Members | Sign In
All Forums > Random
avatar

Global warming, or global cooling and what is causing it?

posted Oct 26, 2011 10:32:06 by LeeHaslamVT
So are we going to have a new ice age or are we going to drown in water. The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But its warming down there, what effect will it have?

Our small island is in the warming path of the Atlantic conveyor that brings the warm water up the north, that keeps our winters relativley mild. If this changed due fresh water being dumped into the oceans, changing the salinity - this would stall the conveyor. Result of which would be a rapid cooling, allowing the north pole ice sheet to expand southwards - ice age.

Well the planet is warming up, but will that mean hot summers or artic winters? And what is causing it, sun spots? Carbon dioxide? Industry? Humans,... Cows??

What do you think?



page   1 2 next last
18 replies
avatar
LeeHaslamVT said Oct 26, 2011 10:35:11
This guy has got the uk weather spot on for over two years! Check it out!
http://www.exactaweather.com/UK_Long_Range_Forecast.html


avatar
ChrisSpears said Oct 26, 2011 14:42:43
The way i see it if the conveyor stops we would revert to temperatures like those felt in canadas Labrador region of Newfoundland as we sit at the same latitude as this region though as to what to expect from the weather- the conveyor also brings us the majority of our rainfall from the atlantic with winds running south-west to north-west this would also alter possibly making our country drier but much colder or resulting in poor ability to push bad weather over the country as quickly, there could be unforseen effects to the ceasing of an underwater current mostly to marine life which has evolved to thrive by using the conveyor its likely that such things would affect fish populations and breeding habits, as to a change in sea level it makes you wonder why we are persisting in placing nuclear power facilities on the coasts (Hinckley C)having them 61 meters below sea level isnt going to do anything for our water quality thats for sure.
avatar
stevenmaidens said Oct 28, 2011 09:47:03
Ice age !!

Im going to do my jeremy clarkson impression and stick my neck out....

Do I believe all the bollocks that our goverment tells me...? NO i dont!!.
Do I think that "WE" the people of the planet are responsible...? NO I dont!!.
Do I think recycling is a good thing?....from a resources point of view..Yes!!
Do I think that we should try to live in harmony with our planet..? Yes!!
Do I think that industry is really the cause of all of the pollution, green house gases,etc??
Yes!!

People that jet around the planet daily are in the minority !! these guys are causing all kinds of trouble in our atmosphere..shoot them..lol
Nuclear !! .....idiots...

any kind of process that makes the world sick should cease !!!imediately...

The goverments of the world rely on industry to keep the economy's flowing..Which is why they dont do Shite when it comes to stopping billionaire wankers from building more belching,spewing planet killing factories..

If we want change..We have to first CHANGE our point of view..instead of believeing the bollocks that the goverment reptiles feed us!!

"Throw them a dead sheep and the dogs will be quiet"
avatar
LeeHaslamVT said Oct 29, 2011 07:03:18
Yeah Steve Clarkson.. like it! The shit we get about if we change our habits and pay more carbon taxes when China is out of control - A coal fire power station opens every week! The planet has warmed and cooled many times and it wil keep doing so long after we have gone. ooops perhaps I should of posted this as a vent Topic???!

