PDA

View Full Version : Global Threats



hershal
2005-Jun-29, 10:42 AM
This is a brief of the topics that I hope we would discuss under this thread :

Why do we have global warming ? What I think is tht we have added a lot of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere , which is creating green house effect.

More over due to more tilting of the earth, the area of temperate zones is increasing which means more regions would have extreme summers and extreme winters.

Fresh water is getting sparse.....should we commercialise it or should be kept free ?

Upto what extent is man capable of dealing with aesteroid 2004 MN4 if it was to hit the earth ?

What can we do ? And what are we doing ?

And all other things that pose a global threat are welcome here.

hershal
2005-Jun-29, 10:53 AM
http://epaperdaily.timesofindia.com/Reposi...ish-skin-custom (http://epaperdaily.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JQS8yMDA1LzA2LzI2I0FyMDAxMDI=&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom)

Above is a link to an article in Times,26 June 2005. Sea invades parsi settlements :o since three years but they are settled there since 1742,october :blink: .

IS THIS AN EFFECT OF GLOBAL WARMING :huh: ?

madman
2005-Jun-29, 02:55 PM
broader picture?
http://reactor-core.org/summers-lease.html

John L
2005-Jun-30, 06:30 PM
Why do we have global warming ? What I think is tht we have added a lot of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere , which is creating green house effect.Global Warming is a natural occurrence. The temperature levels of the Earth are currently cyclical. The Earth warms up slowly over millenia and then cools down. We don't know why this happens. We also cannot prove that anything that man has ever done has contributed to this. Some scientist guess that man is contributing, but it has not and probably cannot be proven. We can't project any complex system very far into the future. Our weather predictions are close out to five days, and usually wrong beyond that, but some scientists are claiming that they can accurately predict the trends of the entire Earth's climate out to 100 years into the future? Pah-lease!!!


More over due to more tilting of the earth, the area of temperate zones is increasing which means more regions would have extreme summers and extreme winters.I didn't know the Earth's tilt had changed. I know the tilt precesses so that winter now will be summer 11,500 years from now, but I thought our axis tilt was otherwise stable and regulated by the Moon. Do you have a link showing evidence of this shift?


Fresh water is getting sparse.....should we commercialise it or should be kept free?Commercial bottled water costs more per gallon that gasoline in the US. One solution for the US is to annex Canada, as they posses about 2/3 of the world's fresh water supply. The other solution is to thin the herd.


Upto what extent is man capable of dealing with aesteroid 2004 MN4 if it was to hit the earth?We've proven with NEAR that we can get a probe into orbit around and land on an asteroid. Deep Impact and Rosetta will do the same with a comet. Therefore, using the prefered method of deflection, we know we have the ability to get the equipment there. The question is, do we nuke it, paint it, mount an engine on it, land a mass driver on it, attach a solar sail to it, blast it with a laser, or shine a big mirror at it. Depending on the lead time to impact we can do one or more of these. With a long lead time (years to decades) just a small push will add up over time so that a hit becomes a miss. If we have little lead time (months to a year) we're probably doomed. 2004MN4 won't kill everyone off, but where it landed would have a pretty bad day. We could probably crash program a big rocket with a big nuke to nudge to a new path, but we'd only have one shot.

John L
2005-Jun-30, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by madman@Jun 29 2005, 08:55 AM
broader picture?
http://reactor-core.org/summers-lease.html
Excellent link that I agree with completely. Global Warming is something that occurs natuarlly and cyclically. We are in a natural warming period, and based on the info about the vikings, it sounds good to me.

aeolus
2005-Jun-30, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by John L@Jun 30 2005, 06:30 PM
I didn't know the Earth's tilt had changed. I know the tilt precesses so that winter now will be summer 11,500 years from now, but I thought our axis tilt was otherwise stable and regulated by the Moon. Do you have a link showing evidence of this shift?

