Global Warming?
- Auteur de la discussion RealityPortal
- Date de début
druglessdouglas
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Mai 2008
- Messages
- 5 910
GOD a dit:
at least we wont be bored
GOD
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Jan 2006
- Messages
- 14 944
Global Dimming More Worrying Than Global Warming
The dimming effect causes Earth's warming
Instead of the expected effect of reducing overall warmth, recent reports indicate that the decrease of the solar radiation received by Earth actually raises the level of global warming.
All of us, especially people in regions with a temperate climate, have felt the changes in the weather in the past years. It is harsher. Winters are colder, with less snow and more chilling temperatures, while summers bring almost unbearable heat. Also, even if the number of storms remains within the usual limits, their intensity has long since gone up the roof. These are all related to the phenomenon called the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse gases are part of the atmosphere, both those produced naturally and those developed by people. They absorb thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth, by the atmosphere and by clouds, trapping it in the region between the surface of the planet and the troposphere. This causes the greenhouse effect to install.
The logical approach would be (and has been) to reduce the climate-harmful emissions, but without fully comprehending the whole process, this could prove to be even worse. The main factor that complicates all this is the "global dimming," which refers to the decrease of solar light reaching the Earth lately. As the American Geographical Union states, in the 40-something years between the 1950s and the late '90s the overall incoming solar radiation decreased by a staggering 12% (9% in Antarctica, 10% in the U.S., almost 30% in Russia and as much as 60% in some regions in England). Even so, our planet becomes increasingly warm.
The explanation for this resides in pollution. More precisely in particle pollution, such as ash, soot or sulfur dioxide which wanders in the atmosphere and even worse gets to be absorbed in the clouds. Sunlight is reflected from these and from the clouds, as the particles make the clouds even more reflective than they naturally are, and prevented to reach the planet’s surface. As a result of cloud pollution, cloud water becomes unable to condense into large enough drops that would form rain. Instead, it remains in cloud form, continuing to reflect the light from the sun, which causes drought to appear.
It's this reverse effect, in association with the global warming (called together "global brightening") that is to blame for the higher temperatures. The safest approach in order to counter them would be not to address one of them separately from the other but both at the same time. Otherwise, the effects are believed to be even more devastating than if none of them was taken care of at all.
The dimming effect causes Earth's warming
Instead of the expected effect of reducing overall warmth, recent reports indicate that the decrease of the solar radiation received by Earth actually raises the level of global warming.
All of us, especially people in regions with a temperate climate, have felt the changes in the weather in the past years. It is harsher. Winters are colder, with less snow and more chilling temperatures, while summers bring almost unbearable heat. Also, even if the number of storms remains within the usual limits, their intensity has long since gone up the roof. These are all related to the phenomenon called the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse gases are part of the atmosphere, both those produced naturally and those developed by people. They absorb thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth, by the atmosphere and by clouds, trapping it in the region between the surface of the planet and the troposphere. This causes the greenhouse effect to install.
The logical approach would be (and has been) to reduce the climate-harmful emissions, but without fully comprehending the whole process, this could prove to be even worse. The main factor that complicates all this is the "global dimming," which refers to the decrease of solar light reaching the Earth lately. As the American Geographical Union states, in the 40-something years between the 1950s and the late '90s the overall incoming solar radiation decreased by a staggering 12% (9% in Antarctica, 10% in the U.S., almost 30% in Russia and as much as 60% in some regions in England). Even so, our planet becomes increasingly warm.
The explanation for this resides in pollution. More precisely in particle pollution, such as ash, soot or sulfur dioxide which wanders in the atmosphere and even worse gets to be absorbed in the clouds. Sunlight is reflected from these and from the clouds, as the particles make the clouds even more reflective than they naturally are, and prevented to reach the planet’s surface. As a result of cloud pollution, cloud water becomes unable to condense into large enough drops that would form rain. Instead, it remains in cloud form, continuing to reflect the light from the sun, which causes drought to appear.
It's this reverse effect, in association with the global warming (called together "global brightening") that is to blame for the higher temperatures. The safest approach in order to counter them would be not to address one of them separately from the other but both at the same time. Otherwise, the effects are believed to be even more devastating than if none of them was taken care of at all.
Caduceus Mercurius
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Juil 2007
- Messages
- 9 628
That's what I've been saying all the time: the climate is related to the electromagnetic field surrounding the Earth, and that electromagnetic field has a major influence on tectonic plates, volcanic activity and so on. The electromagnetic field, in turn, is affected by the mood swings of the Sun. I don't think the Sun is the ultimate source of these fluctuations though (for its nature is also affected by its surroundings), but the Sun spots and polar reversals seem to be related to earthquakes, the behavior of geysers and the weather in general.
