way.

    Ah, what would I say.. Arrogant politicians.. They think they know just about everything whereas they can't even locate the Arctic on the world map.. :D

    ---------------------------

    Anyway, bigbang,

    not just to hammer our Salome for her lack of scientific understanding, few questions for you..

    You're suggesting that through time Earth's distance from the sun is what causing this variation in the average global temperatures..

    However, what about the Greenhouse effect?
    Are you suggesting that this mechanism isn't consistent as well?
    That the percentages of those gases change by time as well? Or are you suggesting that the change in that mechanism caused by man is of negligible effects and hence can't be considered as a cause for global warming. Or at least not a direct cause..

    Then, what about the Ozone hole.. Are you suggesting that the Ozone gets f*cked up every now and then by its own?!

    As a last point, I heard about Ice Ages.. But never about Heat Ages!! :D

    There is a whole school of scientists who are global warming skeptics and disregard the effect of human industries on the environment
    Back to you Salome,

    what bigbang is suggesting and explaining here is that all that polution and environmental f*cking going on do exist and have its major and dangerous effects. But global warming isn't one of them.

    sorry but I really find it ridiculous not just because of their skepticism but because if it's up to them we will loose earth in no time...even now that ever more scientists are working on innovative solutions for the environment, chances are that we still face extinction sooner than any other species before
    First of all, don't worry about Earth! The planet itself that is.. It will do just fine.
    You could worry about other species.. However, I wont worry much. There is no species that survives for ever anyway.. And there is no reason to get all excited and sorrow about one species stopping to exist. It's rather stupid.

    About the human species, where is the problem if it's facing extinction?
    You have to explain this part really!
    For instance, I couldn't care less, if in lets say, 500 years there will be no more humans on this planet.

    All you should do is to care have one happy life, where you wont harm others, and neither the environment you're living in.
    But don't worry too much. Just do your job...

    And if that isn't enough. Fine. Then humans deserve that destiny they're writing to themselves..
     
    Jo

    Jo

    Administrator
    Master Penguin
    on a side note, it seems this year's winter is much better then last year's one.

    This is a screenshot of faraya today and last year the same day



     
    LB_proud_2B

    LB_proud_2B

    Member
    This year rainfall as i guess still not reached last year levels and even not close to the normal average. but the good point is that the condensed snow is much better and the melting snow will slowly feed the the fountains and the wells.... and the cool temperatures will preserve bacterias and insects from migrating to higher altitude (case of the cedars reserve illness)... in fact global warming is real,you can not break any part of this chain or....

    You can find out Al Gore 2006 election's campaign documentary that many see it as an extreme situation but at my opinion it is really "The Inconvenient Truth" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxi-OlkmxZ4
     
    S

    Salome

    Active Member
    what if its man made ,or more precise usa terrorism ?
    AIM : CONTROLING THE WORLD BY CLIIMATE TERRORISM

    LebEnvironment News
    ?option=com_content&view=article&id=118:lebanon-under-heattack-is-haarp-used-in-lebanon-&catid=25:articles&Itemid=37


    infact global warming warning and news and storie are created to hide what is really happening see this :HAARP Data Deleted Before Haiti Quake? The Catastrophist 2009-2010
    the global warming was accelerated by human presence/industries however what you mention here is not the ultimate source of it, it is - considering it is true -more like controlling the resources through weather as well

    by the way there is a theory that the french plane from brazil crashing into the atlantic was the result of such magnetic interference
     
    los_tannoury

    los_tannoury

    Member
    hey man you belive in holocaust?they are steeiling german money and still
    you believe that there is swine flu?read well european gov reaction against the vaccins
    you belive in mass destruction weapons in iraq?they are steeling iraq petrol and gave iraq to shiit people and made saudi arabia affrade and now they made the biggest weapon deal ever made with the KSA
    if u do we cant talk about global warming .they are testing their shits to control the climate in order to control the whole world
    like they did b4 about holocaust and swine flu they are doing about global warming
    man they are controling world news ,they are hiding their shits by britning them in news
    they tell you they are fighting terrorism while they create it .
     
    Josef

    Josef

    Member


    this picture is in "swe2e w bchenneta" above miziara and be7wayta..altitude around 1400m taken yesterday.
     
    kalel

    kalel

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    More than 3,500 U.S. Weather Records Smashed in 2012

    Interactive map shows extreme temperatures, rainfall, snowfall, floods, wildfires and droughts

    By Mark Fischetti





    Weather records broken in 2012 Image: Courtesy of Natural Resources Defense Council

    News reports in the past two weeks have noted that 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded in the U.S. Today we learn that 3,527 monthly weather records were broken in 2012, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The tally exceeds the 3,251 records set in 2011, the previous high. NRDC has just released an interactive map equipped with a slider that can be moved from January to December to reveal where record temperatures, rainfall, snowfall, floods, droughts and wildfires were occurring on any given day.

    Tables on the map’s Web site also list the specific date, location and weather record for every one of the 3,527 events. Kim Knowlton, senior scientist at NRDC, noted in a prepared statement that the rising incidence of extreme weather “has awoken communities across the country to the need for preparedness and protection.”

    Tennessee and Wisconsin lead the list of states that had the highest percentage of reporting stations that logged new heat records, at 36 and 31 percent, respectively. March 2012 was the hottest March on record across the contiguous U.S., and July was the hottest single month ever recorded. Last summer also produced the worst drought in 50 years across the nation’s midsection; 1,300 counties in 29 states declared drought disaster areas. And wildfires burned more than 3.7 million hectares nationwide; the average fire size was 65 hectares, far exceeding the 2001-2010 average of 35 hectares.