I'm pretty sure Ive read in a few places that the obliquity of the earth's axis of rotation cycles between 22 and 24.5 degrees. I don't know where I actually read it (published, in a real book), but Im sure you can google it and find some resources (albiet internet sites with questionable credibility)

Again, this is cyclical, though, just like the precession of the axis and the eccentricity of the orbit. Nothing out of the ordinary.

hershal
2005-Jul-01, 06:52 AM
broader picture?
http://reactor-core.org/summers-lease.html

Great Article :) !

Earth has seen Warm and Cool Periods before and we have survived it . But this time if it is warming its not going to be only the nature that works , we have also contributed CO2 and Methane. So, along with natural global warming we also have to take into accounts the effects due to greenhouse effect. Even if all industrial pollution and auto emissions suddenly ceased today, Earth's climate will warm at least 1 degree by the year 2100 and seas will rise 4 inches (11 centimeters), according to a new study.The warming is likely to continue through 2400, another study forecasts.The worst-case scenario projects the global average temperature rising 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit within this century and the sea level climbing a foot or more. More here :http://www.livescience.com/environment/050317_global_warming.html


And there certainly is, a necessity to raise an alarm over the increasing pollution and population. Due to pollution many species have been extincted and many are on the verge of being extinct. This affects the ecosystem adversely. Also it effects us.Us, how ?

For e.g. due to use of chemical fertilisers the grass and hence cows & buffaloes have insecticides in their body. This flows into vultures and now, vultures are on verge of getting extinct. This has led to increase in no. of Kites/Crows ( How, I donno , saw it on discovery ). Moreover. if you are not aware of parsi people's way of cremation , lemme tell you. They put the dead bodies in large open spaces where the vultures are supposed to come and have their meal. Now, when vultures are gone, their meal remains in open for long, then it stinks :wacko:

So, lets have a self imposed panic, save nature, rather than let nature press the panic button ( in near future ).




didn't know the Earth's tilt had changed. I know the tilt precesses so that winter now will be summer 11,500 years from now, but I thought our axis tilt was otherwise stable and regulated by the Moon. Do you have a link showing evidence of this shift?

http://epaperdaily.timesofindia.com/Reposi...ish-skin-custom (http://epaperdaily.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JQS8yMDA1LzA2LzI5I0FyMDA1MDA=&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom)

this is the article in times ,29 June. And the earth's axis does rotate in a small loop between 22deg and 24.5 deg in a span of 36,000 yrs or so ( not sure about the no. ).

madman
2005-Jul-01, 10:53 AM
i read once that there is supposed to be a volcano down in antarctica that spews out methane..heard anything about that?...ie: whether it's true or not.

imru
2005-Jul-01, 11:28 AM
Earth's climate will warm at least 1 degree by the year 2100 and seas will rise 4 inches (11 centimeters), according to a new study.The warming is likely to continue through 2400, another study forecasts.The worst-case scenario projects the global average temperature rising 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit within this century and the sea level climbing a foot or more.

The past has shown that once the heat goes on, the oceans current shut down...and we promptly (~10 years) enter an Ice Age. The movie "The Day After Tomorrow" I believe was written on this new found research. Also, our climate models aren't that good. Head over to IBM's supercomputing site and take a look at the predicted models for snowfall, or hurricane tracks...they are normally way off. A good tool nonetheless, but still not reliable. Maybe it will take a couple of extra degrees to finally get out of the oil (ahem...money) age we are in.

John L
2005-Jul-01, 04:03 PM
hershel,

You state clearly that you liked the article linked to by madman, and then try to say the exact opposite that the article says. That article, which you seemed to like, clearly shows that warming and cooling are a totally natural phenomenon independent of any human actions, and that the warming trend do not result in radical damage to the environment, but rather radical benefits.

imru,

The Day After Tomorrow movie was widely derided as a pathetic joke. Those models of ocean flow are totally speculative, and next to impossible to prove. Yes, if you ignore the millions of factors that affect ocean currents and focus on just one or two you can come up with that result, but we cannot even model all of the factors that are involved, let alone even speculate on their impact on the model. And as medman's link points out, previous warming trends were actually beneficial to mankind and nature in general (remember we are part of nature, too, regardless of how smart we think we are).

madman
2005-Jul-01, 09:44 PM
http://www.muellerworld.com/eb_rice/

hershal
2005-Jul-03, 08:13 PM
270,000,000 tons of chlorine are emitted each year naturally from the evaporation of sea water.

