Just heard a study being done about how bacteria create alot of oxygen, and new findings are suggesting that as temperatures rise those bacteria will die or have to go dormant.

Interesting little addition to the whole global warming discussion I think

5/31/2007 8:10:04 PM

cant say i care

5/31/2007 8:21:06 PM

no

5/31/2007 8:35:40 PM

who cares - it won't happen in my lifetime and i don't believe in an afterlife

furthermore, if this shit was for real and not some bullshit middle-school science hysteria, we would see the governments reacting

5/31/2007 8:37:15 PM

Quote :

"furthermore, if this shit was for real and not some bullshit middle-school science hysteria, we would see the governments reacting"

So if the government doesn't react to something its not real?

5/31/2007 8:47:18 PM

good thing algae and phytoplankton create 90% of the earth's oxygen

5/31/2007 8:58:59 PM

why would they all die? wouldnt bacteria multiply furthur north than normal while dying near the equator? Overall the number shouldnt change much i dont think. i could be wrong though

5/31/2007 8:59:32 PM

also with increased temperature comes increased metabolism...so at first they might create more oxygen

course there are bacteria that live deep in the oceans near hydrothermal vents who survive in multithousand degree temperatures

5/31/2007 9:02:10 PM

Quote :

" So if the government doesn't react to something its not real?"

ummm... the earth running out of OXYGEN is hardly just "something" mmmk

dumbass

remember, the government is made up of HUMANS - who need OXYGEN to SURVIVE durrrrrrrr


[Edited on May 31, 2007 at 9:06 PM. Reason : s]

5/31/2007 9:04:56 PM

At lot of these are good points. Being a microbiology student I think it's interesting to see how microscopic life responds to real world scenarios, sometimes they're a benchmark of sorts.

And it might not happen in our lifetime, but knowing that when it does happen we might get hit with a heat wave, tidal waves, and now a decrease in O2 is pretty disturbing

5/31/2007 9:05:52 PM

no its not you fucking idiot

jesus christ i bet you wet your pants when you watched Day After Tomorrow

Hey here's something that will really make you drop a doodie in your britches: the sun will eventually supernova and lay waste to mother earth - holy shit you better start stockpiling canned goods right now before its too late

[Edited on May 31, 2007 at 9:07 PM. Reason : s]

5/31/2007 9:06:32 PM

this study sounds about as stupid as the assumptions that the polar ice caps would melt away from global warming.

5/31/2007 9:31:38 PM

farting is bad for the environment too.

5/31/2007 9:33:28 PM

wait... logical deduction (not that the global warming argument is logical) would have one conclude that, a) if temperatures rise then b) more land will be able to support agriculture. More agriculture means more plants, which means more... OXYGEN!




OMG EVERYONE FREAK OUT! WE WILL DIE OF TOO MUCH OXYGEN!

5/31/2007 9:34:41 PM

this thread makes me happy, but it makes mother earth

6/1/2007 9:29:35 AM

Quote :

"the sun will eventually supernova and lay waste to mother earth"

no it won't. it isn't massive enough to do that.

it will expand to be a red giant, and then will shrink back down becoming a white dwarf.

6/1/2007 9:32:08 AM

It may or may not engulf the earth

either way, we are fried

6/1/2007 9:34:49 AM

I didn't say it would turn earth to dust, but I did say that it will lay waste

which it will

everyone with half a clue knows that the sun will not engulf the earth

6/1/2007 9:37:25 AM

you may want to check your 'facts'.

when the sun expands into a red giant, it in fact may well engulf the orbit of the earth.

and it may not

they dont know yet.

going red giant and going supernova are not equal.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=48

Quote :

"If the Sun became a red giant will the Earth still be able to support life here? Jagadheep: No, the Earth will not be able to support life if the Sun becomes a giant star. Giant stars have large radii as their name implies. When the Sun becomes a giant star, it may become so large as to engulf Earth, in which case the planet will be destroyed. Even if this does not happen, the sun will expand so far out that the temperatures on Earth will become extremely high so that all oceans will evaporate away, and there will be no water left on Earth. So, no life which depends on water will be able to survive. "

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 9:47 AM. Reason : two seconds of google search]

6/1/2007 9:42:44 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant

The Sun is expected to become a red giant in about five billion years. It is calculated that the Sun will become sufficiently large to engulf the current orbits of some of the solar system's inner planets, including Earth.[5][6][7] However, the gravitational pull of the Sun will have weakened by then due to its loss of mass, and all planets but Mercury will escape to a wider orbit. That said, Earth's biosphere will be destroyed as the Sun gets brighter while its hydrogen supply becomes depleted. The extra solar energy will cause the oceans to evaporate to space, causing Earth's atmosphere to become temporarily similar to that of Venus, before the atmosphere is also lost.[8]

5 ^ Red Giants. HyperPhysics (hosted by the Department of Physics and Astronomy of Georgia State University). Retrieved on 2006-12-29.
6 ^ Strobel, Nick (2004-06-02). Stages 5-7. Lives and Deaths of Stars. Retrieved on 2006-12-29.
7 ^ The fading: red giants and white dwarfs. Retrieved on 2006-12-29.
8 ^ Pogge, Richard W. (1997-06-13). The Once and Future Sun. New Vistas in Astronomy. Retrieved on 2007-01-23.

