Climate change- Man vs Nature?

[shauni]

I think I need to make a point here to people that don't think global warming is happening.

In the last two decades, the ice coverage in the north and south poles is shrinking 20 times faster than the previous century. At this rate, the earth might have no polar ice by the next century.


Below is a visual representation of the amount of ice melted this century alone.

On a worse note, the 'skin ice' has all but gone, and the ice that is left is melting quicker than expected.

I agree that the planet naturally goes threw weather patterns of cold and hot, but the rate at which it is changing is far exceeding plausible natural phenomenon. The only thing that can be the cause is the mechanical developments of humans, and our consumption of fossil fuels and destruction of rain forest over the last 200 years.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the ... is-melting

[PoikSpirit]

It has to be a diesel engine, but a diesel engine will burn just about anything, it's just that the grease works well.
We already acknowledged Global Warming is happening. We already acknowledged it is supposed to happen, and has been put off for way too long to be natural. Do you agree in Natural Selection? Or Intellegent Design? I believe in both, I believe he made the earth as a system that we are on. Thus the world is meant to change. That doesn't mean I agree with the amount of pollution and deforestation we are causing.

[Astral Omega]

I think I need to make a point here to people that don't think global warming is happening.

In the last two decades, the ice coverage in the north and south poles is shrinking 20 times faster than the previous century. At this rate, the earth might have no polar ice by the next century.

On a worse note, the 'skin ice' has all but gone, and the ice that is left is melting quicker than expected.

I agree that the planet naturally goes threw weather patterns of cold and hot, but the rate at which it is changing is far exceeding plausible natural phenomenon. The only thing that can be the cause is the mechanical developments of humans, and our consumption of fossil fuels and destruction of rain forest over the last 200 years.

I never said It wasn't happening just that it was natural. Sure, there may not be any polar ice next century. But who said the Earth was SUPPOSED to have Ice at either end? It's just expected to be that way because it's been like that for so long.

And the ice is melting quicker than [i[expected[/i]. And the label 'plausible natural phenomenon' makes no sense to me. I take this to mean that 'plausible natural phenomenon' is natural phenomenon that lies within the expectations of the scientists studying it.

And the only thing that could cause it is the burning of fossil fuels? Hmm…

I'd like to point out a 'natural phenomenon' as an example here. It's a good one because it relates to the weather and it's fast enough that we can observe the effects from an objective viewpoint.

Tornadoes. They can go one way for several kilometres, then suddenly (with human intervention being next to impossible) career in a seemingly random direction. The same thing happens with hurricanes/cyclones, thunderstorms, warm/cold fronts and high/low pressure systems. In fact pretty much any weather pattern we experience every day has a tendency to do this. (Although some not to such a perceptible level.)

How many times have the weather forecasters been off? Even if it's only by a few degrees of temperature? Cyclone Tracy wiped out Darwin and nobody saw it coming because it appeared to be going to other way then BAM! it stuck and levelled all but about 1 1/2 buildings.

(Okay, one of my original points may have been ruined by pointing out something drastic so... back to my point anyway.)

If a weather forecaster is wrong by a few degrees of temperature on a day-to-day basis, where people can SEE the changing effects happen before them, how many degrees do you think they'll be out over a few million years? A few Trillion? to be honest we don't know EXACTLY how vast the cycles are that we experience in so many, many lifetimes.

We can't hope to ever truly find out. Even if we collate data recorded by the first man and far into the future, I still believe it will look a bit random and we'll find new things that fall outside expectations.

When you come to EXPECT something with the weather, you will most certainly be let down.

[offtopic]... Wow, that contained a lot of long words for 1am. And after runnign it through a spellchecker I found it to be mostly perfect spelling... wow. That's new^^[/offtopic]

[NabMaster]

It has to be a diesel engine, but a diesel engine will burn just about anything, it's just that the grease works well.
We already acknowledged Global Warming is happening. We already acknowledged it is supposed to happen, and has been put off for way too long to be natural. Do you agree in Natural Selection? Or Intellegent Design? I believe in both, I believe he made the earth as a system that we are on. Thus the world is meant to change. That doesn't mean I agree with the amount of pollution and deforestation we are causing.

