NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think? I've seen quite a few articels about it online, but not any discussion here.

I've heard that the eventual danger is that the greenland ice shelf will melt, which (somehow) screws up the salinity of the ocean, which in turn shuts down the gulf stream=N Europe freezes and general badness.

I don't think it's a Hoax at all. I think it could happen, but not anytime soon.

I think if our comparatively young species can completely and irrevocably alter the course of a planet that has existed for billions of years, more power to us.

Actually, it's midway between a hoax and a threat:
It's a throat.
:)

Seriously, I don't really know enough to form a definitive opinion onn it. I'm not well-versed in the science of it, so most of what I've heard is dumbed-down versions that really seem to lose a bit in translation, and turn mostly into bickering over "You're wrong!" "No, you're wrong!!".

I don't know though, those scientific papers might really be saying just that in more complicated language.
:D

What do you think? I've seen quite a few articels about it online, but not any discussion here.

I've heard that the eventual danger is that the greenland ice shelf will melt, which (somehow) screws up the salinity of the ocean, which in turn shuts down the gulf stream=N Europe freezes and general badness.
Greenland's ice shelf covers a land mass. Most of it would necessarily be absorbed into the soil.

We know that that the Earth was warmed and cool many times in the past. That it has been at temperatures higher than now and that it has been at temperatures lower than now. We know that this roughly cyclical and that it seems to match with Earth's orbit and the power output of the sun. We are not sure if we are having any affect on it, and if we are how much. Likely however its not that much.

We also know that we can't know what specific effects global climate change will have on any particular region, nor can we do anything to stop it.

Conclusion: Sit back, smoke a Cuban Cigar and relax.

Seems like that's the best thing to do...

...Except for the Cuban Cigar part. I'd rather have a nice popsicle or a rather large mug of Cream Soda.

Climate change is a fact for people living in arctic climes. The gulfs that used to freeze over, don't anymore. Thaws are earlier, and freezes later. Glaciers are melting. Most of us don't feel the effects yet because we live at more temperate lattitudes, but what is happening in the Canadian Arctic is definately indicative of what is to come. Some scientists say that its already too late to reverse the trend, no matter what measures are taken....measures far beyond the Kyoto protocal, even.

here is an article about a recent study of northern lakes.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2003/07/29/arctic_climate030729.html

We know that that the Earth was warmed and cool many times in the past. That it has been at temperatures higher than now and that it has been at temperatures lower than now. We know that this roughly cyclical and that it seems to match with Earth's orbit and the power output of the sun. We are not sure if we are having any affect on it, and if we are how much. Likely however its not that much.

We also know that we can't know what specific effects global climate change will have on any particular region, nor can we do anything to stop it.

Conclusion: Sit back, smoke a Cuban Cigar and relax.
Sources? Proof? Science is showing that this is happening MUCH faster than previous trends, whatever they may be. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that everything is peachy-keen isn't going to help the people that live on low-lying islands, and will have to leave their homes, or the dramatically changing habitats and insect problems ecosystems are facing.

I agree. Most people notice little, because the climate will have to change drastically for them to notice anything. The tuvalu islands in the pacific are beign flooded,a dn the populatin has already started evacuatin gto New Zealand. http://www.tuvaluislands.com/ But no large industrial countries care, especially the United States. That makes me sad...

I agree. Most people notice little, because the climate will have to change drastically for them to notice anything. The tuvalu islands in the pacific are beign flooded,a dn the populatin has already started evacuatin gto New Zealand. http://www.tuvaluislands.com/ But no large industrial countries care, especially the United States. That makes me sad...
Why should we care about your islands? Go bother New Zealand for help. Oh right, everything is America's fault.

Why should we care about your islands? Go bother New Zealand for help. Oh right, everything is America's fault.
Clearly, these particular islands are not a special concern of the United States. Global warming is a GLOBAL issue- it will effect everyone, including us rich-ass countries that think our economies and future prospect are invincible.
The unwillingness of the US to sign on to the Kyoto protcall (insufficient though it may in itself be) simply signals a serious attitude issue that exists between the US and the international community. I mean, If we can't come together on an isssue that is so ultimately universal, that doesn't bode well for cooperation in stuff that would be seemingly more contentious. But wait...oh, I forgot...if there's no lucrative price tag, monetary, or politically, such things are a lost cause.

Clearly, these particular islands are not a special concern of the United States. Global warming is a GLOBAL issue- it will effect everyone, including us rich-ass countries that think our economies and future prospect are invincible.
The unwillingness of the US to sign on to the Kyoto protcall (insufficient though it may in itself be) simply signals a serious attitude issue that exists between the US and the international community. I mean, If we can't come together on an isssue that is so ultimately universal, that doesn't bode well for cooperation in stuff that would be seemingly more contentious. But wait...oh, I forgot...if there's no lucrative price tag, monetary, or politically, such things are a lost cause.
Actually, there is quite a high price tag .... for the US to pay if it signed onto Kyoto. That's why the US Senate voted 95-0 against it. That includes an awful lot of liberal Democrats. It would severely restrict, if not cripple, the US economy, while allowing "developing countries", such as China, one of the world's biggest polluters, to continue.

Why should we care about your islands? Go bother New Zealand for help. Oh right, everything is America's fault.

Hey, I'm an American. I'm just empathetic.

Hey, I'm an American. I'm just empathetic.
So what are you doing to help these islands?

Actually, there is quite a high price tag .... for the US to pay if it signed onto Kyoto. That's why the US Senate voted 95-0 against it. That includes an awful lot of liberal Democrats. It would severely restrict, if not cripple, the US economy, while allowing "developing countries", such as China, one of the world's biggest polluters, to continue.
I don't really think this is the time to be pointing fingers and whining about other countries lack of commitment or whatever. As a leader in the world economy, world pollution, and world politics, the US should shoulder some responsibility. Obviously there are economic issued that any administration would rahter not face, but this is alot more important than that.