The largest single source of greenhouse gases may well be termites. They are responsible for 45 billion tons of carbon dioxide and methane each year. This is 10 times more than what is produced by humans buring fossil fuel.

An example, cows in the United States alon produce 45,000,000 tons of hydrocarbons and methane each year. They belch this up when they regurgitate material from their first stomach to chew it for the second stomach.

The termites are doing this all the time. Last time when we had warming periods, the termites , cows did produce the same amount they are doing now ( approx.). Also the sea water used to evaporate. But during this warming period, along with them we are also contributing some chlorine, some CO2 , some methane,etc. for e.g. total CO2 would be "other sources + 45 billion tons ( termites ) +1/10th of 45 billiontons "So there are chances tht magnitude of ordeal will increase and to counterbalance it ( although we can;t do it fully ) , we surely need to take a few steps.



and since the news media are primarily in the entertainment business, scientific accuracy seems to have a very low priority.

that's right ! but it also does a remarkable job ! for e.g.US which is the greatest polluter of the world, didn't sign kyoto protocol.
And the author of the "http://www.muellerworld.com/eb_rice/ " article says grabing pollution in US won't make much effect ? that's just an illogical statement.



We must try harder to seperate act from fiction and help the general public understand what is happening to the environment, who is causing it, and what they can do to help.

That's absolutely correct ! I really support it . And so am tellin tht the link madman had provided earlier ( http://reactor-core.org/summers-lease.html ) does not provide a clear full picture.This time its just not a natural warming period, we have also contributed a lot of greenhouse gases.

If you are a USitizen or anybody from a developed country you won't realise the magnitude of pollution we are making. Because you have a more advanced area planning, the industrial zones are far away from the residential area.

Here, in India / in any developing nation, they r nearby the residential zones. We can feel the pollution on our face. In the regions adjoining the industrial zones the water does not remain potable, nor does the land remain cultivable. We see people dying of pollution and you just read about them ( or even don't ). If you have to go on your 2 wheeler during office hours, it feels like an ordeal.A lot of traffic cops suffer from lung diseases and a few also get cancer along with their paychecks. The whole river Yamuna ( in north india , near delhi) has been converted into a trash with indutrial effluents.

The description I have given is not fictious, but a reality, a reality of my own city which is on its way to get a metropolitan tag. Its almost same in all the big cities in India.


So, the high pollution level alarms may seem a joke to few, but for many its not !


Life's going to be miserable , if we do not seize polluting the environment.

You may feel that its only India that needs to control pollution, no ! US is a fully N-armed nation, and in doing so it has produced barrels and barrels of radio-active waste.And recently it has again started producing plutonium.USA is the source of more than 30 per cent of the global emissions of different hot house gases. The numbers it shows, even at a per capita rate, are conclusive that it is also the greatest contaminating source.


Country Total Emissions Emission per capita(Equivalent in CO2 metric tons)
USA 6503.8 24.3
China 4964.8 4.0
India 2081.7 2.2
Russia 1980.3 13.4
Japan 1166.1 9.3
Germany 956.0 11.6
Brazil 695.7 4.2
S Africa 677.2 15.9
Canada 634.0 20.9
U K 618.7 10.5

the per capita graph shows that India comes is least polluter .And most of the well developed nations stand tall in the per capita graph. The info. is from http://www.enjoy-patagonia.org/related-art...ange-global.php (http://www.enjoy-patagonia.org/related-articles/cientific-the-climatic-change-global.php) and the present report is a résumé of studies performed by:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).



You state clearly that you liked the article linked to by madman, and then try to say the exact opposite that the article says

I liked the (LCO) article because it seems to be a result of tremendous research. But with regard to today's topic of debate, it does not provide us a full picture of reality. The other article pointed out by madman was better, it really stated what needs to be done.