Chris that was so insightful. Do you remember the floods in Gloucester? They had built a power station along side the river, river overflowed - no power. The Icebergs are melting, the permafrost is melting all over the world, in particular - Siberia. Releasing methane and carbon dioxide. Although nowhere near as prevalent or long-lasting as carbon dioxide, methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas, with more than 20 times the heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide.
avatar
ScottHutchinson said Oct 29, 2011 12:40:03
OK well here is my two penneth for what its worth. Is the climate warming yes beyond any doubt are human beings responsible possibly. All the evidence suggests that the climate is warming at a faster rate than it has in the past can't find any fault in the data or their conclusions. I think a distinction has to be made here between Weather and Climate. Weather can change wildly between hot and cold from day to day or year to year. Climate is like the overall average and is measured more in decades and eons than day to day, year to year. Also as Chris points out the effect of warming won't necessarily produce a hot climate especially for us, London is on the same latitude as Moscow!
The evidence that man is the culprit is a bit more circumstantial, the main driving factor seems to be carbon dioxide it persists in the upper atmosphere long enough to have a substantial effect. Most reputable climatologists think the data points to the cause as being mass industrialisation of the planet. If it is not this then what is it? The only thing that could make a big enough difference is industrialisation or so many volcanoes going off it would wipe us off the face of the planet anyway, that hasn't happened industrialisation has.
Yes methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas, however it does not persist in the upper atmosphere for long enough to have a big effect, it is volatile and breaks down quickly it is the same with other big atmosphere ingredient water vapour.
So on balance I think we are responsible collectively for the climate change, do I think the government are milking the situation to push through policies and increase taxes?! Without any doubt they are doing these things. Even the more conservative scientist are of the opinion that there is nothing that can be done to halt the predicted warming it is now inevitable. We still need to reverse the process though its just that it will take a few years to get back to normal, approx 5000 years! This figure is based on previous climate changes in the past and the length of time it has taken for them to stabilize. The question then is can we adapt to it and what will the cost to civilisation be?
Well most first world countries will probably adapt they can afford to, those who will pay as always will be the third world countries, will this increase world stability? Doubtful.
I think the world is going to be in for a really dark time which could explain the rise in spiritual beings on this plane. I truly think that if we can not unite as a world to fight off this threat then our world will be plunged into a period of darkness that will make the dark ages look enlightened by comparison. However the longer we collectively stick our heads in the sand and not confront the consequences of this the harder it is going to be to create a united response. The big problem comes in that no one knows when the tipping point will be reached, the climate is a Chaotic system (see chaos theory)it can remain stable in an unsteady state for a considerable time and then bang everything can change extremely quickly with virtually no warning (think 'The Day After Tomorrow').
There is a whole lot of stuff I've left out of this like the consequence for the production of power. Here is just a bit for you to think on, if you converted every dirty power station to green production the resultant drop in power production would mean industry would grind to a halt there would be rolling blackouts through out the country and some areas would lose power permanently! The demand for energy in this country is greater than can be provided by green power production alone, now think of that effect globally! You can see the pressure to go nuclear is virtually unstoppable. Now if Japan a highly technological country with high operating standards can suffer such a disaster as it did in the recent tsunami at Fukushima think about certain third world countries with less scruples and lower operating standards running a nuclear power plant!!!
If we must go nuclear and I can't see us being able to stop it, (CND did not get nuclear missiles removed form this country Ronald Regan and Gorbachev did)and I can't see us making any breakthroughs on Nuclear Fusion anytime soon, then we should at least make sure that the power station will shut down on its own in a disaster these systems are called PBRs that is Pebble Bed Reactors and run what they call passive safety systems without getting too technical you have to actively keep the reactor going if for any reason you don't then as the core gets hotter (which it is designed to do)the reactions slow down and stop and the whole pile cools down. I agree that nuclear power is a last resort and certainly isn't my first choice of power production and frankly the byproducts from the process far outweigh the benefit in power. I can see governments taking the easy option for power production despite their populations objections! It's a question of how radical your prepared to be to stop them?