I'm definately not an economist, but I have a hunch that if there were actual meaningful incentives and legislation for green technolgy (which is already very developed, just not used-again, because its cheaper to pollute) the economy would adjust quickly. Its a simple matter of political will, some inspiration, some leadership, and some imagination. The science is there. the technology is there.

I don't really think this is the time to be pointing fingers and whining about other countries lack of commitment or whatever. As a leader in the world economy, world pollution, and world politics, the US should shoulder some responsibility. Obviously there are economic issued that any administration would rahter not face, but this is alot more important than that.

I'm definately not an economist, but I have a hunch that if there were actual meaningful incentives and legislation for green technolgy (which is already very developed, just not used-again, because its cheaper to pollute) the economy would adjust quickly. Its a simple matter of political will, some inspiration, some leadership, and some imagination. The science is there. the technology is there.
Again, it's the whole attitude of the "US owes X Y" that pisses so many Americans off. We don't owe you a thing. What have you done for us? Just because we made more of what we had than you doesn't make us liable for your decisions, poor though they may be.

I don't really think this is the time to be pointing fingers and whining about other countries lack of commitment or whatever. As a leader in the world economy, world pollution, and world politics, the US should shoulder some responsibility. Obviously there are economic issued that any administration would rahter not face, but this is alot more important than that.

I'm definately not an economist, but I have a hunch that if there were actual meaningful incentives and legislation for green technolgy (which is already very developed, just not used-again, because its cheaper to pollute) the economy would adjust quickly. Its a simple matter of political will, some inspiration, some leadership, and some imagination. The science is there. the technology is there.
Has nothing to do with other countries lack of commitment. That's the way the treaty was deliberately set up: to allow developing countries to pollute as much as they want, while the restrictions are placed most heavily on the US. Apparently 95 other Senators agree with me on that. From both sides of the aisle.

Again, it's the whole attitude of the "US owes X Y" that pisses so many Americans off. We don't owe you a thing. What have you done for us? Just because we made more of what we had than you doesn't make us liable for your decisions, poor though they may be.

While it may be true that the US doesn't have a quid pro quo agreemtn with any of the nations that might suffer directly and more immidiatly from Global Warming, we still have an obigation to be part of the global community. Imagine if the $200 billion spent in Iraq had been spend as government subsadies to encourage oil-indepoendence and cleaner industry? That would help the earth mroe than democracizing one nation ...which seems to be the only real reason for our occupation at this point.

Further, Global Warming is not just a threat to nations other than the US. It is self serving for us (the US) to help stop CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming. The US cannot pretend that it is economically self siffuient, and damage to the agrivultural industires of the world would seemingly have global percussions. Also, if the United States could develope renewable energy sources and begin to gain independence from Middle Eastern Oil, we could stop fighting wars there, and would move towords the isolationistic policy you seem to desire.

Sources? Proof? Science is showing that this is happening MUCH faster than previous trends, whatever they may be. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that everything is peachy-keen isn't going to help the people that live on low-lying islands, and will have to leave their homes, or the dramatically changing habitats and insect problems ecosystems are facing.

Since I'm actually busy writing up some policy statements for a poly-sci class I'll let you do your own research on the matter. A google search on "Vostok Ice Core data" or perhaps "Global Warming Earth Orbit" should turn up some nice things for you.

Science is not showing that this is happening much faster than previous trends. Indeed what Science is showing is that we are likely near the tail end of a trend that has been going on for ~100k years. At the same time Science is also showing a trend associated with CO2 levels and Global Warming. Trends however do not make for cause and effect.

And what is this crap about people needing to leave their homes? No data has ever suggested anything serious will happen within the next 4 or so lifetimes so far as I know. Indeed the people who live in areas that may be affected will end up moving no matter what we do. If Humanity was simply wiped off the face of this planet global warming would march on quite happily without us.

The Norse had dairy farms and grain harvests in Greenland a thousand years ago. The temperature was at least 14 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it is today. Before "Global Warming" was made a political issue, scientists referred to this period as the Climatic Optimum.

Two hundred and fifty years ago the Hudson River, the Thames, and the Rhine estuary froze over every winter. Then James Watt devised a steam engine good enough for common use, and people started burning coal and putting a lot of soot in the air. It absorbed sunlight, and temperatures peaked at about 5 degrees F. higher than present in the late 19th Century-- just before internal combustion engines caught on. Those don't produce a lot of soot as a rule.

Since then, reduced oceanic evaporation has cut the snowfall on Mt. Kilimanjaro to the point where there is almost as little snow on the peak now as there was 250 years ago. The same lack of humidity has increased the severity of droughts in overgrazed regions.

Given that 98% of the planet's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, it is probably physically impossible to restore the world's normal, healthy warmth of 1000 AD with CO2 emissions alone. The greenhouse effect is far less significant than albedo when it comes to temperature; the greenhouse effect only alters how fast absorbed light escapes back into space.

The real problem is that, while warming is self-correcting-- extra heat would mean more clouds, which reflect incoming heat (which is not what's happening)-- cooling is self-reinforcing: less heat means snow and ice in the upper latitudes persist longer, and reflect incoming heat.

Local reductions in glaciers, due to evaporation not being replaced by snowfall, due to lower humidity, are a minor effect. Glaciers form in comparatively narrow valleys. The real problem is the slight reduction in light absorption over broad, flat areas, due to persistent ice, or snow, or even frost lasting a few minutes longer in the morning.

However, this may end up correcting itself, sort of. With help.

Canada and Siberia are going to be the first areas where the ice sheets return, and both are inhabited by people who have never been very willing to move. They're also pretty well crammed with trees. A couple of good forest fires per year should spread enough soot over the ice to make a dent.

I have no problem believing that global warming/climate change is happening, but I'm not sold yet on the idea that we're doing it.