Tom2Mars
2005-Jul-04, 08:27 AM
hershal, those are very important firsthand accounts of the effects of pollution! Thanks.

And John L, Re-
We don't know why this happens. We also cannot prove that anything that man has ever done has contributed to this.

I believe that the way scientific and logical arguments work, is, that if you don't know why something happens, then you cannot prove something...either way.

While one might not be able to prove that we are contributing to an observed climate change, others cannot prove that we are not contributing.

Sound fair?

madman
2005-Jul-04, 09:34 AM
i agree that regardless of how much "pollution" is "naturally" produced...we humans also still contribute too much to the total.

*********************************************

i once worked at greenpeace (93-94)...but wasn't impressed by the methods involved.

we seemed to be more of a money collection agency...which was sent overseas to greenpeace international to pay their costs first (rainbow warrior etc)...and then anything left over was sent back to us.
we had no vote in the organisation...and were being trained with what seemed like nlp techniques..which made me feel like we were brainwashing people to believe what we said.

*****************************
anywhere there's a gravytrain (or the possibility that an organisation could be turned into one)..it will happen.
it leaves me with little faith that environmental concerns will ever be dealt with properly.

damienpaul
2005-Jul-04, 01:19 PM
However there is a cruel ironic twist in this, Its a cruel irony that one of teh effects of removing aerosol pollutants (particles etc) from the atmosphere could see a very sharp increase in global warming in the next century. ABC/ Reuters report (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1403848.htm), ABC Science Online (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_1404215.htm) and a Climate Change (http://www.climatechange.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=267) discussion on the matter.

A lot of the aerosols are from natural sources, e.g. volcanoes, duststorms etc, but alot of it is concentrated around idustrial bases.

aeolus
2005-Jul-04, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Tom2Mars@Jul 4 2005, 08:27 AM
I believe that the way scientific and logical arguments work, is, that if you don't know why something happens, then you cannot prove something...either way.

While one might not be able to prove that we are contributing to an observed climate change, others cannot prove that we are not contributing.

Sound fair?
I think that sounds great. I've never said that emissions are the cause of global warming, but I don't run around saying "this is totally natural and it's not our fault, so lets just keep doing what we're doing without looking at what might be the consequence."

I totally agree with you, Tom.

hershal
2005-Jul-04, 07:26 PM
I think, we've had good healthy discussion regarding, do we contribute to global warming or not. Regardless of the result of the discussion , I would like to say something.

The only remedy to decrease the greenhouse gases ( here CO2 )that we have contributed is that we should do afforestation on a large scale. The afforestation should be done in the urban and industrial areas where the real source of CO2 lies.

Moreover, due to afforestation we can also check the growth of dry and consequently desert regions and help decrease the dust particles from atmosphere which are the aerosols that contribute only in global warming and not in global cooling.

I am not aware of any methods regarding removal of green house gases other than CO2 like Methane, Nitrous Oxide ( N2O ) ,etc. Any big brains out B) ?

John L
2005-Jul-05, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by Tom2Mars@Jul 4 2005, 02:27 AM
And John L, Re-
We don't know why this happens. We also cannot prove that anything that man has ever done has contributed to this.

I believe that the way scientific and logical arguments work, is, that if you don't know why something happens, then you cannot prove something...either way.

While one might not be able to prove that we are contributing to an observed climate change, others cannot prove that we are not contributing.

Sound fair?
Tom,

We can't prove that watching the sun with the SOHO probe will cause the Sun to burn out, but that doesn't mean we stop. Saying that we can't prove something bad doesn't mean we have to still jump and do something about it. To stay topical, we don't even know if any of this climate speculation is correct. We've been trying to model the Earth's climate for nearly a century now just to try to predict the weather, and can only be reasonably accurate for a few days out. Now we are being asked to believe that the same people who can't tell us whether it will rain later this week can tell us what the temperatures, water levels, and weather patterns will be a century from now. We don't even know how we'll be producing our energy then, let alone what the climate will be like.