So yeah, it won't really engulf the earth, but it also isn't going to go Supernova as ^ has already pointed out.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 9:53 AM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 9:50:27 AM

Thats interesting. Ive not seen anything on the orbit of the earth expanding enough to guarantee it wont actually fall into the outer atmosphere of the sun, much less venus.

6/1/2007 9:55:19 AM

I think yall are missing the point. You're not going to live to see the sun go red giant/supernova/whatever. You will live to see most the ice on the poles melt.

And a warmer earth does not mean more arable land, it means less. Seas will rise, more places will be in drought or become desert, and you're not gonna farm higher rocky mountains.

I don't doubt the human capacity for survival to an extent...we'll probably figure out a way to keep going even if we can't live on the surface or we have to make our own oxygen, but will we want to live on such a desolate planet? Will we want future generations to curse us for destroying the environment?

I don't know what the earth will look like in 150-200 years, but unless humans are wiped from the earth, I doubt it'll be as nice as it is now. I doubt you'll have the same forests and deserts and beaches that we enjoy now.

6/1/2007 9:57:31 AM

Isn't there a thread for this already?

6/1/2007 12:03:17 PM

this was moved here from the lounge

6/1/2007 12:04:03 PM

Quote :

"furthermore, if this shit was for real and not some bullshit middle-school science hysteria, we would see the governments reacting"

Ummm. Governments are concerned with two things, stability and staying in power. Seeing as the largest human contribution to global warming is the burning of fossil fuels, and considering that the global economy depends on the burning of inexpensive and readily available fossil fuels, it would be in their best interest to maintain the status quo.

6/1/2007 12:28:14 PM

Quote :

"Ummm. Governments are concerned with two things, stability and staying in power. Seeing as the largest human contribution to global warming is the burning of fossil fuels*, and considering that the global economy depends on the burning of inexpensive and readily available fossil fuels, it would be in their best interest to maintain the status quo."

* conjecture.

6/1/2007 12:34:07 PM

you guys think China and India are gonna go for Bush's plan? I doubt it

6/1/2007 12:44:46 PM

Quote :

"a) if temperatures rise then b) more land will be able to support agriculture. More agriculture means more plants, which means more... OXYGEN!"

If temperatures rise, a large amount of currently productive and marginally productive land will become desertified, especially when weather patterns are affected, and will bring drought and famine to areas that are now productive agriculturally (deserts in Texas, New Mexico extend into the midwest/ US breadbasket?) And just because some areas are not permanently covered in snow doesn't mean they will be productive agriculturally. Soils take thousands of years to develop to support agriculture....you won't see the more moderate climate areas in Alaska/Greenland/Iceland etc in the midst of an agricultural boom.

Second, if temperatures rise, than a lot of productive agricultural land on the worlds coastal plain would be submerged (think of all the Agriculture in Eastern NC for example). Instead of 3/4s of the earth's surface being under water, we could see 4/5's.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 12:52:44 PM

Quote :

"you guys think China and India are gonna go for Bush's plan? I doubt it"

I was listening to NPR yesterday on the ride to the DMV, and they were talking about global warming. Turns out that the average American contributes 13 times more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere each year than the average Chinese citizen. Even though China has four times the population as the US (1.2-1.3 billion vs. 300 million) we create as much pollution as three Chinas annually. China's population control program has also reduced the number of people consuming resources by an estimated 400 million since 1970.

6/1/2007 1:03:47 PM

does that mean that China and India (who also has over 1 billion people) should be exempt from his new proposal like they were exempt from Kyoto?

btw heres a link http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=68888

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- US President George W. Bush said Thursday he would urge major industrialized nations at a summit next week to join a new global framework for fighting climate change after the Kyoto Protocol lapses. "The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012," he said in a speech laying out his agenda for the G8 summit in Germany. "My proposal is this: By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases" in consultation with major greenhouse gas-producing nations, including fast-growing India and China, and industry leaders, Bush said. "

6/1/2007 1:11:14 PM

Quote :

"* conjecture."

Hardly.