The atmosphere consists different gases with different characteristics. Isn´t it against against common sense to claim that by altering the relations of these gases wouldn´t change the characteristics of the atmosphere, for example the ability to store heat?

We are changing the world and that´s truly sad thing to happen.

Actually, there is quite a high price tag .... for the US to pay if it signed onto Kyoto. That's why the US Senate voted 95-0 against it. That includes an awful lot of liberal Democrats. It would severely restrict, if not cripple, the US economy, while allowing "developing countries", such as China, one of the world's biggest polluters, to continue.

If you don't mind pollution, would you mind if my country exports surplus industrial waste to yours? We pay.

And the economy argument is bullshit.. companies are forced to compete and improve their methods. By not signing the Kyoto protocol, your highly polluting, bush-funding companies will only lag behind in technological innovation: Not being forced to seek more efficient ways to produce, they will lose in the long run in technological terms.

After all, people in the other developed countries aren't stupid.. they would not sign the protocol if there was nothing to gain from it ;)

I mean, i know all major European energy and oil companies are making (some have already been implemented) plans to deliver alternative energies.. at current oil price levels, it is cheaper to buy wind power than to buy oil power.. there is a lot of money to be gained, by those that got the insight to invest in those areas. Offcourse, company CEO's want to maximize the value to their shareholders, they would not invest if they didnt saw it necessary, even if it was good on the long run. But the kyoto protocol makes it necessary. So it is good for everyone: For the enviroment, and for the Long run profitability of the energy companies.

Well, if the US wants to live on the short run, that is okay for you. Perhaps the RAPTURE will take you all before you go to hell :D (I bet Bush is waiting for it)

The atmosphere consists different gases with different characteristics. Isn´t it against against common sense to claim that by altering the relations of these gases wouldn´t change the characteristics of the atmosphere, for example the ability to store heat?

We are changing the world and that´s truly sad thing to happen.

The world has been changing for a very damned long time. Or perhaps you would like to live the Precambrian? Or how about the Cretaceous? Yep, the world was exactly the same as it was today. No no, same average temperature. Same layout of land. Same species kicking around. Yep, it wasn't until humanity came around that the balance(HAH!) of nature was disrupted and the dinosaurs went extinct, that the, by god, the Earth's temperature started to fluctuate and entire species died out. Yep, it is only us Humans who change the Earth. :rolleyes:

We are changing the concentration and relative relations of the gases in the atmosphere. The problem is that the amount we put out is simply so damned small that it is like throwing a spec of dust against a rolling bowling ball. Do you really think that spec of dust is going to change the direction of the bowling ball?

global warming as per the Kyoto 'protocol' is a hoax and a sham. The Kyoto protocol has been debunked as junk science. It's an ill-conceived attempt by green wacko's to extort money from gullible governments. Thank God that president Bush didn't fall for the scam.

Climate chance does not equate global warming, and climate change might not be affected by us at all, climate has always alternated between heat and cold. How do the global warming commies explain the melting of the ice at the end of the ice age?

While I admit that global warming is a problem, the unconfirmed nature of it is even more worrying.

Hang on, I hear you stammer. Isn't it due to carbon emissions and green house gases?

That is only one theory. There are currently a great many other theories some of which have far more prove and far more evidence than the carbon emission theory. There are many groups of independent scientisits looking into other reasons for global warming. Some have noticed a correlation between global warming and sun spots on the Sun. Some have noticed that the Earth has been through such dramatic temperature shifts before. Some have made the rather obvious comment that the carbon emission is simply too small to make such a huge difference in global heating.

But why is global warming taught in our schools and generally accepted as the only theory? Well because the government pumps money into projects that study carbon emission. The government usually believes that pumping money into something produces results (see the NHS) and so they believe that this carbon emissions theory must be correct and widely broadcast that fact.

I am not disconunting the carbon emission theory - however in matters such as science it is best to keep a open mind.

I think global warming is real, and is a very serious threat (although I chose the second option, for some reason). As the world get warmer, the weather extremes will also increase--hot will be hotter, cold will be colder.

That's what I think, anyway...

Actually, there is quite a high price tag .... for the US to pay if it signed onto Kyoto. That's why the US Senate voted 95-0 against it. That includes an awful lot of liberal Democrats. It would severely restrict, if not cripple, the US economy, while allowing "developing countries", such as China, one of the world's biggest polluters, to continue.

Not true... China gets a 'temporary repreive' due to it's practical third-world status, but STILL looks set to have hit approximately Kyoto levels by 2008.

The US can't say the same.

Also - the argument that it would 'severely restrict' the US economy is ridiculous. If ALL the other major industrialised nations are attempting to hit Kyoto targets (many of which have to make a much greater percentage reduction than the US) then the US would be at NO disadvantage... since all nations, and all industries, will be spending to meet those targets.

In fact, by NOT signing to Kyoto - the US is taking advantage of ALL the nations that DID sign.

If you look at other areas of the US economy, where the side-effects of pollution are more readily visible (like water pollution), the US already has comparable protocols for protecting water, to other 'Kyoto' nations, and has (comparitively) far outstripped what would be required under the Kyoto Protocols, in terms of water pollutants.

Has it crippled the US economy? Does the average American even NOTICE?

How many Americans know what the acceptable limits are on cyanide in public water supplies, or how hard/expensive that is to acheive?

The thing is - in water - the results are quickly seen - if you have an outbreak of cryptosporidium, people get sick pretty quick - and they won't stand for that. Thus, the government has no choice but to act, and the water industry has to match those targets.

But air pollution takes MUCH longer to show adverse effects (which is why lead stayed in fuel for so long) - so the government doesn't have the same pressure on it to act - and it won't until it has to, because the big polluters are the oil and chemical companies - and they invest a lot of money in Washington.