GOD
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Jan 2006
- Messages
- 14 944
We Are "Globally" Running Dry
Scientists claim we should rather fear water shortages instead of food shortages Direct consumption and agricultural uses of water, together with other industrial purposes, have recently become more and more worrying in quantitative terms. While people generally worry they will eventually come to lack food, in fact the water that provides it should be their main source of concern.Many millennia have passed since man first began to use water for other purposes than drinking. About 8.000 years ago, the discovery of irrigation had influenced mankind's behavior, diet and migrations. Today, on a rough average, people drink approximately 2 liters of water per day. But if all the water that is involved in providing their food (irrigation, animals etc.) is considered, this amount may scale up to 3.000 liters each day. Peaks of this value are registered in rich countries, where meat consumption (which is by far more water-demanding than grain) is higher. Western America, Southern Europe and even China, because of its high population, suffer from severe water problems. Simultaneously, a growing number of regions steadily shape-shift into arid deserts.
In the meanwhile, world's population is increasing very fast and it's soon to reach the 7 billion figure. As this happens, more food is required, thus more water to provide it and quench the world's thirst, agricultural and industrial needs (clothing or jewelry industries require lots of water, not to mention that cheaper products demand higher quantities of the liquid). Today, the farming process is responsible for approximately 70% of the human water usage.
According to the World Bank, the global need for water doubles on an average of 21 years. As rough estimations provide an astonishing figure of 9 billion people by the year 2050, it is obvious that the water supply cannot keep pace with the demands this population will require. And the situation looks even grimmer as the depletion of groundwater supplies, the salination of the land and the increasing impurity of the surface water supplies (natural or caused by pollution, since 95% of the cities in the world dump raw sewage in their water) are taken into consideration. Global warming also affects the water supplies by causing the surface water to evaporate.
Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not yet given proper attention. When referring to water shortages, people normally tend to think of a local matter, possibly related to a village or a town, when in fact, this is a global problem that affects entire countries to a certain extent. The World Bank estimates that 80 countries are confronting with economy and health-threatening water shortages, while more than 2 billion people (over 30% of the planet's population) lack access to clean water or sanitation.
Fixing the leaks and a more intelligent irrigation process would reduce water wastage by 70%, but worldwide thriftiness, shifting to less thirsty crops, as well as land desalination could also prove a big help. Currently, the calls for thrift generally remain unanswered and ignored. It is often explained that investments in new water schemes are not economical, so it should not come as a surprise that, more often than not, the idea of water replacing oil as the next reason for international wars is being circulated.
Scientists claim we should rather fear water shortages instead of food shortages Direct consumption and agricultural uses of water, together with other industrial purposes, have recently become more and more worrying in quantitative terms. While people generally worry they will eventually come to lack food, in fact the water that provides it should be their main source of concern.Many millennia have passed since man first began to use water for other purposes than drinking. About 8.000 years ago, the discovery of irrigation had influenced mankind's behavior, diet and migrations. Today, on a rough average, people drink approximately 2 liters of water per day. But if all the water that is involved in providing their food (irrigation, animals etc.) is considered, this amount may scale up to 3.000 liters each day. Peaks of this value are registered in rich countries, where meat consumption (which is by far more water-demanding than grain) is higher. Western America, Southern Europe and even China, because of its high population, suffer from severe water problems. Simultaneously, a growing number of regions steadily shape-shift into arid deserts.
In the meanwhile, world's population is increasing very fast and it's soon to reach the 7 billion figure. As this happens, more food is required, thus more water to provide it and quench the world's thirst, agricultural and industrial needs (clothing or jewelry industries require lots of water, not to mention that cheaper products demand higher quantities of the liquid). Today, the farming process is responsible for approximately 70% of the human water usage.
According to the World Bank, the global need for water doubles on an average of 21 years. As rough estimations provide an astonishing figure of 9 billion people by the year 2050, it is obvious that the water supply cannot keep pace with the demands this population will require. And the situation looks even grimmer as the depletion of groundwater supplies, the salination of the land and the increasing impurity of the surface water supplies (natural or caused by pollution, since 95% of the cities in the world dump raw sewage in their water) are taken into consideration. Global warming also affects the water supplies by causing the surface water to evaporate.
Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not yet given proper attention. When referring to water shortages, people normally tend to think of a local matter, possibly related to a village or a town, when in fact, this is a global problem that affects entire countries to a certain extent. The World Bank estimates that 80 countries are confronting with economy and health-threatening water shortages, while more than 2 billion people (over 30% of the planet's population) lack access to clean water or sanitation.
Fixing the leaks and a more intelligent irrigation process would reduce water wastage by 70%, but worldwide thriftiness, shifting to less thirsty crops, as well as land desalination could also prove a big help. Currently, the calls for thrift generally remain unanswered and ignored. It is often explained that investments in new water schemes are not economical, so it should not come as a surprise that, more often than not, the idea of water replacing oil as the next reason for international wars is being circulated.
....and those FUCKING conservatives want us to switch to nuclear.
For one thing, we've proven we can't handle it safely.
For two, why would we want another scenario like the one we already have, where some huge multi-national evil corporation like Exxon controls everyones access to energy.
It must be open-source.
Contrary to what some people believe, the answer to everything is NOT in the 'free-market' theory.....some things, such as our continued existence, are too valuable to trust to a bunch of mental midgets who can't get past the 'greed-for-me-is-good-for-everyone' mentality.