For a good web site on climate go to www.realclimate.org this site is for climate scientists you won't get any hype on this site just data and theories though it can get quite technical and you do need some knowledge of things like the hydrological cycle.
[Last edited Oct 29, 2011 12:44:21]
avatar
ChrisSpears said Oct 29, 2011 19:02:30
Well said Steve lets let common sense prevail here its likely that we are facing a change in the earths climate whatever the source that will place great pressure on our ability to adapt. I apreciate your insight into this topic Scott i agree on many levels, perhaps we should simply think radicaly- its true that our current technological understanding is severely limited in the field of renewable energy and demand would exceed our capability to supply were we to instantly change from fossil fuels and nuclear fission to remewable sources such as solar geothermal tidal and wind power and with Fusion based power in its infancy (and the worlds supply of helium on the verge of running out) we clearly cannot make the change immediatly perhaps we should devote more time and resources into researching renewable energies and the technologies to employ them effectivly i believe we dont know enough about the limits of material based technology to rule out renewable energy just yet, Nanotechnology and molecular science may hold the key to stronger lighter specificly taylored materials for use in all machines and structures- literaly designed from the molecular level up these new materials would revolutionise science and our technological reach- an example would be super thermal conducting materials for use in solar paneling and geothermal projects or super light/strong alloys for use in tidal power stations or wind turbines, although we are years away from these technological leaps forward at present we can see the beginings of such technology now like molecular treatments for high spec lenses to prevent water beading and abrasion. I wont go on about molecular tech too much i have a tendancy to side-track, we have a chace here to let the world test us push us to adapt- life is change without change we would stagnate lets see this as a challenge to be overcome whatever the reason for climate change we need to band together and innovate its what we as humans have proven we can do, the world has forged us over the millenia what hasnt killed us has made us stronger. Einstien believed that using the same kind of thinking that caused the problem in the first place to fix that problem is unwise at best, adaptation is our strongest genetic inheritance- lets do it.
avatar
ScottHutchinson said Oct 29, 2011 23:16:35
You are absolutely right Chris the technology is being developed, the Holy Grail of Electrics is of course room temperature super conductors. If they could come up with that it would totally revolutionise power production. Incidentally if you want to read some interesting things about electricity you should read about the more obscure inventions of Tesla. Especially his plans to broadcast energy and why he stopped!
I agree we do need to unite, unfortunately there are vested interests in the world who find it expedient to set groups against each other so genuine progress is either slowed or stopped all together. Case in point is the electric car GM had a complete workable solution back in the 90s called EV1 however it was only leased to people so when it started to prove too popular they revoked the lease and recalled the car and stopped all research, who got to them. We are only now getting back to where they were, where could we be now had they carried on with the experiment? So while I totally agree with your sentiment I have seen too many excellent projects that would have advanced mankind, disappear into obscurity.
[Last edited Oct 29, 2011 23:21:17]
avatar
ChrisSpears said Oct 30, 2011 18:49:27
I believe under stress the world order may well change, its base of power destroyed by conditions beyond its control, its own enforced will to contain human nature will lead to its demise, its like trying to alter the flow of a river- build a dam re-route the flow but ultimatly anything man made cannot persist against the primal force of the water and it carves its own course even if that takes a thousand years, suppressing the human spirit is much the same one ruler may reign with an iron fist but eventualy even the most long lived leader will perish one way or another. Control of complex systems especialy organic systems is notoriously dificult- those with vested interests that clash with free will of human endeavor or instinct for change are in for a difficult time and in the end they are looking after the wrong interests they want to stay safe in the certainty of what works and what makes the most money.. but in the end rising tides dont care how much your portfolio is worth and they will lose the illusion of control they hold so dear.
Human nature is a primal force one of change and adaptation always forging on into the future- we are on a course for the stars some would see progress grind to a halt to line their pockets with gold and thats a shame... but its not going to stop us.
avatar
stevenmaidens said Oct 30, 2011 18:53:54
Hi guys...Can I just stress that i wasnt saying I dont think we (the collective) were to blame..obviously we are. I was really just pointing out the relationship between fact and political propaganda scare mongering.