Not true... China gets a 'temporary repreive' due to it's practical third-world status, but STILL looks set to have hit approximately Kyoto levels by 2008.

Haha, you should be a comedian... wait no, most comedians get their material from stuff that is at least based in some truth. But damn man, that’s just a funny lie.

The US can't say the same.

Also - the argument that it would 'severely restrict' the US economy is ridiculous. If ALL the other major industrialised nations are attempting to hit Kyoto targets (many of which have to make a much greater percentage reduction than the US) then the US would be at NO disadvantage... since all nations, and all industries, will be spending to meet those targets.

In fact, by NOT signing to Kyoto - the US is taking advantage of ALL the nations that DID sign.

GOOD

i think we are regressin into a more temperate median temperature (like before the "little ice age") Do a little reading on it, and many scientist will say that global warming isn;t a threat, it is a renewal, nothing we have done has caused it or prevented it. Read this month's issue of "Scientific American"

Global warming is;

Essentially unproven - The world is heating up, yes, but it has probably since its creation been going through hot and cold cycles, and certainly for the entire duration of our current oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere - as was said, Greenland used to be farmland, and this was at the time of the Vikings, who most certainly did not have massive factories pumping out pollutants.

For causes unknown - Again, it is most likely to just be a natural part of the planet's process. I'm pretty sure we haven't had a whole lot to do with the LAST few dozen ice ages... :confused:. Furthermore, given that the largest temperature rise in the twentieth century was recorded before we started with the CO2, it doesn't look to me like it's having an effect. In addition, nature produces thousands of times more CO2 per year than Humans do.

It might be beneficial - If we got back to a point where northern Canada and Greenland could be farmed, wouldn't that be good? A minor rise in temperatures would certainly do no harm, and we as a species have come through far worse with far less.

Kyoto is a sham - I don't know if it's theft on the part of environmentalists, or just well-meaning delusion, but the Kyoto Protocol isn't planning to have any sort of significant impact. I'm damned glad Clinton and Bush didn't sign it (Oh, you forgot? Clinton rejected it long before Dubya came along.). It's a symbol, and it's a symbol which would damage economies without having any sort of returns.

Media fear - the media, of course, doesn't need anything like facts to back it up. The media is happy just to say "Well, it's a good thing you went to the Maldives when you did, because in another hundred years they'll be underwater." That quote is from a BBC commercial for their news; sadly, as I generally expect a much higher standard from the BBC than to portray those who don't know all the facts about - or more accurately all those who disagree with - the subject as being ignorant. This ties in with the general problem of the population at large, who tend to argue that we should do smoething because it is a big danger and we should try to stop it.

Which seems to me like it is saying "Promote a threat dangerous enough, and it doesn't need to exist for people to worry about it.".

I certainly think climate change should be addressed, but not by an ad-hoc coalition of environmentalists tied in with the socialists of Europe, and certainly not without a hell of a lot more research being done. (Did you know, for example, that scientists have admitted they can't simulate clouds accurately in the model used to predict it? And given that clouds are an integral part of the matter...)

It's real, but it's natural.

It poses a mild threat, but there is little we can do about it. The planet is dynamic and constantly changes. We have to learn to adapt to it - which we normally do anyway - but the politics of fear is a lot stronger now than it was 100 years ago.

We are causing some environmental problems by our ignorance and we could do something to change that, but I'm pretty sure we won't.

Frankly, I don't worry about it that much.

I don't want the polar bears to die :(

I don't want the polar bears to die :(

I'm sure they'll be fine for many centuries to come.

We're still emerging from an ice-age. Of course the temps are rising. :headbang:

When this ice-age is finished the temperatures will likely be 15 degrees higher than now if previous cycles are anything to go by.

Such large swings occur naturally without our help. Arrogance to suppose we can stop it.

Researchers are exagerating our contribution. This is their gravy train - "Just look at those temperatures. We need more money for more research else the end is nigh!", they cry.
And while we're on the subject the conclusions are drawn from statistical research anyway. A pseudo science akin to astrology!

It's all bull dust and I'm damned if i wanna pay more taxes to reduce CO2 emmissions when there are real pollutants to be dealt with.

It seems to me that Global Warming is very real, and chances are, it's our fault too.

"But Mr. FIST," you say, "Global warming/cooling has been happening since the creation of the Earth."
"Indeed," says I, "But this time, it's happening VERY FAST. Global Warming normally occurs over a period of Thousands of years. Right now it's somewhat closer to dozens. That has never happened before in the history of this planet, and as far as we can tell, the only major variable this time is us and our "little" industrial revolution. You may think a couple of aerosols and carbon monoxide is but a speck in our atmosphere, but those 'drops' add up over time, and they can't exactly go anywhere else, can they?

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's a whole load of baloney created by scientists with overactive imaginations and crazy confidence intervals.

But what if the hippies are right? If we do nothing, we're going to look pretty stupid a hundred years down the track when most of the planet is either frozen or submerged.

I'd say it's better to err on the side of caution than laugh in the face of science (whether or not they turn out to be right), possibly resulting in the end of civilisation as we know it. Would you like to gamble with the fate of the planet?


P.S. The koyoto protocol sucks - the result of politics messing with a good idea, turning it into a bunch of crappy compromises. It would be an alright start, but IMO it should be better.

It might be beneficial - If we got back to a point where northern Canada and Greenland could be farmed, wouldn't that be good? A minor rise in temperatures would certainly do no harm, and we as a species have come through far worse with far less.

Even a minor rise in temperature of the oceans is enough to destroy almost all the coral on the planet. No coral means an entire ecosystem is wiped out, resulting in the death of countless species, including those we base entire industries on (non deep-water Fishing, crustaceans, kelp, pearls to name a few).
You also have the 'minor' issue of no reefs, meaning the shores are unprotected from the ocean, meaning alot of coastal towns are going to get battered like hell, possibly becoming unlivable.

