Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 


534 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 46


  Reply # 1847275 15-Aug-2017 20:20
Send private message quote this post

frankv:

 

frednz:

 

 

 

In any event, I'm sure the planet will eventually recover from global warming or global cooling, it's just everything that lives on the planet that may be in danger.

 

 

Yeah. "Recovery of the planet" is very anthropocentric. It suggests that some state is "good" for the planet, and another is "bad". But was it in a better state 1000 years ago? A million years ago? 100 million years ago? A billion years ago? 4.5 billion years ago?

 

For most of its existence, Earth was uninhabitable by human beings.

 

 

 

 

Here's an extract from an article about what happened 55 million years ago on our planet:

 

About 55 million years ago global temperatures spiked. Then, as now, sea levels rose, the oceans became more acidic, and species disappeared forever.

 

Little wonder, then, that researchers view this ancient event – known as the "Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum" or PETM – as a potential goldmine of useful information for understanding modern climate change.

 

So, our planet has been super hot before as a result of global warming and it eventually survived.


3 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 7


  Reply # 1847304 15-Aug-2017 22:15
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

frankv:

 

 

 

Yeah. "Recovery of the planet" is very anthropocentric. It suggests that some state is "good" for the planet, and another is "bad". But was it in a better state 1000 years ago? A million years ago? 100 million years ago? A billion years ago? 4.5 billion years ago?

 

For most of its existence, Earth was uninhabitable by human beings.

 

 

 

 

the planet existed just fine without humans for 99.997% of its existence , and will exist just fine after we as a species no longer do!


 
 
 
 


9525 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1465

Trusted

  Reply # 1847343 16-Aug-2017 07:08
Send private message quote this post

fated:

 

frankv:

 

 

 

Yeah. "Recovery of the planet" is very anthropocentric. It suggests that some state is "good" for the planet, and another is "bad". But was it in a better state 1000 years ago? A million years ago? 100 million years ago? A billion years ago? 4.5 billion years ago?

 

For most of its existence, Earth was uninhabitable by human beings.

 

 

 

 

the planet existed just fine without humans for 99.997% of its existence , and will exist just fine after we as a species no longer do!

 

 

Correct. Once the gases fall, it will very slowly go back to normal. Life will again be small organisms and mosses and it will start over. 


2886 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 809

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1847438 16-Aug-2017 11:01
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

jmh: After reading the actual scientific data measuring reality, rather than the politically-motivated data generated by models, I have discovered that we are approaching a period of global cooling due to a reduction in sun activity.  I am investigating how I can grow food in a cooler climate when prices go up (it's started already actually), and investing in a greenhouse.  In New Zealand, where the glaciers are already growing, we will see more snow in the South and more rain in the North which 1 - 3 deg C average drops in temperature.  That's the best case scenario - hopefully we won't go colder as has happened in the past.

 

I have to say, I'm gobsmacked that people still believe this warming nonsense.  Stock up on warm jumpers. 

 

I would be interested in links to some of that scientific data. I am quite prepared to change my mind if the evidence is there. 

 

This is getting quite old as far as news is concerned and I find it a little surprising it's gained little traction or is just being glossed over. At this stage it's not clear exactly what effects the decrease in sunspot will have and the scientific community seems quite divided, with some saying it will have no effect and others predicting another Maunder Minimum. The division of this community itself doesn't actually mean anything as it's a common occurrence with anything new(ish).

 

Here's an article with scientists saying decreased sunspot activity will cause significant cooling similar to the Maunder Minimum (aka The Little Ice Age).

 

Here's an article saying reduced sunspot activity will have no effect as the correlation between the observed drastic sunspot decrease and the Maunder Minimum has not been proven.

 

So, at the moment there is 'scientific evidence' but what it means and what it's effects will be are controversial. If anyone wants to take a bit of time, there's hundreds of articles available to be read - some for cooling, some denying it. Are those who deny cooling will occur in the same camp as those that denied 'climate change'? Are those saying another Maunder Minimum is in the offing merely alarmists? Only time will tell.

 

I like to equate scientists (and lawyers) with Newtown's Third Law - for every scientist, there is an equal and opposite scientist.