Thinking that everything is, and should be, for sale is the HIGHWAY YO HELL,
for sure.
For one thing, we've proven we can't handle it safely.
For two, why would we want another scenario like the one we already have, where some huge multi-national evil corporation like Exxon controls everyones access to energy.
It must be open-source.
Contrary to what some people believe, the answer to everything is NOT in the 'free-market' theory.....some things, such as our continued existence, are too valuable to trust to a bunch of mental midgets who can't get past the 'greed-for-me-is-good-for-everyone' mentality.
Thinking that everything is, and should be, for sale is the HIGHWAY YO HELL,
for sure.
GOD
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Jan 2006
- Messages
- 14 944
druglessdouglas
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Mai 2008
- Messages
- 5 910
slightly off topic but.. this is local to me:
Dounreay, part of £3.3bn industry, fined just £140,000 for radioactive dumping
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestn ... 3347068.jp
Dounreay, part of £3.3bn industry, fined just £140,000 for radioactive dumping
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestn ... 3347068.jp
GOD
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Jan 2006
- Messages
- 14 944
Scum . Whos paying who there ? They should punish the managers and not the company . The company will just put it on their prices and we will pay the bill . The whole thing is treason if you ask me .
People used to be executed for poluting water .
People used to be executed for poluting water .
GOD
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Jan 2006
- Messages
- 14 944
Oxygen Levels in Ocean Dead Zones Are Critical . According to new researches, the limit previously considered safe is too low .
Oceanology experts are in turmoil, as new discoveries point to the fact that the number of dead zones in Earth's oceans has increased substantially over the last four decades. In other words, the number of these no-oxygen zones is increasing two-fold every ten years. The truly surprising part is that these areas seem to double in both size and frequency of appearance. Furthermore, their vast majority is located near coastal waters that constitute rich commercial fishing grounds.
Oceanic dead zones are areas near the coastlines that have been severely influenced by pollution and chemical spills over the years. As a direct result, more and more algae form, which results in the exponential growth of oxygen-consuming bacteria that feed off dead algae. This vicious circle seems to be unstoppable, especially now that extensive fishing and heavy industrial activities on the coastlines are on the rise.
Almost 25 percent of the U.S. chemical production capabilities are concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico, which means that petroleum and other dangerous byproducts of various processes are spilled into the water on a daily basis.
Most oxygen safety levels in the waters were established in 1983, based on observations of shrimp populations and the way they migrated to other areas when their natural habitat was endangered. The measurements indicated that less than two milligrams of dissolved oxygen per liter constituted enough reason for most species to leave. So, the standard was set at 4.6 milligrams per liter, just to make sure.
Now, as more and more areas become depopulated, it appears that the standard was too low, affecting extremely productive fishing areas. Robert Diaz, a biologist at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, said, “The dead zones are occurring in areas that are very productive fishing grounds. Everything is pointing towards a more desperate situation in all aquatic systems, freshwater and marine. That's pretty clear. People should be worried, all over the world."
Oceanology experts are in turmoil, as new discoveries point to the fact that the number of dead zones in Earth's oceans has increased substantially over the last four decades. In other words, the number of these no-oxygen zones is increasing two-fold every ten years. The truly surprising part is that these areas seem to double in both size and frequency of appearance. Furthermore, their vast majority is located near coastal waters that constitute rich commercial fishing grounds.
Oceanic dead zones are areas near the coastlines that have been severely influenced by pollution and chemical spills over the years. As a direct result, more and more algae form, which results in the exponential growth of oxygen-consuming bacteria that feed off dead algae. This vicious circle seems to be unstoppable, especially now that extensive fishing and heavy industrial activities on the coastlines are on the rise.
Almost 25 percent of the U.S. chemical production capabilities are concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico, which means that petroleum and other dangerous byproducts of various processes are spilled into the water on a daily basis.
Most oxygen safety levels in the waters were established in 1983, based on observations of shrimp populations and the way they migrated to other areas when their natural habitat was endangered. The measurements indicated that less than two milligrams of dissolved oxygen per liter constituted enough reason for most species to leave. So, the standard was set at 4.6 milligrams per liter, just to make sure.
Now, as more and more areas become depopulated, it appears that the standard was too low, affecting extremely productive fishing areas. Robert Diaz, a biologist at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, said, “The dead zones are occurring in areas that are very productive fishing grounds. Everything is pointing towards a more desperate situation in all aquatic systems, freshwater and marine. That's pretty clear. People should be worried, all over the world."
druglessdouglas
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Mai 2008
- Messages
- 5 910
Ellisdee would sort that for us - he has dominion over the algae and bacteria, fishes and so on
Psyolopher
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 15 Juil 2008
- Messages
- 1 632
I think it is real, a friend of mine is studying this and he convinced me pretty well!
But basically i dont really care, there's nothing i can do about it!
AND, we're all fucked anyway!
Start killing people, that would solve the problem!
But basically i dont really care, there's nothing i can do about it!
AND, we're all fucked anyway!
Start killing people, that would solve the problem!