And all that from raising the oceans temperature by a degree or three.

Once again, do you really wanna risk even the chance of this happening?

I don't think it's a Hoax at all. I think it could happen, but not anytime soon.

Climate change is happening NOW. Right now, at this very moment.

The sun, volcanoes and Earth's orbit does more to effect us than we do to ourselves. Not to mention the Moon and sun affects the tides.

The Middle Ages were warmer than we are right now and all this talk of Global Warming when its 19 outside with a 2 degree windchill......That's a different issue.

Besides aren't these the same nuts that said we're heading for another ice age 20 years ago?

Climate chance does not equate global warming, and climate change might not be affected by us at all, climate has always alternated between heat and cold. How do the global warming commies explain the melting of the ice at the end of the ice age?

Global warming is a bad shorthand for climate change. Climate change is happening now, and not just to commies (?). I expect that we can explain the end of an ice age like this - "the world got warmer, so the ice melted".

The difficulty with climate change is that it isn't just global warming. Someone here has made the point that a couple of degrees extra warmth would allow increased farming in canada and greenland. They *might* do that, and they might also increase the central african deserts so they fill the whole of africa.

The melting of polar ice by increased general global warmth is currently slowing down the Atlantic Conveyor / Gulf Stream, which is leading to much colder winters in western europe. Did you know that the UK is as far north as canada, and portugal as far north as new york? When the gulf stream shuts down completely (50% chance in the next 100 years according to the UK Met Office) britain will be icebound in winters. It has happened before.

Furthermore, as the sea rises, so land will be submerged, obviously. And as some areas become more habitable, others will become less habitable. The world will change. But it probably won't end.

The sun, volcanoes and Earth's orbit does more to effect us than we do to ourselves. Not to mention the Moon and sun affects the tides.

The Middle Ages were warmer than we are right now and all this talk of Global Warming when its 19 outside with a 2 degree windchill......That's a different issue.

Besides aren't these the same nuts that said we're heading for another ice age 20 years ago?

Global Warming is a bad shorthand for Climate Change. And to say it's cold here so the climate can't be changing is pretty dumb.

Global Warming is a bad shorthand for Climate Change. And to say it's cold here so the climate can't be changing is pretty dumb.

Thanks for taking my words out of context! I was being sarcastic! Anytime these debates come up it seems that I"m freezing my ass off. I feel like I'm in an ice age and NOT a desert :rolleyes:

No need for us Brits to worry.

According to recent models, Britain will be fine wine growing country, and half of the US will be desert.

or maybe we should be concerned over things that affect us all?

We're still emerging from an ice-age. Of course the temps are rising. :headbang:

When this ice-age is finished the temperatures will likely be 15 degrees higher than now if previous cycles are anything to go by.

Such large swings occur naturally without our help. Arrogance to suppose we can stop it.

Researchers are exagerating our contribution. This is their gravy train - "Just look at those temperatures. We need more money for more research else the end is nigh!", they cry.
And while we're on the subject the conclusions are drawn from statistical research anyway. A pseudo science akin to astrology!

It's all bull dust and I'm damned if i wanna pay more taxes to reduce CO2 emmissions when there are real pollutants to be dealt with.

This is the best explanation I've seen!

We're still emerging from an ice-age. Of course the temps are rising. :headbang:

When this ice-age is finished the temperatures will likely be 15 degrees higher than now if previous cycles are anything to go by.

Such large swings occur naturally without our help. Arrogance to suppose we can stop it.

Researchers are exagerating our contribution. This is their gravy train - "Just look at those temperatures. We need more money for more research else the end is nigh!", they cry.
And while we're on the subject the conclusions are drawn from statistical research anyway. A pseudo science akin to astrology!

It's all bull dust and I'm damned if i wanna pay more taxes to reduce CO2 emmissions when there are real pollutants to be dealt with.

I agree with this one also.

I'm also tired of the U.S. being expected to fix everything. Why don't you attack China, the biggest polluter of them all, hell they are just now getting rid of their steam locomotives, 50+ years after every body else.

Because the U.S. didn't sign some sham treaty doesn't mean we aren't doing our part to limit pollution.

Main thing though, is quit expecting us to fix every thing. When we do, or try to assist, the rest of the world whines that we are interfering in their governments or whatever. What do you expect? If we fix it we should get something in return, say maybe a democracy instead of communism. Works for me.

Seems to me like the US is taking a big risk in more ways than one. If the US goes out of its way to ignore the rest of the world, and the US gets the decision wrong, then not only will the US have climate change to contend with, but if it ends up affecting other nations adversely, then I for one will be standing up and advocating that if the US isn't in an ice age at this future point in time, then it should be nuked repeatedly by the rest of the world until it is.

Of course, if the US gets the decision right, against the predictions of most experts as far as I can see, then it will have all the advantages of a slightly increased economic growth unhindered by the Kyoto Protocol.

Worth it?

Seems to me like the US is taking a big risk in more ways than one. If the US goes out of its way to ignore the rest of the world, and the US gets the decision wrong, then not only will the US have climate change to contend with, but if it ends up affecting other nations adversely, then I for one will be standing up and advocating that if the US isn't in an ice age at this future point in time, then it should be nuked repeatedly by the rest of the world until it is.

Of course, if the US gets the decision right, against the predictions of most experts as far as I can see, then it will have all the advantages of a slightly increased economic growth unhindered by the Kyoto Protocol.

Worth it?

Yep.

It's not so much a hoax as flawed thinking. I wrote an essay on this and submitted it to Cheathouse.com. I found that both sides of this argument are flawed and did my own research. If you'd like a good report to write about this, complete with charts and graphs, download it.

I agree with this one also.

I'm also tired of the U.S. being expected to fix everything. Why don't you attack China, the biggest polluter of them all, hell they are just now getting rid of their steam locomotives, 50+ years after every body else.

