solar_flare

Venice is one of the major tourist destinations in the world......but for how long?.

it seems the consequences of global warming (sea levels rising) has found its first victim. engineers are building mechanical systems to reduce the continuous flooding of some parts of Venice.

is the world goin to leave the people Venice to deai with ots own problem or should we do something about it before ours become submerged.

the UN are doin the best they can to avoid conflict or war, feed the hungry and give medical attention...........in other words to save the world.

to me.......global warming is a bigger threat or problem.........it will destroy us all because of ignorance.

what do you think............

__________________

>>sig done by sun_walka

Sandok

Well I agree... Having been to Venice, I gotta say that we must try to keep it alive! But you know, not much we can do about the power of GIA ANyways, I'm 850m (about 2800 feet) above sea level so nope, water can't come and get me

solar_flare

are that sure........even if you are......the people along the coast would want to move inland. how would you like it if where ever you live was so densely populated

__________________

>>sig done by sun_walka

Sandok

I'd take my shotgun out nad kill em! Na but I live in the most boring country ever... No one wants to live here (hint: neutral EU country) and yeah ; i know what you mean... But seriously, WHAT can we do? Release a chemical which will make the CO2 start to precipate so it doesn't stay in the atmosphere? I mean, that's just technically impossible...

solar_flare

i guess in a time like this we are all open to suggestions.........its funy though that this matter is not emphasised on the news yet....are people ignoring it and leaving it to there future rulers to deal with it when the problem has got even worse.

__________________

>>sig done by sun_walka

radTube

solar_flare: Our dear little earth is not and has never been a stable environment and this cycle of global warming and cooling is not something the humankind has brought about. There's plenty of (geological) evidence of massive fluctuations in temperatures and in the level of CO2 in our atmosphere throughout the ages, and many scientists actually believe that the effect of our industry in this phenomenon is quite a lot smaller than movies like Day After Tomorrow would have you believe. (But it does let you put in all kinds of fancy FX and stuff so who needs science anyway )

Not many dispute the fact that our actions do have an effect in the atmosphere, even if the effect is small, and I agree that there's a definite need to address the problem. But I find it very difficult to believe that we could save Venice by cutting down pollution or saving South American rainforests. The rising of the water level is unfortunate but has been going on for centuries, probably for a lot longer. There's little we can do or could have done to stop it.

I'm no expert though. I've just done some reading and you'll find that there's a lot of material available on the subject. Maybe people would be more eager to take action if the real experts all agreed that global warming actually is a problem which we can do something about.

I'm tired and in a hurry, so I'm sorry if this was incoherent.

__________________
[color=orange]
[/color]

digerati

I say venice is getting too heavy so it's sinking. They need to move everyone and destroy the buildings and erect new ones made of light weight plastic.

Mr cairo

ROFL

__________________
Please consider Sponsoring my wife for the race for life

raid517

George W. Bush is no friend of the science fraternity - which is where I think our good friend radTube has acquired most of his reading material.

Moreover the majority of credible researchers do think that the environment is a major issue - as is global warming. It is only a few discredited nuts hired by bush and his rich industrialists friends who have argue otherwise. (Who incidentally are all on the whole pretty much just looking for an excuse to be allowed to continue to chop down trees and drill for oil in pristine wilderness locations).

Among scientists and intellectuals everywhere, George W. Bush is possibly one of the most despised figures in history. (Just look at that Google search. From even just that it is clear to see that the terms 'Bush' and 'science' do not belong in the same sentence. Indeed you have to work pretty dammed hard to find any serious scientist anywhere - both via Google and in the wider community in general - who will openly stand up and voice support for Bush).

Many of the stances he has taken over this last 4 years have seriously pissed a lot of people off. I recently saw a survey that showed that the majority of American scientists believed he had set science in the USA back by 20 years or more in comparison to many of America's rivals.

So I think it's fair to say that science is by no means one of the current administration's strong points.

GJ

radTube

Sorry Raid, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. I actually agree on almost all of your views on Bush, and I've been reading the forum since day one so I do know what they are. Mr. Bush isn't that big a name in science (or anything else) here in Finland either...