Furthermore, we know that the climate is anything but static. Assuming automatically that if there is any change currently occurring that it is caused by and the responsibility of human beings is ludicrous. Create a model that can accurately predict the climate right now, taking acount of all possible factors, then show that it accurately predicts the future by running it and comparing those results to reality, and only then feeding in suspected changes to inputs and show me a human caused global warming output and I'll start paying attention. Until then everyone is speculating and we shouldn't cripple our economy based on speculation.

hershal
2005-Jul-09, 06:04 PM
Re : To John L

Create a model that can accurately predict the climate right now, taking acount of all possible factors, then show that it accurately predicts the future by running it and comparing those results to reality, and only then feeding in suspected changes to inputs and show me a human caused global warming output and I'll start paying attention. Until then everyone is speculating and we shouldn't cripple our economy based on speculation.

It has not been possible till yet to create a model that accurately predicts the weather because there are innumerable factors affecting the climate. There are many tiny factors which are negligible but adding all tiny factors it makes a noticeable difference. And so for the same reason, i don't think it would be ever possible to create such a model ( like the one u've described ) in the future too.

Moreover all the global warming theories are not just theories , we also posses some proofs that proves them. To just give you an idea about magnitude of human activities ( that surely show a remarkable difference in the environment ), i can point out some phenomena :

1. We are observing Noctilucent Clouds. Though its beautiful but still a result of pollution. They have also been observed by astronauts in ISS.I am not sure but,most probably they are consequence of increased pollution particles in upper atmosphere that gives a surface to water to condense upon.

2. They are also called PMC's ( Polar Mesospheric Clouds ) . An article that discusses effect of space shuttle launch on formation of PMC' s is NRL Press Release - also appeared in UT newsletter (http://www.nrl.navy.mil/pressRelease.php?Y=2005&R=36-05r).
Though they are called PMC's they have started appearing on the lower lattiudes.

I hope this evidence is enough to show that we do make a remarkable contribution of pollutants in our atmosphere.

__________________________________________________ __________________

UT newsletter also had an article from NASA, which says tht rising sea levels have been accurately observed thru satellites and also the rate of rise in sea level is increasing :
See the full article (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-111)

damienpaul
2005-Jul-10, 01:59 AM
There is a specific mission (the AIM Mission for 2006) to study Noctilucent Clouds. This Climate Change Discussion (http://www.climatechange.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=126&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20) has more links to it.

hershal
2005-Jul-11, 02:07 PM
for the Uters i'll like to put up the reason that why NLC's are a result of increasing pollution .

It is very likely that the whole phenomenon should be credited for industrial activity. The atmospheric methane concentration has more than doubled since pre-industrial era. The increased amount of methane and other greenhouse gases have increased the temperature in the lowest parts of the atmosphere, but decreased it elsewhere. It is thus quite possible that noctilucent clouds (and mother-of-pearl clouds) are first visible sign of our impact on the climate of Earth. Comparison of the NLC observations with the solar or aurora activity suggests that these temperature-altering phenomena clearly affect the number of NLC sightings, further confirming the ice theory.

How does methane create clouds ???

The photodissociation of methane in the mesosphere. This process produces water vapour for noctilucent cloud formation in situ, i.e., it doesn't have to be transported to the place of formation. This is an advantage, as water vapour is also photodissociated above 65 km altitude. In the mesopause, the average lifetime of a water molecule is only 3-10 days.

Due to the gravity waves ( i dunno what they are :rolleyes: ) in summer there is some temp decrease in mesosphere upto -143 C / 130 K / -226 F, so the water molecules condense into clouds . More detailed informationHere (http://www.meteo.helsinki.fi/~tpnousia/nlcgal/nlcinfo.html)

John L
2005-Jul-11, 03:57 PM
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the population of the planet has increased about 6 fold. In that same time we have also drastically increased the number of cows, pigs, sheep, and other livestock animals. Many of these, cows especially, produce methane in their disgestion process, or it eminates from their waste products. This could be the explanation, and the rise of industry only acted as an agent of promoting population growth which required an equal or greater increase in livestock populations.