Because the U.S. didn't sign some sham treaty doesn't mean we aren't doing our part to limit pollution.

Main thing though, is quit expecting us to fix every thing. When we do, or try to assist, the rest of the world whines that we are interfering in their governments or whatever. What do you expect? If we fix it we should get something in return, say maybe a democracy instead of communism. Works for me.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4325457.stm


"The Royal Society has calculated that the 13% rise in greenhouse gas emissions from the United States between 1990 and 2002 is already bigger than the overall cut achieved if all the other parties to the [Kyoto] Protocol reach their targets," he will tell the embassy gathering.

"Even if emissions from the United States stay at the same level until 2012, which is an unrealistically conservative assumption, while the other targets are met, the overall results for the original parties to the protocol will be a rise in emissions of 1.6% instead of the desired reduction of 5.2%"



Don't think the US is unrealistically being asked to do the rest of the world a favour. The US is being asked to catch up with what the rest of the world is already trying to do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4325457.stm




Don't think the US is unrealistically being asked to do the rest of the world a favour. The US is being asked to catch up with what the rest of the world is already trying to do.

I still am not convinced. The US is continuously losing heavy industry to overseas countries which means these places are no longer putting out the emissions that they once did here.

To my knowledge we have the most stringent emissions laws for our automobiles.

One of the reasons, I am told, that heavy industry moves is because the "pollution" laws are less stringent in those countries than here. So how can we continue to be a major contributor to the "world's pollution problem?

Don't give me fossil fuel electrical production, or the number of cars on the road. I've been to the far east traffic there is infinately worse and so is pollution and not just the air.

I still think it's because unless we jump on board, the "treaty" is considered a sham and isn't enforceable.

I may not have all my facts straight, but I still say, Why should we continue to "support" the rest of the world? When it, they, whatever, doesn't really appreciate anyway?

I do not think any substantial action will be taken on Global warming unless its effects are felt first hand by a lot of people, only by then it will be too late. I think that applies to all major problems affecting the earth, deforestation, overpopulation, fall in grain stock, Peak Oil.

Because until the effects are felt by a large number of people, a majority of us will be content to believe the deniers, as their position enables us to carry on with business as usual without any worries.

I have a hypothetical question for all those who believe global warming (and it's unquestioned that the planet's average temperature has risen about 1 degree F in the last century).
What if that rise was found to be a totally natural phenomenon? Would you stop your antics, and let the temperature rise without interference? or would you continue to bitch about it?

Besides aren't these the same nuts that said we're heading for another ice age 20 years ago?
They are, and we were supposed to. Then they started thinking "then why are we observing a change in the other way?" and started analysing the change in the composition of the atmosphere. Drilled a few holes here and there to see how it had changed and observed a VERY big change in CO2 concentration in the last 200 years or so, mostly caused by human activity.

True, there have been changes before, due to changs in orbit, the sun, volcanic activity and continental drift; but none of those can account for the change that's being observed right now. Sure, there might have been spikes like this (quick) in the past, but it's not possible to know because the data we have can only tell us what happened inside a period of thousands of years, not hundreds.

But there's definitely a change, and most evidence leads back to us. Now, is the Kyoto agreement the way to go? That's another question, it's too riddled with politics to be of much use.

I think most would agree that clean air and water are good things in and of themselves, so we should strive towards green technologies and way of life. But we shouldn't go all the way either, because maybe we don't want a cold Earth. We should be able to monitor CO2 concentrations and regulate global climate that way.

But there's definitely a change, and most evidence leads back to us. Now, is the Kyoto agreement the way to go? That's another question, it's too riddled with politics to be of much use.

I think most would agree that clean air and water are good things in and of themselves, so we should strive towards green technologies and way of life. But we shouldn't go all the way either, because maybe we don't want a cold Earth. We should be able to monitor CO2 concentrations and regulate global climate that way.
A change of roughly 60 parts per million of CO2.
Of course we should work towards cleaner tech, but the best way to do that is allow the market proceed as unfettered as possible. Back during the oil crisis in the 70's, what happened? Japanese companies moved into the US and offered smaller, more gas-efficient cars. It made sense to consumers, and they bought them by the millions.
Let oil get more and more depleted. As prices rise, people will demand more efficient cars, or ones running on a totally different fuel. Then you'll see the big corporations sprinting to give the people what they want. Companies won't be able to do that if you handicap them with massive economic penalties.

Actually, it's midway between a hoax and a threat:
It's a throat.
:)

Seriously, I don't really know enough to form a definitive opinion onn it. I'm not well-versed in the science of it, so most of what I've heard is dumbed-down versions that really seem to lose a bit in translation, and turn mostly into bickering over "You're wrong!" "No, you're wrong!!".

I don't know though, those scientific papers might really be saying just that in more complicated language.
:D

Well no reputable scientist disagrees that global warming is actually occuring or that it is partly due to our activities.

The argument that's going on is what it means for the planet. For example, some people think that there won't be much change to global water levels, like an ice cube melting in a full glass of water.

Some point out that Antarctica has a lot of ice on land. Once THAT ice melts it will raise global water levels, flooding costal reigons. This is pretty much a guarantee because whenever people investigate costal reigons it turns out that there are very many cities over 10,000 years old that have been flooded out by rising water levels.

Some point out that land also rises when the glaciers melt off of them. Norway for example is rising as its glaciers melt. Problem is, glaciers have a funny way of melting in which they melt from the top down, then freeze over, over and over again. Once they break they can produce hundred or even thousand foot waves.

The tidal wave in Sri Lanka was a 30 foot wave. Sweeden better start drilling their galciers now or that "GodHatesSwedes" website is going to have a field day.

Some point out that Antarctica has a lot of ice on land. Once THAT ice melts it will raise global water levels, flooding costal reigons. This is pretty much a guarantee because whenever people investigate costal reigons it turns out that there are very many cities over 10,000 years old that have been flooded out by rising water levels.