^^ China and India are still going to be huge issues over the next 50 years. Even if we consume more, their sheer numbers will overwhelm us. This isn't to say we shouldn't strive for efficency, but lets face it, the United States has the biggest hill to climb. Europe whose cities were laid out largely before the automobile, has mass transit. China and India can learn from our mistakes. We've got the benefit of neither of those situations.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 1:20 PM. Reason : ^^]

6/1/2007 1:18:02 PM

No, I don't think any nation should be exempt from Kyoto or any other climate change treaty.

I also noticed that Bush said he will propose something "at the end of next year". If he proposes anything at the end of the next year, he knows it will take months or perhaps a year to negotiate an agreement on anything and..... since he will no longer be president as of Jan 2009, he is essentially saying he is not going to do anything.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 1:20:54 PM

Quote :

"If temperatures rise, a large amount of currently productive and marginally productive land will become desertified, especially when weather patterns are affected, and will bring drought and famine to areas that are now productive agriculturally (deserts in Texas, New Mexico extend into the midwest/ US breadbasket?)"

The IPCC has already stated that agricultural productivity would increase in the short term with an increase in global temperature. If the temperature were to continue to rise past those predicted by the IPCC (which is extremely unlikely), then production could conceivably decrease in the far future.

Quote :

"Second, if temperatures rise, than a lot of productive agricultural land on the worlds coastal plain would be submerged (think of all the Agriculture in Eastern NC for example). Instead of 3/4s of the earth's surface being under water, we could see 4/5's."

LOL, who continues to perpetuate this myth? The IPCC predicted that even with a temperature increase of up to 6 degrees over the next century, the sea level will rise only between 7 and 17 inches.

People who post about rising sea levels as if they were a major concern only show their ignorance on the issues. This just in: Al Gore is not the world's leading expert on climate change.

6/1/2007 1:23:20 PM

Quote :

"China and India can learn from our mistakes"

but what makes you think they will? doesnt seem like powerful nations respond well to "dont do what i do, do what i say" type situations...china and india want their economies to continue to grow, just like the US during potential Kyoto ratifications...hell every nation wants a good economy

6/1/2007 1:28:56 PM

I highly recommend Peter Hessler's Oracle Bones China is actually very intent on learning from our mistakes. Will they do it out of altruism? I doubt it. Will they do it because they feel it'll make them more powerful in the long run? Yup.

6/1/2007 1:31:18 PM

Quote :

"wait... logical deduction (not that the global warming argument is logical) would have one conclude that, a) if temperatures rise then b) more land will be able to support agriculture. More agriculture means more plants, which means more... OXYGEN!"

Haha, if you think that's logical deduction, it's no wonder you come off as a retard.

Quote :

"The IPCC predicted that even with a temperature increase of up to 6 degrees over the next century, the sea level will rise only between 7 and 17 inches. "

Even 7 inches will have a significant effecct. 17 inches would be devastating to a lot of areas.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 1:57 PM. Reason : ]

6/1/2007 1:55:48 PM

Quote :

"Even 7 inches will have a significant effecct. 17 inches would be devastating to a lot of areas."

Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. They rise a couple of millimeters each year, and that rate has been pretty consistent every year. They have risen a little over 7 inches in the last century, at a rate of 1 to 3 mm annually. If it hasn't been a problem over the last millenium, why should it be a problem in the future?

If temperatures rise 6 degrees over the next century, rising sea levels are the least of our worries.

PS, every time the IPCC gets together, they revise their sea-level forcast downwards. It's pretty obvious that they just exaggerate the risks when they are not sure about something.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 2:21 PM. Reason : 2]

6/1/2007 2:04:29 PM

we really should've reduced our emissions 20,000 years ago instead of letting sea levels rise 4,800 inches

6/1/2007 2:20:10 PM

too bad most of the world's civilization didn't exist then

6/1/2007 2:30:07 PM

^^^ So erosion of coastline and flooding won't be a problem?
Rising sea level even from nature DOES cause problems for people, and an increase in this rising would only make things worse.

http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm

And 17in would be pretty devastating for the US. In NC alone, most of dare county would be wiped out, and half of each of the coast counties, as well as most of the outer banks. 17in won't happen, but it's dumb to say it's not a big deal.

^^ In that chart, the present rate of increase line seems to be higher than what it should be, by just the natural trends.


[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

6/1/2007 2:30:29 PM

^^^ you cant use a graph to normalize trends over thousands of years, when the mass consumption of fossil fuels and the exponential rise in atmospheric rise in carbon concentrations has only occurred within the last 100 years.

If you presented this as evidence at any sort of conference, this would be the time when the news crews outside would get great footage of you being thrown through the window onto the street like in an Old Western movie.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 2:38:05 PM

LOL, now climate conferences have resorted to tossing critics out of windows? No surprise there, considering the rabid fanaticism of some of the leading climatologists.