5591 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2513
Inactive user


  Reply # 1847523 16-Aug-2017 12:43
Send private message quote this post

There does seem to be real evidence that ‘global warming’ is slowing down. Those who seem to think everything is a conspiracy are quick to seize on this as ‘proof’ that it is all a huge plot and there is no reason to give up their SUVs.

 

Trying to get objective information from the Internet is like trying to pick the right number at roulette. For every convincing-sounding argument there is an equally convincing counter-argument, all trying to overwhelm you with ‘facts’, figures, formulas and calculations.

 

As an intelligent but non-expert lay person, I find it impossible to sift through all this noise. How do you judge the validity or objectivity of a source spewing out spurious data like a volcano? The only way is to go with sources you have some confidence in because of their past performance over a range of issues, and to place some trust in majority opinion.

 

I find it very precious of some individuals who make definitive pronouncements about climate change being a big lie, or at least a big misunderstanding. What qualifies them to make such judgements? They are merely venturing an opinion, probably uninformed.

 

My opinion that climate change is real and exacerbated by human activity is equally uninformed but I base it on the fact that sources I trust say it is so, and a majority of qualified experts appear to agree. Maybe this is wrong, but I believe the chances of it being right are much greater than a dissenting opinion supported by only a handful of scientists, along with the oil industry and right-wing conspiracy advocates.

 

Here is an article in the Economist that seems informed and balanced. No doubt some will find all kinds of reasons why it is wrong but to my inexpert mind it seems to state the current situation fairly well. Maybe global warming will turn out to be a myth and we can all carry on merrily burning fossil fuels. Maybe we are doomed. I don’t know. I think the threat is real, but if more evidence to the contrary emerges, and the consensus of expert opinion changes, I will be glad to say I was wrong.


2953 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1064


  Reply # 1847551 16-Aug-2017 13:12
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

tdgeek:

 

 Look at Venus, next planet to us, its the hottest in the solar system, all due to greenhouse gas.

 

Earth, if it gets too hot will pass a tipping point. Up to the tipping point, if we ceased polluting, it will recover. Past the tipping point, we dont matter as the earth's atmosphere, warm seas, greenhouse gas insulation, decreasing ice caps that reflect, feed it without humans needed to feed it. Its a runaway problem. It will recover in time, as the gases dissipate, I assume. We will be long gone. Too hot to live, fresh water runs out, no room for food to grow, the big water tunnel that circulates water around the world, spreading cool and warm water, nutrients, oxygen, will stop, as the temp differential between cold and warm is too low. Stagnant. Marine life slowly dies as that happens as oxygen decreases in warm water, they decompose, more chemical released exacerbating that problem. Methane in the Russian tundra leaks hugely, it is now, as parts are barely freezing. Methane is a bad Greenhouse gas.

 

Thats the science.

 

 

cry

 

To start with Venus as far as we know has never had a biosphere to actively influence the atmosphere. Earth's biosphere exerts a substantial regulating influence on atmospheric gases.

 

Previously when CO2 levels have spiked, plant growth has massively increased and ultimately oxygen levels have increased as well. Durign the carboniferous period atmospheric CO2 was 800ppm (400 currently) and oxygen was 35% (215 currently). Life was abundant.  

 

Its human activities that are stopping these conditions developing now despite that fact we are at 400ppm C02 and it's warm.  Post human earth is likely to be another carboniferous period but a much more bio-diverse one.  Incidentally, carboniferous literally means coal-bearing.

 

Marine life doesn't die out completely in warm or enriched - the species mix changes.

 

Methane is a bad greenhouse gas but it doesn't persist as methane for all that long (due to the presence of radical compounds in the troposphere) and there is a finite supply of it to evaporate.

 

 





Mike



534 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 46


  Reply # 1848336 18-Aug-2017 09:05
Send private message quote this post

A lot of the issues we have been discussing in this thread are dealt with in this recent issues paper "Low-emissions economy" issued by the Productivity Commission:

 

http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/LEE%20IP%20PDF.pdf

 

This is well worth reading to get an up to date view of what NZ is doing to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

I would be interested to hear your views on this comprehensive issues paper.


