Forums → WEPR → Global Warming

Not even a nuclear holocaust could kill us all

Look how many fallout shelters there are: 0. Maybe one for the president and other important politicians, but the government doesn't care about the people.

I there were a nuclear holocaust not many would survive. There's not to many places to go when your being hit by missiles that have a two and a half mile blast radius.

Look, if the temperature continues to rise at a constant rate (and it is) no one will survive.

It won't. We are just geting out of a little ice age.

Grrr repost.

Alpha Centari is a star smart one. We can't live on stars. Besides, I don't even think we have that long.

What do you think it's planet is called. Moron. Quit with the triple posts and please read some of what other people put time into like the fact that 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor and domesticated animals output more CO2 than man and all his inventions. Enough with the propaganda already.

Actually they are refreezing. Please reacquaint yourself with the present.

Its true but its a slower increase than the decrease when they were melting.

You know from reading all your comments i realize that maybe we aren't all going to die, and now after a little research and reading those climate gate e-mails that the news wont stop talking about... i concluded that its partially man made and wont kill us all! thanks guys!

95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor and domesticated animals output more CO2

First, by the so-called domestic animals, I'm not sure whether you mean pets, or cows. Either way you're at a misconception:

1.) While all living things emit CO2 back into the atmosphere, this is mostly offset by the normal process of the carbon cycle. The problem with fossil fuels is that we're introducing CO2 into the system that hasn't been there for literally hundreds of millions of years. I think it's quite plain to say that nature works in a delicate balance, and too much of any substance on any scale of ecological hierarchy will throw off the equilibrium and have negative results.

2.) If you're referring to cows, they don't emit CO2, but NH4, in much, MUCH greater amounts than humans do CO2. This is, however, where you need a lesson in radiative forcing. First you have to be familiar with the concept that all greenhouse gases are different.

For the most part, there's 3 different types of GHG's that are prevalent in our atmosphere:

-Carbon Dioxide: CO2
-Methane: NH4
-Nitrous Oxide: NO2

Now, these three gases vary in a few different ways, including concentration in the atmosphere, how well they trap long-wave heat radiation, and how long they remain present in the atmosphere. While (if I remember correctly, this is the one detail I'm not sure on) Methane (NH4) is much stronger when it comes to trapping heat, it exists in only a ppb (parts-per-billion) concentration in the atmosphere, and lasts only 4-5 years before dissipating.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not as efficient at trapping heat, but is in the ppm (parts-per-million) concentration in the atmosphere, and lasts over a hundred years in the upper levels of the atmosphere before fading away.

In the last few parts of my Environmental Science lecture, we've been going over climate change, it's causes, and it's potential effects quite thoroughly, and I have to say I'm astounded that anyone's debating whether or not it's actually happening still. The only debate is over the health effects on humans, and how it will affect localized weather phenomenon.

The global climate models are exactly that: a prediction of what the general trend will be around the world. However, when it comes to localized events, we're not so certain. For instance, in Washington, the global models don't include the Cascade Mountains into the equation, thus making it several degrees more mild than it would be. When Washington's numbers (temperature increases, CO2 levels) are run into the same models, slightly altered of course, a significant temperature increase.

Research including monitoring different effects during warming climate phases (El Nino and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, specifically) to see what the future might look like for Washington, and what scientists see is an increased temperature, decreased snowpack, earlier melting of said snowpack, and decreased salmon populations.

I'm kind of just rambling for the last part, but my point remains that there's a general consensus that climate change IS occuring, and there's a general degree of certainty that it is man-made among the scientific community.

Also, keep in mind that I go to one of the top universities for climate change research in the Pacific Northwest, as well as the first school in the world to rely on 100% renewable energy sources on campus. We know our shit.

Valkyrie, mind shooting down the rest of my post, please?

At the rate we're going? No. We have maybe 100 years. Our next generation will be the ones to suffer.

Uh huh. So, we still have 5,000,000 square miles to deforest before we have no forests.

Really, like I said, dinosaurs lived in a perfect world that was 10-11C degrees average higher.

It will take a VERY, VERY long time for that. We're looking at millions of years, not 100. You forget how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, how big the atmosphere is, and how big earth is. You really do.

mankind + deforestation = green house gases

Actually, your sum is wrong. The sum of that is less trees. All animal life on earth produces greenhouse gases. We have about 8 billion greenhouse gas emitting devices on earth, including us. There are 30 billion animals, there are hundreds of volcanoes, and there is the all important sun.