6/1/2007 2:44:51 PM

^

^^well some of the blind faith anthro gw supporters like to believe that the earth was a completely static system before the evil oil companies came in to make trillions of CEO profits at th expense of all poor people

6/1/2007 2:55:15 PM

Quote :

"if temperatures rise, a large amount of currently productive and marginally productive land will become desertified, especially when weather patterns are affected, and will bring drought and famine to areas that are now productive agriculturally"

Not necessarily. Warmer temperatures might make things better. As temperatures rose so does evaporation which drives precipitation.

You also need to take into account the type of warming predicted. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which is most effective during the winter. The summer already has lots of greenhouse gas in the form of water vapor, so increased CO2 concentrations only have a tiny impact during the summer, increasing the greenhouse effect a tiny percentage. But cool winter air does not hold moisture, so there is very little greenhouse effect from water, and therefore the added effect of CO2 will be substantial, potentially doubling the greenhouse effect.

So, all in all, warmer winters will kill glaciers, since they do not have cold enough weather to regrow after summer losses, but the overall effect is beneficial for mankind as it extends growing seasons into the winter without substantially shifting summer weather patterns.

6/1/2007 2:58:30 PM

No, any conference would toss you out for trying pass off such spurious and invalid assertions as fact. The graph does not show the rise in sea level change or change in concentrations of greenhouse gases within the last 100 years, which is the the crux of the discussion on global warming. Unless cavemen were driving Escalades 24,000 years ago, the information has absolutely no relevant bearing to the discussion at hand.

You normalize data by making the terms needlessly long in comparison to the issue being studied, so you can erase the impact of short term growth trends. It's lying with graphs.

6/1/2007 3:01:17 PM

Quote :

"any conference would toss you out for trying pass off such spurious and invalid assertions as fact"

that graph actually is factul

your claims on the other hand are boldfaced lies

6/1/2007 3:03:31 PM

Quote :

"Unless cavemen were driving Escalades 24,000 years ago, the information has absolutely no relevant bearing to the discussion at hand. "

BECAUSE cavemen weren't driving Escalades 24,000 years ago completely validates the fact that the earth's climate changes without help from mankind. I'm not saying that we're not causing global warming now, but we sure as hell didn't then.

6/1/2007 3:03:59 PM

^^^^ You're only considering one factor of a relatively complex system. You can't just look at evaporation.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050427/ai_n14602213:

Quote :

" The benefits of higher levels of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, will in fact be outweighed by the downsides of climate change, a Royal Society discussion meeting was told yesterday. It had been thought that the gas might act as a fertiliser to increase plant growth. Rising atmospheric temperatures, longer droughts and side-effects of both, such as higher levels of ground-level ozone gas, are likely to bring about a substantial reduction in crop yields in the coming decades, large-scale experiments have shown. "

^ No one is saying we were causing it then. Where are you getting this from? The cause then was the ending of the last ice age, causing glaciers to melt. If you look at what treetwista posted, it clearly shows (assuming whoever put that line in there is right) that melting is at a rate higher than natural causes. The current consensus is that when you look in to what's causing that melting now, it's an increased rate of warming, likely caused by humans.

That's the whole deal with global warming. It's not that the earth is warming, it's that it's warming faster than what should be normal.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ]

6/1/2007 3:10:22 PM

Quote :

"BECAUSE cavemen weren't driving Escalades 24,000 years ago completely validates the fact that the earth's climate changes without help from mankind. I'm not saying that we're not causing global warming now, but we sure as hell didn't then."

Of course it does. But the degree to with which humanity is increasing that trend is the issue. A warming trend that should take thousands of years is taking only decades. And we have also exceeded the limits of national variation, ie we are warmer than we have ever been in the span of human and scientifically derived historical records. And with a majority of humanity living within close proximity of the coast, we have trillions of dollars of property and infrastructure at risk. We have placed all of our trust in stable sea levels, and if they rise.... you think your taxes are high now? Just think what will happen if the federal government has to replace half of the country's infrastructure and bails out all of the coastal property owners.

Do you really think that we can release trillions of tons of fossil fuels into the air and it just disappears into nowhere and has no effect? To do so would violate the Law of Conservation of Matter, a basic principle of physics.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 3:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 3:21:18 PM

As I stated previously in this thread, sea levels have been rising at a fairly constant rate of 1.5 to 2.5 mm annually over the last century. The majority of this rise in sea level is due to thermal expansion. We can accurately predict future thermal expansion as a function of temperature rise, and it's just not that big of a cause for concern.

All this noise about Manhattan being underwater is just fearmongering nonsense. We all love to point fingers at Bush for fearmongering, but Al Gore is just as guilty with An Inconvenient Truth.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 3:44 PM. Reason : 2]

6/1/2007 3:43:27 PM