It must be the combination of not writing very often in english and being in a hurry that makes my earlier post give you this false impression that I don't think the environment is a major issue. On the contrary, I think it's one of the most important issues there are. The point I was trying to bring up was that some very prominent scientists have pointed out that we're nearing the next ice age and recent changes in our climate seem to be quite similar to the ones that preceded the last one. It is a big problem but the size of our contribution is being put to question.

My personal view is that global warming is indeed an issue, and everything we can do to make it a smaller one should be done.

I should probably just keep my mouth shut about things I don't really know that much about, but this isn't a science forum, right? I admit (again) that I'm not an expert. Actually, the most recent place I read about global warming is probably 'The Science of Discworld', which is a popular science slash comic fantasy romp by the british humorist Terry Pratchett and the scientists Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen. A great book, but maybe not the greatest authority on climatology.

PS. Not everything is about US politics, even though most things do seem to be about money...

raid517

Sorry if I got you wrong. But you see the views you expressed were pretty much very similar to many of those expressed by the present American administration. So as they had a familiar ring to them I made an erronerous assumption regarding where you stood on these matters.

However it what should be pointed out is that while there have indeed been several periods of quite intense climate change throughout the world's history - the rate of change that we are experiencing now (particularly in terms of sea temperatures and rising seal levels - and the rate of retraction of the antarctic ice sheet) has no parallel in geological history. Previous changes have taken place over periods of perhaps as little as 10,000 years - which in geological terms is a tiny fraction of the completed time line of the existence of the Earth. But one must recall that the industrial age has only been a part of our own history for no more than the last 250 years or so - and in that time we have witnessed more change in the climate than has happend in many of these preceding periods of change.

What scientists are concerned with then is the rate of change - and not just the fact that the climate has change at various points in the historical past. Is it possible that human activity could accelerate this rate of change so rapidly that in time it became a run away process that irrevocably damaged the health of our planet forever? Even if there was only just a little doubt - why should we take the risk? After all once we trash this planet, we haven't exactly got a whole lot of other places to go to.

One thing worth remembering is thatvirtually all of these periods of climate change that have occurred in the past have been followed by periods of wide spread mass extinctions - where virtually all of the dominant species of the day were wiped out. Do we really want to risk this fate for ourselves? Why should the prospect of our own potential mass extinction seem like an attractive proposition to anyone? (Unless of course you are really quite insane...)

Moreover scientists didn't (and still do not) have any misgivings about both the existence and the cause of the hole in the ozone layer. Many studies have shown that the presence of concentrations of CFC's (an entirely man made chemical) in the atmosphere almost exactly mirrors the location of the hole in the ozone layer. That is to say you can look at the atmosphere through a special kind of lens and you can see exactly where the majority of CFC pollution is concentrated. You can then alter this lens to look for ozone (or the lack of it) and if you do so you can see that the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere is almost a fingerprint match for the areas where the ozone layer is most seriously depleted. So what is clear from this is that man made activity can have a very real impact on the environment - and it would be foolhardy of us to continue to ignore it.

But you are right, not everything is about politics - although this is a political thread and sadly these things do appear to have become political issues. (Curiously the very people who say that this is a political issue (and therefor they feel no need to participate in such matters) are exactly the same people who made it political originally).

But anyway my own dissapointment regarding this matter is motivated by the current American administration's recent decision (as was reported in the news yesterday) to state that this administration would never consider signing the Kyoto climate agreement. It seems George W. Bush's redefinition of what exactly constitutes a 'fact' only looks set to continue. It isn't a hopeful sign for the future.

GJ

OldBuzzard

Well Raid, you have to understand, we conservatives don't care about the enviroment, and we fully plan on making the air unbreathable, and the water undrinkable. After all, it's not like WE are going have to consume the same air and water that you will.

Please enlighten me. Just how humans were responsible for the 'global warmth' that was in effect when the dinosaurs were around. How did mankind cause the Ice age that followed, and then trigger the warming that ended that?

While I may not be the brightest bulb in the string of Christmas tree lights, I'm damned sure not gullible enough to swallow all the junk science that you liberals do.

Right now you are all running around in circles like Chicken Little, yelling about Global Warming. The sad thing is that not all that long ago, 1975 in fact, the VERY SAME PEOPLE were all in a lather about GLOBAL COOLING.

So, tell me, which is it, global warming, or global cooling that I'm responsible for



A few links for your enlightenment:

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/19...5_alarmism.htm

__________________
When looking for a reason as to why things go wrong, never rule out sheer STUPIDITY

Sandok

Just one thing raid... Did you know a volcanic euroption spwes out as much CO2 and waste as the US in a couple of years? It's a natural effect... Sure we might be speeding it up a little but it was inevitable!!!

raid517

I think Science and our ability to predict things has moved on considerably since 1975.

In truth 'global warming' is not an entirely descriptive term - because while parts of the earth may get warmer this warming will have the opposite effects on other parts of the earth that will actually get cooler. I think 'climate change' is a more accurate way to put this. It is the press who in the main who have spoken of 'global cooling' or 'global warming.' The press are always looking for a big headline - which is why you always seem to end up with such contradictory statements - but scientists on the whole have always tended to be consistent in that they recognised that the real issue was climate change - that we could affect the climate in an unpredictable way via our activities. The fact is that the climate is a highly unpredictable thing, we can't really tell ultimately what the final impact that humans will have on the climate - all we can say is that having looked at the geological records, it seems clear that we have already had a significant impact.

Take a look here to get a better understanding of some of the complex issues involved.

To me it is simply a matter of good house keeping. I mean do you seriously think that it is perfectly OK to pump the air full of whatever filth you see fit and for this to NEVER have any kind of affect on the climate? What, do you think the climate is somehow magical, that it will just deal with whatever we throw at it? If you are in the habit of keeping your own home clean and pristine, then why on earth wouldn't you want to do that for the world in which you live too? I just don't understand it.

In any case I didn't make much of your sources, one from 1975 (which was long before the hole in the ozone layer had been discovered - and long before some of the indepth research that has been conducted at the poles - and a long, long time before we used supercomputers and the advanced mathematical modeling techniques we have today to plot human impact on the environment) and one that proudly proclaims itself a 'conservative think tank' which uses the familiar old conservative technique of misquoting a lot of reasonably credible sources, mixing it up with a lot more pseudo scientific babble, then tossing all of this together with a whole bunch of outright lies to make what sounds to the ordinary man in the street like some kind of valid objections to a lot of the concerns scientists commonly raise - while the other is nothing more than a far right rag that makes even Fox News seem like a popular liberal broadcast channel filled with tree huggers and environmental do gooders.

I am sorry but to my eyes these do not qualify as impartial or unbiased sources.

Try clicking on the Google search I provided. It's not exactly a loaded search. It contains two search terms. "Bush" and "science" (I even made sure I discounted any political bias by cutting out some of the more notorious liberals who have expressed opinions on this subject in the past).

From this simple search it is clear to see that you really have to work very hard to find any credible scientific body that will stand up and voice support for Bush on virtually any of his policies. There is something like a 98% bias in the scientific community against Bush at this point in time. Moreover you are wrong to imagine that every single scientist is somehow a closet liberal. They are as mixed a bunch as any other group in society. But there is an almost universal impression that this government has been deeply harmful to the cause of science in America - and though it's refusal to participate in any international efforts to reduce the levels of environmental pollutants - it may even ultimately prove harmful to the plight of the world in general. If you want to pollute your atmosphere until you have to wear a space suit to go outside, then feel free. But find some way of keeping the pollution in your own back yard. We didn't vote for Bush, so we should have to put up with any stink you guys create either.

Sometimes it just seems to me like this whole thing is a competition between the smart people in the world and the dumb people. Right now it seems that there are simply more dumb people in the world and because of their sheer numbers that is why they are in control and in power. But it doesn't mean they are right.

Bush has made a lot of things that never used to be thought of as political topics seem somehow all extremely political. From climate change, to stem cell research, to abortion, to aids, to condom use, to divorce, to genetics, to gay and minority rights - many of these issues seemed in times gone by to have little or nothing to do with government. But now as far as this administration is concerned, anything and everything appears to be fair game.

Again the reason I don't like this is because the motivation they gave just recently for not signing up to the Kyoto accord was because it was a 'political document' and that it had no basis in fact. I mean for f*ck's sake they were the ones that made it political. Before they came along it was just a bunch of scientists going about doing their thing, quietly collecting data and making predictions based on that data, while using improved modeling techniques as and when those techniques were discovered in order to be able to refine the predictions they made.

Anyway if you want to start posting links I'm game for it. I'm pretty sure I can post 50 or more links from credible and internationally respected scientific and research bodies all stating that the research does show climate change to be a problem, for each and every one of your politically loaded and plainly biased links.

At least radtube has the good sense to make it clear that he is no expert on these subjects. How about we see what the real experts do have to say about it all? The rules of the game are to choose your sources from only internationally recognised research journals (which means no sources affiliated or sympathetic to any political source whatsoever) and that any such sources should have been written over the last 10 year period. Who I wonder do you think will be able to produce the most evidence to support their position?

Best regards,

GJ

Vikingod

... first we build a giant air conditioner...

raid517

And your source is?

Which volcano in particular are we referring to? Or are they all suddenly the same size?

In any case the case for climate change is for a cumulative effect. You certainly would expect a volcano producing the same amount of CO2 as the US (or much more relevant in the world as a whole) for 60 years or more to have an impact on the climate - never mind one that did it for 100, or 200, or more years, which is what the US appears to be proposing to do. However volcanos are rarely that active over that length of time.

I think we are missing the argument here. I think that in fact volcanoes are a very good example of what injecting lots of CO2 into the atmosphere can do. There are many examples in the geological record that show sharp increases in CO2 rises that could only have come from vastly increased volcanic activity. These increases in volcanic activity correspond extremely closely to periods of rapid (if you can call 10,000 years or so rapid) periods of climate change - which as I pointed out earlier were also generally accompanied by a period of mass extinctions. So we can clearly see from the evidence that exists that CO2 emissions very much DO have an impact on the environment. This isn't just something scientists pulled out of their butts, you can actually go out and drill down into the ice or sediments and extract samples of ice or of soil and see what plants were growing during which period, what animals and insects were alive and how much CO2 there was in the atmosphere. You can then draw a graph and very precisely chart what role CO2 played in these changes. Again the evidence that CO2 emissions can change the environment is pretty much overwhelming.

But that was nature - and in some ways it is arguable that nature can take care of her own house. But what is not natural - what the world has not had to deal with before is the increased level of human activity - and the levels of pollution that we generate. No one can argue that there hasn't been changes in the past - but what concerns many scientists is that the impact we have on the world via our own activities - exactly because they are so unnatural - may have a devastatingly unpredictable outcome.

The bottom line is we just don't know. We can look at the geological record and measure the amount of CO2 that was present during previous periods of intense climate change and we can clearly see the very real impact that this has had. We can build pretty good mathematical models based on the things we see that tell us what happens when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reaches a certain level of saturation. We can then look at current levels of CO2 and estimate from present and future predicted rates of production the likely impact that this amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have - based on all of the previous observations we have made. And so far everthing we have seen has said that if we continue at current rates of production, sooner rather than later we will have a very detrimental impact on our environment. Again all of this isn't based on some kind of fanciful reckoning - it is based on something that if anyone cared to go out and look they can very easily see for themselves. CO2 rates are significantly higher now than at any point in geological history, since even the early days of the Earth's existence. While some people claim that it is not their fault, or that somehow even though this is by no means a natural state of affairs, the Earth can just soak it all up, scientists argue based on what we have seen so far that the outcome is only likely to be negative.

It seems like a simple idea. I mean, why not take care of the Earth? What have you got to loose? And just say that there was a chance that we could damage the Earth by not caring - then isn't that much more risky than taking appropriate precautions to make sure that we don't? Caring about the Earth and the environment seems like a win, win situation for everyone. Not least of all for our children. Can you imagine how much they will hate us all if somehow we do manage to mess it all up? For me it just doesn't bare thinking about. I'd prefer to leave them something that they and their grandchildren can enjoy too. I am simply not selfish enough just to care about me and about now. I think the future is important too.

GJ

raid517

Let the games begin:

http://www.gaspig.com/volcano.htm

GJ

solar_flare

ok. so maybe we cannot control the global changes.but this problem was first detected during the industrial revolution. does this show we are responsible.

from what i have read is that the polar ice caps will completely melt at the end of this century. i do not know how true this is but its just that the ice caps are metling at a faster rate.

i may not be well educated on the geological history of the earth but i thing this change is to quick and we humans are just...........catalysts.

relating this matter to bush.thr US refused to sign the kyotto protocol were the nations of the world have to reduce its emmisions of the harmful gases.the US didnt because in order to do this they had to reduce its industries.they were to valueable and on top pf that, the US contribute to almost a 1/4 of the emmisions of the gases.

what do you think

__________________

>>sig done by sun_walka

Pompey

Scrubbers. If we make them mandatory word wide (hey, it could happen)it should cut down the emissions significantly. Hydrogen cars will also make a big dent, although we probably wont feel the effects of it for 30 years it will help a lot.
Something like 50% of our emissions are cow fart's (sorry for the crude language) so its not our fault.

__________________
One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

Callandor

Cow farts!!!!? My gosh, it that seems a rather strange source for bad gas. Not that I'm complaining, cows do need to fart, just that it seems they're dominating the whole "pollution" scene.

__________________

Pompey

I Know, apparently its the methane gas or something from the cows digesting the grass, not pleasant when driving through a rural area. About a year ago the Government tried to put a tax on it, the whole Kyotto protocol thing. It resulted a MP driving a tractor up parliament steps in protest, very entertaining. We're a mostly dairy farming nation. Cow farts are the price we 'townies' pay for the best steak for dinner and the best ice cream for pudding.

lol maybe we should 'attach' scrubbers to the cows......

__________________
One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

Callandor

My dad's an engineer working at a technology centre, and currently they're working on ways to keep the city from blowing up due to methane gas piping out from the city dump area. Sorry, this is off topic, but in a way gases destroying the environment has lead to the ice caps melting and Venice sinking.

__________________

solar_flare

@sun walka

i dont think you are off topic......venice sinking was just something i thought will grab peoples attention to global warming or should i say climate change...................but COW FARTS!!!!!!!!!!thats just crazy.............believe it or not.... us humans release even a more polluting gas not for getting an even stinkier gas

__________________

>>sig done by sun_walka

kp59583

[color=white]http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/global_warming_potential/[/color]

Raid you have Bush on the brain. You sound like it Bush's fault that there's globle warming. He's only been president 4 years. Sure he doesn't support the Kyoto accords but the Senate and Congress don't either and they are the ones who actualy have to ratifiy it. I've been reading about the so called greenhouse effect and what everybody talks about is emissions like C02. They don't tell you about the other causes. The link above actually goes into the natural causes and are rarely mention in other articles.

__________________
ATHLON XP 2600+
K7N2G-LISR
512 SAMSUNG PC2700
ACER DVD DRIVE
memorex DVD recorder
WD 80GIG 7200 HARDDRIVE
AUDIGY2 SOUND CARD
4 FANS, ANTEC 350W PWR SUPPLY
ATI 9700 PRO

kp59583

Here's a list of the current Volcanos.

[color=white]http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/current_volcs/current.html[/color]

__________________
ATHLON XP 2600+
K7N2G-LISR
512 SAMSUNG PC2700
ACER DVD DRIVE
memorex DVD recorder
WD 80GIG 7200 HARDDRIVE
AUDIGY2 SOUND CARD
4 FANS, ANTEC 350W PWR SUPPLY
ATI 9700 PRO

solar_flare

if he's been president for only for years....then he should do something about it.....the other countries are why cant bush do the same

__________________

>>sig done by sun_walka