[offtopic] Wow, all that talk about change reminded me about Warhammer Online, all the Chaos ppl ranting on and on about the Raven God (also called the Changer of Ways, hes supposed to be evolution incarnate) [/offtopic]. But that idea about natural selection being "The Plan" is actually my opinion too. Last year in biology I used that as my key point for my essay on evolution (or lack thereof), and I got full marks

[shauni]

Do you agree in Natural Selection? Or Intellegent Design? I believe in both, I believe he made the earth as a system that we are on. Thus the world is meant to change. That doesn't mean I agree with the amount of pollution and deforestation we are causing.

I do believe there is a little truth in both concepts, and that it's a little of this and a little of that, but I don't have a ferm belief in god as a being. I believe there is something higher controlling these things, but I don't think it's any one being that created everything, therefore, I do believe people can effect the word around them and it doesn't mean it is a part of the 'grand design'. I also agree that no matter what the effects may be on global warming, pollution and deforestation are effecting people adversly every day.

I never said It wasn't happening just that it was natural. Sure, there may not be any polar ice next century. But who said the Earth was SUPPOSED to have Ice at either end? It's just expected to be that way because it's been like that for so long.

First off, I wasn't refering directly to you Astral Omega. I was just stating my opinion. I was refering to people who out right refuse to even consider the idea.
Either way, the polar ice caps melting is a disaster. For example, if the ice melts, a third of the UK will end up under water, if reducing emitions slows down the process (be it natural or otherwise) even a bit it's still a good thing because it gives us longer to prepar.

A 'plausible natural phenomenon' is something that can happen even remotely within our scientic understanding of our world. In other words, i'm saying that our pollution and deforestation not having any effect on the climet is very unlikley in my opinion. If there is evidence to the contry, I will gladly look at it and reconsider my opinion.

When you come to EXPECT something with the weather, you will most certainly be let down.

Climate change isn't exactly day to day weather. Using extensive documented studieds and lots of observation and recording, we can prove that the climate is chaging. I'm not trying to tell you the effects this is going to have on the earth, I don't know, only that as pollution and deforestation have incresed, so has the temparture of the planet. I don't know if we are right with the estimates made for the future, but from what has actualy happned, we can see it is not going to be good. i personaly think it is to late already, the damage has been done. The fact ANY of our ozone has gone can't be good.


All I'm trying to say is, even if the heat up is natural, I still think we are not exactly helping the situation, and may just be speeding up the inevitable. Either way, if the ice caps melt, we are screwed.

[Josiah]

I'm still not sold on the opinion that the ice caps melting would cause major flooding. As I said before, all that ice is displacing a heck of a lot of water. Melt some ice cubes in a bowl of water and the water level will go down slightly. Even if the water level does rise, I have trouble imagining it being as significant as some people say.

[Doodleshark]

Just pointing out that water expands when it freezes...

[Giga-Gar]

Ok then. If Ice displaces water, and the water level acctually drops after melts, then how do you explain the berring land bridge from Russia to Alaska during the last ice age, or the land bridge that connected Hokkiado to China? If the water level acctually rises when water freezes, then why didn't whoever landed on Hokkiado populate the rest of Japan, or how did the berring land bridge come into existence if the water level rises when water freezes?

This was supposed ot be more well written, but my headach is kinda interffering.

[Josiah]

I'm not entirely sure what would happen to water levels if the ice caps metled, just pointing out that it wouldn't neccessarily flood half the planet. As for the land bridges, you've got to take erosion into account too. And... Actually, come to think of it, do we actually have any proof (as in solid evidence, not just guesswork) that there ever were land bridges in those places? I mean, there are other ways people could have reached those areas without land bridges (boats and rafts have been around since...pretty much forever).

[Giga-Gar]

But about the boats and the rafts. Granted, people from polynesia could have sailed to America instead of people going accross a supposedly theorized land bridge, but when the Ainu arrived at Hokkaido, why didn't they go to Honshu or the rest of Japan?

The following quote is from National Geographic

During the glacial maximum 18,000 years ago, Hokkaido was linked by land bridges to Asia, not Japan, and the ancestors of the Ainu people crossed to Hokkaido.