Antarctica is, for the most part, getting colder. The only part warming up is the Antarctic Peninsula, the farthest point north on the continent. The interior of Antarctica has actually gotten colder over the last forty years. From 1986-2000, it's had a rate of -.7C/decade.
http://winnetou.lcd.lu/physique/OSCIE2003/global_warming/antarcticatemp.htm
The planet as a whole has only gotten warmer .6C in the last century.

Why should we care about your islands? Go bother New Zealand for help. Oh right, everything is America's fault.

Yes it really is, worldsbiggestpolluter.com.... frigging moron.

The gits won't even sign up for kyoto which is really just a first step

This is the best explanation I've seen!

Unfortunately - you are not a part of a minority here.

It seems most people would like a catchy buzzword, and some stirring rhetoric, to the uncomfortable reality of actually researching the matter.

Unfortunately - you are not a part of a minority here.

It seems most people would like a catchy buzzword, and some stirring rhetoric, to the uncomfortable reality of actually researching the matter.

Unfortunately for you, what he stated that I said was the best explanation WAS RIGHT!!!

Global warming is happening but it is not a threat to humanity and it is not created by humans. It is a natural process and will lead to a few changes but nothing to drastic. The world will become warmer and wetter.

Unfortunately for you, what he stated that I said was the best explanation WAS RIGHT!!!

Oh well, if you and Concordiania BOTH say it's so, I guess it must be so!

I mean - even though 2004 was pretty much the year that the science establishment finally decided we ARE seeing a real global warming phenomenon... and that it IS obviously being affected by human interactions... and that it does pose very real threats to us, in our short-to-mid-term future...

I mean - even with all of that... how can that be right, when you have CAPITAL LETTERS to reinforce your argument?

I voted no.

There is no conclusive evidence that global warming is an issue. The Earth's temperature naturally fluctuates, in fact our average temperature is about half a degree cooler than it was in about 1100. That's the amount some of the whackjobs promoting Globar warming say it would take to melt the ice caps.

I agree we need to do something about polution, but the fact is global warming isn't a real threat.

I voted no.

There is no conclusive evidence that global warming is an issue. The Earth's temperature naturally fluctuates, in fact our average temperature is about half a degree cooler than it was in about 1100. That's the amount some of the whackjobs promoting Globar warming say it would take to melt the ice caps.

I agree we need to do something about polution, but the fact is global warming isn't a real threat.

Make that 3 Grave!

Its a known fact that the Middle Ages was warmer than it is today.

Oh well, if you and Concordiania BOTH say it's so, I guess it must be so!

I mean - even though 2004 was pretty much the year that the science establishment finally decided we ARE seeing a real global warming phenomenon... and that it IS obviously being affected by human interactions... and that it does pose very real threats to us, in our short-to-mid-term future...

I mean - even with all of that... how can that be right, when you have CAPITAL LETTERS to reinforce your argument?

Yes, and about 11000 scientists disagree with you.

Suck it up. There's no real evidence either way. If the US doesn't comply now it's not a world death threat, give them ten years when their major cities are like Beijing and they'll change pretty damn quick.

Make that 3 Grave!

Its a known fact that the Middle Ages was warmer than it is today.

Poppycock.

When was the last time that they held a London Fair ON the Thames?

Poppycock.

When was the last time that they held a London Fair ON the Thames?

How the hell should I know? I don't live in London.

Every generation has to have a fear to cling to. We are all lucky enough to have global warming as our boogyman. It use to be that our fossil fuels would soon run out!! Hmm, didn't happen and won't for quite some time. I honestly don't understand why people have to live in this constant state of worry.
Things are rarely as bad as they seem. They were growing wine grapes in Britian in the 11 and 1200's because it was much warmer than it is now. People lived just fine when the world was warmer, we will just adjust a little and move on.
Of course pollution should be controled, damaging the planet, even on a small scale, when we don't need to is wrong.

Make that 3 Grave!

Its a known fact that the Middle Ages was warmer than it is today.

I'm looking for the graph I used in my presentation on the issue. Hold on.

Yes, and about 11000 scientists disagree with you.

Suck it up. There's no real evidence either way. If the US doesn't comply now it's not a world death threat, give them ten years when their major cities are like Beijing and they'll change pretty damn quick.

11000? You counted them, huh?

You have the problem that you are peddling mid-90's science.

(I know - I was studying THIS particular topic at University, back then).

I would say it unlikely that any serious scientists really contend Global Warming, or it's potential for harm.

Unless - they stand to make 'oil-company- money out of it...

How the hell should I know? I don't live in London.

Good point.

I must admit my stupidity... how could I be so ridiculous as to imply that a 'global' event could affect the world OUTSIDE of the USA?

Every generation has to have a fear to cling to. We are all lucky enough to have global warming as our boogyman. It use to be that our fossil fuels would soon run out!! Hmm, didn't happen and won't for quite some time. I honestly don't understand why people have to live in this constant state of worry.
Things are rarely as bad as they seem. They were growing wine grapes in Britian in the 11 and 1200's because it was much warmer than it is now. People lived just fine when the world was warmer, we will just adjust a little and move on.
Of course pollution should be controled, damaging the planet, even on a small scale, when we don't need to is wrong.

Funny that your last line, makes a liar of the rest of your post...

http://earth.usc.edu/~geol150/evolution/images/littleiceage/mwplia.gif

The modern temperature is a little bit below the high from the medieval warm period. But this doesn't even compare to some prehistoric climate changes.

11000? You counted them, huh?

You have the problem that you are peddling mid-90's science.

(I know - I was studying THIS particular topic at University, back then).

I would say it unlikely that any serious scientists really contend Global Warming, or it's potential for harm.

Unless - they stand to make 'oil-company- money out of it...