    The NRDC said the rise in extreme weather records should spur state and national efforts to curb carbon dioxide emissions (the driver of climate change) and improve energy efficiency, and should motivate state and local governments to develop thorough emergency management plans.



    Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=thousands-of-us-weather-records
     
    Chanklish

    Chanklish

    Well-Known Member
    sooner or later we will die from hunger or thirst ..but hey ! don't be sad ..we will still have fuel!
     
    EuroMode

    EuroMode

    Active Member
    The weather report

    THE “polar vortex” that brought freezing weather to North America chipped roughly $3 billion off American output in a week. It was a reminder that extreme weather has economic consequences even in the richest countries and that climate change—which may usher in even wilder fluctuations—is likely to have a big economic impact. A recent burst of studies look at how large it may be, adding useful detail to the initial efforts, such as the Stern review of 2010. The results suggest that climate change may be having an effect already; that the weather influences economies through a surprisingly wide range of channels; but that calculating the long-run effects of climate change is harder than estimating the short-run impact of weather.

    The link between more heat and more poverty is robust. Tropical countries are poorer. In a review of the literature, Melissa Dell of Harvard University, Benjamin Jones of Northwestern University and Benjamin Olken of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology find that, for each 1°C rise in the average temperature of a country, its GDP per head is 8.5% lower. Another study of poor countries alone showed that being 1°C warmer in any given year reduces income per head by 1.4%. These findings would not have surprised Montesquieu, who in 1748 argued that hot climates were inimical to the material conditions of the good life.

    But it does not follow that if global temperatures were to rise by 1°C because of climate change, then world output would be 8.5% lower than it would otherwise have been. Perhaps the correlation between heat and poverty might exist because of some third factor (for example, the presence of malaria). If it were possible to change that factor (ie, eradicate the disease), temperature might cease to matter. Recently, tropical regions from southern China to Rwanda have been among the world’s most economically successful.

    However, a correlation also exists between heat and growth, suggesting a longer-run effect. Despite some successes, tropical countries grew by 0.9 percentage points a year more slowly than the global average in 1965-90. In a sample of 28 Caribbean countries national output fell by 2.5% for each 1°C of warming. Again, this does not prove that high temperatures were to blame. But the correlation is strong enough to make it worth investigating whether the weather itself might be dragging down countries’ growth rates directly. The new literature suggests several ways in which it might do that.

    First, natural disasters still wreak a lot of damage. One study reckons cyclones pushed down the world’s annual GDP growth by 1.3 points in 1970-2008. (Poor countries suffer disproportionately because they are more vulnerable to such disasters.) So if global warming were associated with more extreme weather, it would lower growth.

    Next, higher temperatures and worse droughts tend to reduce farm yields. This hurts poor and middle-income countries most because agriculture has a bigger share in their GDP. To take one case, a decline in rainfall of one standard deviation cuts Brazilian farm incomes by 4%. But the agricultural effect of changing weather varies a lot. There seems to be a threshold of 29°-32°C below which rising temperatures can be beneficial; above it they are sharply harmful. With some crops, rising night-time temperatures do more damage than rising noontime ones. Farmers also adapt to higher temperatures by planting new crops or by emigrating to cities. So the impact of rising temperatures on farming is heterogeneous and hard to measure.

    It is often assumed that the economic effects of climate change will be confined mainly to poor countries. That may be wrong. A study of time-use surveys and temperatures in the United States found that when temperatures reach 100°F (38°C), the labour supply in farming, forestry, construction and utilities falls by an hour a day, compared with what happens at 76-80°F. These are outdoor activities, which may explain why workers fail to show up. But a study of call centres also showed that each 1°C rise between 22°C and 29°C cut labour productivity by 1.8%. And in car factories in America, a week of outside temperatures above 90°F reduced output by 8%. Perhaps the heat disrupts the supply chain—or perhaps air conditioners fail to work properly.

    Lastly, the weather influences basic conditions of life and hence factors of production. In America each additional day above 32°C raises the annual age-adjusted mortality rate by 0.1% relative to a temperate day (10-15°C). In India the rate increases by almost 0.8%. Heatwaves cause early deaths (especially of mothers and infants) and, by affecting the harvest, damage nutrition. This in turn has long-lasting effects on the economy.

    Uncertain, with a chance of sub-optimal equilibrium

    Almost all these correlations derive from weather data from the past five or ten years. But drawing conclusions about climate change—which takes place over hundreds of years—is perilous. Even more than with farming, the impact of climate change will be “non-linear”: changes may be modest up to a point, then turn dramatic. Meanwhile, people can adapt in important ways to changing conditions. This makes simple extrapolation nonsense.

    But the new literature is a start. It shows how information in models of climate impact—recently described as “completely made up”—can be improved. It shows the multiple channels that economists of the climate must heed. It suggests that climate change is not something that will affect only poor countries, or hit rich ones only in the distant future. And—who knows—it may one day show how public policy, now so ineffective, might stem the emissions that are causing the mess in the first place.

    source economist
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Title of the thread should be changed to "climate change", the more accurate representation of this topic, and a phrase agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of scientists. The term "global warming" is a politicized term, and its use doesn't accurately portray the effects and the nature of climate change.
     
    Top