Now, if land bridges did not exist, then why did the Ainu sail to Hokkaido, but not further south to Honshu? If you look at a map, the southern most part of Hokkaido is not very far away from the northern most part of Honshu. Why didn't they sail further south? Also, if you look at the map again, you would see that Hokkaido is quite a bit farther away from China than Honshu. Now if land bridges did exist, then how come there it was linked to China and not Honshu? Maybe there was a deep trech sepparating the two Japanese islands and the Sea of Japan was relativly shallow. But it is unlikely that it was linked directly to China, due to the fact that if the sea level lowered enough to link Hokkaido to China, then it would probably be enough to link Hokkaido to Honshu. Instead, if you look farther north of Hokkaido, the Russian island of Sakhalin is close to the northern part of Hokkaido, along with it being very close with main land Russia. So, instead of the Ainu resembling the Japanese(which, by the way, look similar to Manderine Chinese(who probably arrived later than the Ainu)), the Ainu's could have been of Russian origin. So basicly, if there were no land bridges to begin with, how could the Ainu sailed from Russia to Hokkaido, but not to Honshu? That only accounts for land bridges. The only reason I can think of of why Hokkaido wasn't linked to Honshu was that the water between Hokkaido and Honshu is deeper than the water between Hokkaido and Sakhalin and between Sakhalin and Russia. And don't get me started on the Berring land bridge.

So, in short, maybe the phenominon of ice displacing water works on a small scale, like in a cup, but on a planitary scale, there's more water in the ice than there is air. So that explains why the U.K., most of the Eastern Sea Board, and other locations closer to sea level will flood when the ice melts(which, by the way, is supposed to melt, just not so freaking quickly).

Also, I'm sorry if these pictures are a bit large, but they are for refrence. This picture is one of Sakhalin, showing the distance it sepparates between it and Hokkaido, and then of Sakhalin and Russia.

357px-Sakhalin.png

This second picture shows Japan from space. Notice the distance between Hokkaido and Honshu, then Hokkaido and China.

483px-Satellite_image_of_Japan_in_May_2003.jpg

Now this picture shows an image of Hokkaido from space. Take note of the distance from Hokkaido and Honshu at a closer scale.

200px-Satellite_image_of_Hokkaido%2C_Japan_in_May_2001.jpg

*while I was adding the attachments, I was thrown off by the recent eyesore(no offence josiah) of the forums new color scheam. Time of this happining is approximently 2:47, central time. More on this in the saying hi thread.*

[Doodleshark]

I know, and since water expands when it freezes, that means it becomes less dense. Which means that ice floats in water... but it still displaces quit a bit. So I agree with Josiah that the water levels will rise but not enough to flood the world. Except for in the tundra, where the permafrost in the ground is melting... I can imagine that being problematic. (As in turning-the-entirety-of-the-Arctic-Lowlands-into-a-quagmire problematic.) But considering how like 1/300th of Canada's population lives in the North...

[Josiah]

Well, that's a passable case for land bridges... But it's still just a lot of guess work. They might have existed, or there could be some other reason we don't know about for why the people inhabited some areas and not others. Either way, we can't really say for sure.

[PoikSpirit]

What if they were ice bridges?
Sorry for earlier randomness.
Also, the continents are always shifting, the crust is always changing, I can't imagine so much horizontal movement can happen without some tilting. Then there's erosion, the fact that ice was forming on the land meaning that evaporating waters that snow onto the land would not leave the land.
Never said the climate wasn't changing myself. Never said it didn't have an adverse effect. One of the things we have to realize though is life will still go on. Heck we may kill the humans if we bring about extreme climate change, of which I can't really imagine such a drastic one considering most climates we have already adapted to. But the earth will continue, as long as it's in this orbit, to bear life. What kinds of life is the question.
I don't like the deforestation one bit though. Nor the pollution. Also, the biggest ozone depleting chemical has been illegalized has it not?
Does anyone have specifics on how the ozone layer formed in the first place. All I could find is ozone can be created through many chemical reactions and lightning which would lead me to think the ozone could in theory stabilize itself, in thousands of years mind you.

[Astral Omega]

The oxone will stabalise itself. It happened in Highlander right^^

[NabMaster]

The oxone will stabalise itself. It happened in Highlander right^^

Didn't something else happen at the end of one of them...?