I there were a nuclear holocaust not many would survive. There's not to many places to go when your being hit by missiles that have a two and a half mile blast radius.

2 1/2 miles? That's the range of the shock wave, not its lethal range. They have maybe 1/2 a mile lethal range.

We will survive. We are very good at surviving. We are little wimpy things that survived past even the most enormous of creatures not including the dinosaurs. Giant sloths and bears, mammoths, saber tooth tigers, the like.

I am in a state of shock. A debate that actually reached a productive conclusion on this site. This is the happiest second of my minute.

We'll never be productive. We can't change each others beliefs.

This is, however, where you need a lesson in radiative forcing.

Looks like I forgot to add a part in my post here, sorry. Radiative forcing, is, quickly summarized, the general strength of a GHG in the atmosphere based on the combination of the three factors I listed. As a whole, CO2 has a much greater radiative forcing than either NH4 or NO2, and thus, in addition to the absurd amounts of the molecule we're pumping into the air, is the primary GHG that humanity should be concerned with.

What do you think it's planet is called. Moron. Quit with the triple posts and please read some of what other people put time into like the fact that 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor and domesticated animals output more CO2 than man and all his inventions. Enough with the propaganda already.

&

Alpha Centari is a star smart one. We can't live on stars. Besides, I don't even think we have that long.

Can't we keep this a friendly debate?
____________________________________________________________________

Actually, we HAVE deforested a lot of rain forests in the past 200 years.

Wikipedia -Deforestation:

Global deforestation sharply accelerated around 1852.[74][75] It has been estimated that about half of the earth's mature tropical forests â" between 7.5 million and 8 million km2 (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million km2 (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until 1947 covered the planet[76] â" have now been cleared.[77][78] Some scientists have predicted that unless significant measures (such as seeking out and protecting old growth forests that have not been disturbed)[76] are taken on a worldwide basis, by 2030 there will only be ten percent remaining,[74][77] with another ten percent in a degraded condition.[74]

They've deforested a very small percentage of the worlds rain forests in the past 200 years. I'd say we still have a good ways to go.

If we will only have 10% left in 20 years, then I wouldn't say we have deforested a little.

The sum of that is less trees. All animal life on earth produces greenhouse gases.

Destroying trees leaves the world with one less way to continue the carbon cycle, meaning that without trees, more CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Not to mention that widespread deforestation by burning trees helps emit even more Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.

I've already been over the carbon cycle and how there was a balance in my last post, no need for me to type it all again.

That sounds . . . exaggerated. A lot.

That would also suggest that we will have virtually no forest whatsoever in man parts of the world, yet everywhere we look there is enormous amounts of forest.

If we will only have 10% left in 20 years, then I wouldn't say we have deforested a little.

With another 10% degraded, which needs some clarifying.

90% gone doesn't make a lot of sense if we've been cutting down trees en mass for 150 years, and nowadays the majority of lumber (the primary source of wood) isn't made from useless jungle, neither is paper.

10% doesn't make sense. If it was that small, we would literally see it from space. We would see the Amazon (about 30-50% gone) down to just a few patches. The rain forests in Africa would look similar.

Now, we have to cut down 4 billion trees to accomplish that.

Doesn't connect.

At the rate we're going? No. We have maybe 100 years. Our next generation will be the ones to suffer.

Uh huh. So, we still have 5,000,000 square miles to deforest before we have no forests.

So, if you do out the math, that's 50,000 miles per year, according to valkyrie.
Because we're obviously deforesting areas the size of arkansas in one sitting.

I think that the earth goes through natural heating and cooling periods. You can tell that from the soil deposits and rock formations. Some layers will show dust, which might be a sign of a warmer, drier period. Others may show a lot of fossilized(I don't think is the right term though :P) pollen, which may mean a more humid climate.
What I'm trying to say is that humans aren't the main problem. We are just adding to it. You see, the earth already had a good apple pie. All the ingredients were correct, a few sprinkles on top and a bit of frosting. Us humans are slowly adding a scoop of ice cream to the top; and while this isn't changing it too dramatically, it still affects it.
I do believe we should change our deposit of NH4 and CO2 to more water vapor *cough*...hydrogen fuels...*cough* so that whatever goes into the atmosphere does not hold as much heat in and dissapates after a short period of time(it's called "rain&quot