And NLC have recently been tied to rocket launches, especially the Space Shuttle. Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen fueled rockets leave dense trails of water vapor in their wake. They specifically tracked the exhaust trail of the last Shuttle flight, Columbia, through the atmosphere and found that it was responsible for the NLC's sighted at that time. It took days, but that exhaust plume migrated through the upper atmosphere.

And trust me when I tell you that gravity waves have nothing to do with atmospheric water vapor, methane, or any other chemical. They're so fleeting our most sensitive instruments can't even detect them yet.

John L
2005-Jul-11, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by hershal@Jul 9 2005, 12:04 PM
Re : To John L

Create a model that can accurately predict the climate right now, taking acount of all possible factors, then show that it accurately predicts the future by running it and comparing those results to reality, and only then feeding in suspected changes to inputs and show me a human caused global warming output and I'll start paying attention. Until then everyone is speculating and we shouldn't cripple our economy based on speculation.

It has not been possible till yet to create a model that accurately predicts the weather because there are innumerable factors affecting the climate. There are many tiny factors which are negligible but adding all tiny factors it makes a noticeable difference. And so for the same reason, i don't think it would be ever possible to create such a model ( like the one u've described ) in the future too.

Moreover all the global warming theories are not just theories , we also posses some proofs that proves them. To just give you an idea about magnitude of human activities ( that surely show a remarkable difference in the environment ), i can point out some phenomena :

1. We are observing Noctilucent Clouds. Though its beautiful but still a result of pollution. They have also been observed by astronauts in ISS.I am not sure but,most probably they are consequence of increased pollution particles in upper atmosphere that gives a surface to water to condense upon.

2. They are also called PMC's ( Polar Mesospheric Clouds ) . An article that discusses effect of space shuttle launch on formation of PMC' s is NRL Press Release - also appeared in UT newsletter (http://www.nrl.navy.mil/pressRelease.php?Y=2005&R=36-05r).
Though they are called PMC's they have started appearing on the lower lattiudes.

I hope this evidence is enough to show that we do make a remarkable contribution of pollutants in our atmosphere.

__________________________________________________ __________________

UT newsletter also had an article from NASA, which says tht rising sea levels have been accurately observed thru satellites and also the rate of rise in sea level is increasing :
See the full article (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-111)
I see you admit that we have no model that can accurately predict the weather now, and you see no prospect in the future. On that point I disagree. The rate at which computing power increases is phenominal, and all it will take is probably another decade or two for computing power to rise to the challenge. Then all you need are sensors around the world (at schools, post offices, universities, at research sites, on ocean bouys) to feed the collected data. I think we will get there eventually.

And I notice you use the same words I hear from all of the doom and gloomers. Surely, probably, you have to agree, and others are common to the human-caused global warming arguments. These limited lines of evidence don't surely prove anything. You yourself admit that pollution only most probably is the cause of NLC's; not definitely the cause.

To prove the human-caused global warming issue you need to do a few things. You need that computer model that not only predicts the problems but also accurately predicts past climate activity from the available data. You and I agree that we have none now that can do this although, as I stated above, I'm more opptimistic about getting one in our lifetime.

You also need to show, by including and removing variables, that the cause of any predicted changes is human induced. I have seen no proof of this. NLC's, PMC's, the ozone hole are events that we have recorded possible because only recently have we been able to record them. I have seen no proof that these are not a normal event in the atmosphere that we only now noticed because our measurements became common enough, wide spread enough, and sophisticated enough to detect these things. And, as I noted in my last post, there may be pollution causes to NLC's, but not due to industry but to rocketry. If that is the only cause then all we need to do is switch to the space elevator and that one is taken care of. I admit we are pumping out greenhouse gases, but I also know that nature pumps them out, too, and we don't know the extent to which nature can pick up the slack and absorb the increased gases. Until we know the answers, epecially whether warming is even occuring, I cannot with good conscience agree with you on this issue.