Yes the world has gone through hot and cold patches before but not quite as quickly as it is now..So proof of our impact is pretty solid.

Its a bit like they say "we" are in debt for a zillion quid..WE didnt spend it !!! they did..Did we ask them to buy another gazzillion bombs to drop on some poor sap ....no..just like our personal carbon footprint is like a drop in the ocean compared to industry and rich "lets take the jet to go shopping"types

an interesting point that a friend of mine made the other day was the few thousand recycle lorries only did somthing like 6 miles to the gallon, gas guzzelling waste of space. not only that, but once they dump the stuff another load of lorries and boats then transport it to wherever it gets recycled..Not to mention the power to melt all those bottles,glass,plastic etc..By the time it arrives in india or China its well in excess of the tipping point to make it viable..But the goverment has to be seen to be doing somthing..

Tesla! nice one Scott..and yes Ive already introduced brother Chris to teslas ideas..

They say he was taken by flying saucer to live in a hollow mountain in south america.

Who knows...bizarre though Carolinas people still to this day believe a technically advanced race live in the mountains of her country..Most of these mountains have never been explored..cool or what.

Anyway I just wanted to put my point straight...Im with you guys..brothers to the end..huzzah

avatar
ChrisSpears said Nov 04, 2011 18:50:05
If we had minifacturing technology we could recycle right in our own homes breaking glass plastics and metals down into uni gels and powders minifacturing would also mean we could download schematics to our home workstations and produce our own items out of waste materials that would see the start of home industry and the end of wasteful national recycling, to acomplish this technological leap several technolgies need to push forward primarily nanotechnology to enable us to break down materials at the atomic level and build up from the same this would also allow us to build custom materials steel as hard as diamond and as light as titanium for example, fusion based power would have to step up or another power source capable of powering a new technological revolution would need to step up to the fore- as the nantechnology advanced so would our capacity to power it, as Scott mentioned room temperature superconductors would then be a reality the new materials would allow us to make them cheaply and to a high specification- without the need for vast cooling units for supercomputers the tech could then be miniturised opening the doors to home computers as powerful as those they now use for genetic research only as small as a laptop. It may seem like a long way off but Japanese and American biotech firms are already investigating nanotechnology for use in medicine another research institute is experimenting with magneticaly contained fusion power using high energy plasma and as always silicon valley is constantly innovating the silicon chip also on this front a british firm is researching a whole new form of chip using what they called quantum computing taking advantage of the natural properties of light beams that promises faster response times and greater multitasking ability than traditional silicon logic gate type chips.
avatar
bauchmeister said Nov 07, 2011 12:46:09
Sounds marvellous Chris; however I can foresee one or two problems, such as changing our whole consumer society paradigm, not to mention convincing the vested interests to give up their manufacturing monopoly! “Via la Revolution”.
Quantum computing is already here last March Erik Lucero from the University of California Santa Barbara demonstrated a 6 Qubit (Quantum bit) chip which they hope to scale up to 10 Qubits later this year. I know that doesn’t sound like much but it would only take 100 Qubit chip to compete with modern 3 or 4 million bit chips. This is because the Qubits can be both 0 and 1 at the same time (called superposition) calculations can be made on all the states at once, this gives it enormous computing capacity.
I know about the research you have mentioned, it is a different architecture that uses lasers to trap ions. The problem with this system at the moment is that it is so complex that you would need a room full of PhDs to run all your lasers.
As it is usually the one that can go to market first and is simple to use that becomes the standard I don’t think the lasers system stands a chance.
[Last edited Nov 07, 2011 12:46:53]
avatar
ScottHutchinson said Nov 08, 2011 21:56:15
In case your wondering bauchmeister is me!
avatar
stevenmaidens said Nov 09, 2011 12:32:46
What is Bauchmeister scott ? and why dont I have an e-mail address for you anymore...Im sure i used to..
avatar
ScottHutchinson said Nov 11, 2011 13:19:09
Bauchmeister is my online persona, I had to sign in using another account because facebook was playing up then I thought no one will know who bauchmeister is hence the post, it is also part of my email address. I don't know why you don't have my email address anymore perhaps you have misplaced it! I think it is available on facebook but I'm not sure, will send you an email and then you should have it again. I
avatar
stevenmaidens said Nov 11, 2011 16:23:06
Cool bro, I will look on Fb..Im not sure why its gone..I dont delete contacts..maybe except for fence sitters...lol
Login below to reply: