 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Global Warming, Fact or Myth? |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Steak Zora Level: 35  Posts: 361/507 EXP: 278751 For next: 1185 Since: 03-16-04 From: Ohio University Since last post: 195 days Last activity: 195 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziffski Thanks for the intro, Ziff.   Ozone, O3, not exactly the most stable covalent bond. Ultraviolet like is of a short wavelength (high energy). That kind of high energy introduced to a less-than-perfect bond...breaks. Comes out as regular old O2. If I remember this correctly, new ozone comes as one of the many peculiar results of lightning bolts. If there wasn't new ozone forming, that layer would've been gone eons ago. Greenhouse gases...*points at earlier long post so as not to repeat myself*...CO2 and CH4 are the two that come to mind...one because there's that much of it, and the other because of how powerful a greenhouse/hothouse gas it is. Atmospheric levels of CO2, last I knew, was about 0.5%. Methane levels...insignificant at the moment. Atmospheric methane levels are most affected by volcanic activity, specifically, outgassing (which releases CO2 [most famous greenhouse gas], CH4 [methane. Very strong greenhouse gas], and SO2 [causes acid rain, has some greenhouse attribute]). Last sizable erruption I can think of is Mt. Pinotubo in the Phillipines (on par with Mt. St. Helens, just no lateral blast this time), about 10-11 years ago...so methane's not that big a deal at the moment. CO2, however...that's been rising much more quickly than it has been in ages past, mostly thanks to the industrial revolution. Coal laid down during the Mississipian & Pennsylvanian Periods (or collectively the Carboniferous by European geologists) has been for the most part dug up and burnt. Most of the oil shales are about the same age, I think. The bottom line remains, organic material that was taken out of the cycle during the mid-late Paleozoic has been reintroduced in this modern world. Phytoplankton (photosynthetic plankton, base of the food chian, apx. 30% of all organic matter on the planet) can't keep up with the rise. The key thing keeping CO2 levels down is chemical weathering of silicate rocks. The Himalayas, while not pulling as much CO2 from the atmosphere as they did in times past, still are keeping the rise at a lower level; we'd already be cooking without them. So...what does all this mean for our modern lifestyle? *points at earlier long post, about glaciers* The glaciers are melting. It was going to happen. All that's left of the old North American Ice Sheet is what's in Greenland. If enough of the glaciers melt, sea level will be affected enough that altitude measurement/marker will need adjusting. Seaports rely on sea level being sea level; no ports exist where the tides are extreme. If sea level rises a few meters, all the seaports of the world will not function. And this would be instant economic tragedy and catostrosphe, since shipping things is cheaper by boat rather than by plane. Note that greenhoused Earth had winters. And that glaciated earth still had summers. Saying that presence of snow means no global warming is simplify crap. From what I remember, the earth was on a general warming trend. We're speeding up the process. |
|||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2590/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| My take on it: Ozone depletion and global warming are completely seperate issues. Ozone depletion is much easier to correct, because 1) we pretty much have specific sources of it that we can point to, and these mostly include chloroflourocarbons (CFCs). 2) the ozone layer restores itself over time, and we know this. The ozone layer blocks ultraviolet light from entering the troposphere, but unfortunately, like Steak said, Ozone (or O3) is not very stable. The materials in CFCs will easily break up a particle of ozone, thus making the natural layer formed by gravitiy weaker. As of now, it appears, if we were to completely stop using CFCs around the world, then it would be about 15 years until the layer restored completely. So we still have a ways to go, but it seems that the solution to this problem is pretty much right in front of our eyes. Global warming has a lot more questions, and that is why it would be a lot harder to "solve," if possible. Pretty much people have accepted the fact that greenhouse gases go up into the atmosphere and trap infrared heat coming into the earth and make sure it stays there. It has generally been accepted that there is a natural global warming cycle for the Earth, just as there is a natural cycle which brings about ice ages (but the former has more to do with the greenhouse gases, and the latter with the Earth's tilt). If this would hold true, then there isn't really anything that can be done to reverse it. However, the debate is whether humans are accelerating the process by releasing more greenhouse gases (namely carbon dioxide from a variety of sources, and methane from cattle). While it seems to be going at a rate of only 1 degree per 150 years or so for the entire world, this is pretty significant. Antartica has actually gone up about 6 degrees in the last 150 years, so records have said. If humans actually are accelerating the process, then the imminent global climate change will only come faster. Even if the Earth's average temperature were to rise only 2 degrees from what it is now, that could shift areas where we can grow crops more northward or southward, which could result in smaller yields. Also, if it reached that point, then of course people will actually have to start worrying about whether the ice caps can completely melt or not. It has been decided that if they ever were to melt, then sea level would be 50 feet higher. This would make much of the South in the USA completely underwater, including Florida and Louisiana. Also, some places that are normally a little warmer could become a lot colder, and some cold places may even warm up because ocean currents would change drastically. England would become about as cold as Alaska if the current going to it were to be halted due to the ice caps melting. Some animals in the ocean may not be able to live there any more because their zone of tolerance as far as tempeature may be extremely limited. In other words, we would have a LOT of things to worry about if the average temperature of the world heated up a little. I think that while we may not know whether we are accelerating the process or not, we should be taking measures as if we were, because it could only be safer. We should be shifting away from fossil fuels and try to focus more on use of natural, renewable fuel sources. If we have any chance of slowing this thing down enough where we don't have to worry about the climate changing too drastically, then we should go for it. Even if it is inevitable that it will happen, we could have more time to think about solutions if the temperature wasn't rising more than usual. Maybe we might even be able to last about 20,000 years or so... then humans would have the fun of deciding what to do so that we don't freeze our asses off forever! So, that's how I view this whole fiasco. EDIT: oh, and those people that think that we could one day get to be as bad as Venus are full of it. While a volcano does release a LOT of greenhouse gases when it fully erupts, it would take a LOT of those at once to get us to that point. Venus probably did have a ton of volcanoes that erupted a lot, and thus the planet had a runaway greenhouse effect, which would explain why it is constantly around 800 degrees plus in temperature. But a few volcanic eruptions would probably only make it rise a little. I don't see how some of these weirdos can think that humans are capable of pulling something so catastrophic off. (edited by Kefka on 03-18-05 07:04 PM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Global Warming, Fact or Myth? |
| | |