9525 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1465

Trusted

  Reply # 1848349 18-Aug-2017 09:22
Send private message quote this post

MikeAqua:

 

tdgeek:

 

 Look at Venus, next planet to us, its the hottest in the solar system, all due to greenhouse gas.

 

Earth, if it gets too hot will pass a tipping point. Up to the tipping point, if we ceased polluting, it will recover. Past the tipping point, we dont matter as the earth's atmosphere, warm seas, greenhouse gas insulation, decreasing ice caps that reflect, feed it without humans needed to feed it. Its a runaway problem. It will recover in time, as the gases dissipate, I assume. We will be long gone. Too hot to live, fresh water runs out, no room for food to grow, the big water tunnel that circulates water around the world, spreading cool and warm water, nutrients, oxygen, will stop, as the temp differential between cold and warm is too low. Stagnant. Marine life slowly dies as that happens as oxygen decreases in warm water, they decompose, more chemical released exacerbating that problem. Methane in the Russian tundra leaks hugely, it is now, as parts are barely freezing. Methane is a bad Greenhouse gas.

 

Thats the science.

 

 

cry

 

To start with Venus as far as we know has never had a biosphere to actively influence the atmosphere. Earth's biosphere exerts a substantial regulating influence on atmospheric gases.

 

Previously when CO2 levels have spiked, plant growth has massively increased and ultimately oxygen levels have increased as well. Durign the carboniferous period atmospheric CO2 was 800ppm (400 currently) and oxygen was 35% (215 currently). Life was abundant.  

 

Its human activities that are stopping these conditions developing now despite that fact we are at 400ppm C02 and it's warm.  Post human earth is likely to be another carboniferous period but a much more bio-diverse one.  Incidentally, carboniferous literally means coal-bearing.

 

Marine life doesn't die out completely in warm or enriched - the species mix changes.

 

Methane is a bad greenhouse gas but it doesn't persist as methane for all that long (due to the presence of radical compounds in the troposphere) and there is a finite supply of it to evaporate.

 

 

 

 

You make it sound like not a problem!  :-)

 

Venus is a good example of what runaway greenhouse gases can do

 

Yes, agree, as the CO2 and O change that helps or hinders species so some take advantage

 

Should the oceans overheat, lose oxygen and mass decomposition and low or no water flow it will become stagnant. Life will exist, but not so much a species mix, more of a marine bacteria ocean

 

Problem is with methane, there so SO much of it that is currently inert, that if and when it starts bleeding into the atmosphere as it is doing some some parts of Russian tundra, that might well blow away any turnaround that humans did. Some parts of the tundra are already barely below zero. Punch a small knife into it, get your lighter out, you have flame. Thats how it is now in places


1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Intel unveils the 8th Gen Intel Core Processor family for desktop
Posted 25-Sep-2017 19:45


Chow brothers plan to invest NZ$100 million in technology
Posted 24-Sep-2017 16:24


Symantec protects data everywhere with Information Centric Security
Posted 21-Sep-2017 15:33


FUJIFILM introduces X-E3 mirrorless camera with wireless connectivity
Posted 18-Sep-2017 13:53


Vodafone announces new plans with bigger data bundles
Posted 15-Sep-2017 10:51


Skinny launches phone with support for te reo Maori
Posted 14-Sep-2017 08:39


If Vodafone dropping mail worries you, you’re doing online wrong
Posted 11-Sep-2017 13:54


Vodafone New Zealand deploy live 400 gigabit system
Posted 11-Sep-2017 11:07


OPPO camera phones now available at PB Tech
Posted 11-Sep-2017 09:56


Norton Wi-Fi Privacy — Easy, flawed VPN
Posted 11-Sep-2017 09:48


Lenovo reveals new ThinkPad A Series
Posted 8-Sep-2017 14:37


Huawei passes Apple for the first time to capture the second spot globally
Posted 8-Sep-2017 10:45


Vodafone initiative enhances te reo Maori pronunciation on Google Maps
Posted 8-Sep-2017 10:40


Voyager Internet expand local internet phone services company with Conversant acquisition
Posted 6-Sep-2017 18:27


NOW Expands in to Tauranga
Posted 5-Sep-2017 18:16



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.