No, that's the number who signed the petition saying that the Kyoto accord was garbage and that global warming wasn't a real issue.

Good point.

I must admit my stupidity... how could I be so ridiculous as to imply that a 'global' event could affect the world OUTSIDE of the USA?

Well excuse me! I don't keep up with the ins and outs of London. I don't really care for fairs anyway.

Greenland's ice shelf covers a land mass. Most of it would necessarily be absorbed into the soil.

And from the soil you'd get springs and rivers and then the water flows into the ocean. What kind of school did you visit?

And from the soil you'd get springs and rivers and then the water flows into the ocean. What kind of school did you visit?

And alot of it will be evaporated! What school did you go too?

Funny that your last line, makes a liar of the rest of your post...

You should have said that my last line counters my previous statement, saying it makes a lie of my previous statement is incorrect. But to think that the only reason we should worry about pollution is its effect on global warming is wrong. I don't worry about global warming at all even though I acknowlege it is happening. I think about pollution from an asthetic viewpoint. It is just ugly and smelly and should be avoided. Sorry if that is not a valid enough reason for you.
My point is stop worrying about things that are not really the threat they are painted to be. Stop fretting.

You should have said that my last line counters my previous statement, saying it makes a lie of my previous statement is incorrect. But to think that the only reason we should worry about pollution is its effect on global warming is wrong. I don't worry about global warming at all even though I acknowlege it is happening. I think about pollution from an asthetic viewpoint. It is just ugly and smelly and should be avoided. Sorry if that is not a valid enough reason for you.
My point is stop worrying about things that are not really the threat they are painted to be. Stop fretting.

Your last line is very good advice but the europeans and the envirogeeks won't care and they won't listen.

I actually participate in atmospheric research as part of my degree program, and this is one of the things that we have looked at, but with a little twist. All of our data is in the mesosphere where temperature variations are much more dramatic(roughly a ten degree drop for every one degree raise in near surface temperatures). So basically it's a lot easier to see if there actually is a trend. So what do our results show, well they show a drop in temperature(in the mesosphere corresponding to warming in the lower atmosphere). The only problem is that there is no statistical significance to the data. The eleven year solar cylce renders decades temperature data into a few points. Even if you had the entire century of data(which no one does) you'd only have 9 data points. Which is why every objective scientist admits that we don't have enough data for it to be conclusive.

yes the temperature is increasing slowly and steadily, but is it a threat?

Well, it either is or it isn't and we'll find out pretty soon. depending on wheather or not the trend remains steady or slows down in the next few years. But either way, the problem has nothing to do with Humans, the earth is on a natural hot/cold cycle that is determined by any number of factors, and although humans and industry might be some of them, they probably don't contribute more than 1/1000th raise in average temperature a year. this being said, to halt or even just mitigate global warming, the human race would have to actually absorb something like what is it now? two or three degrees on aveage yearly, that's quite a bit of heat when you realize that it would equate to sucking three degrees of heat individually out of every cubic millimeter of the earth's biosphere for one year, and then again the next year and so on. so even if it is a threat, short of turning the human race into the universes most efficient air conditioner, there's nothing we as a people can do.

I believe global warming is a major concern- be it current or prospective. With all the pollution in the world, is it really any wonder? I'm sure I side with the opinion that something should be done about it. Abex, a local industrial plant, smokes out a rather large area even with its newer filtration systems and the such. Equate this to the smoke of a cigarette- people nearby cough. However, there are after-effects too. Eventually, you can't see the plume- at least as well- but the smell's still there: its taint. Hard to get that to go away. Then, there are the carcinogenic aspects of it altogether... which, given time, may never go away. So pollution in itself, with such an association, would also likely spread a type of cancer. Why not to the world itself? These effects are undoubtedly happening to the ozone, along with other side effects. Not just in the respect of factories but with waste products of all types that devour our air, two things will seem to happen: 1) the ozone layer WILL deplete and global warming will become more of a crisis or 2) pollution WILL continue and weaken natural environments. That stated, why NOT make a movement for deterring global warming? Even if it's not the concern- which I think it is- acts to hinder effects on the ozone and the such would also assist in making a healthier environment... or, at the point it's at, perhaps just slow down the spread of its effects until a better means of countering the measures is found. Hee...

Global Warming...

HAHAHAHA!!!!

While it is happening, humans have a very miniscule effect -- one not even worth mentioning. It is part of the natural Ice Age Cycle.

A majour volcanic eruption produces around about the same amount of 'harmful' gasses than the evil industrial revolution produced.

Considering the industrial system we know of has been around for a little over a hundred years, and volcanos have been around since before humans ever wakled the face of the earth, I say that we're not threatened too much at all.

I actually participate in atmospheric research as part of my degree program, and this is one of the things that we have looked at, but with a little twist. All of our data is in the mesosphere where temperature variations are much more dramatic(roughly a ten degree drop for every one degree raise in near surface temperatures). So basically it's a lot easier to see if there actually is a trend. So what do our results show, well they show a drop in temperature(in the mesosphere corresponding to warming in the lower atmosphere). The only problem is that there is no statistical significance to the data. The eleven year solar cylce renders decades temperature data into a few points. Even if you had the entire century of data(which no one does) you'd only have 9 data points. Which is why every objective scientist admits that we don't have enough data for it to be conclusive.

ah, sweet reason from someone who actually studies this and knows how the studies work. I have opinions based on what I have heard but freely admit to not knowing all the facts of the case.

ROFLMAO, I can't believe how many people picked the first option! :D

Not to mention, alot of our weather runs in cycles. You get a certain pattern to develope every so number of years. I love it how they try to blame it all on global Warming. Heck, I got into an arguement with my Bio teacher at a community college over this when the Presidents Day blizzard struck. She tried to blame it on Global Warming till I pointed out that it was nearly 10 years since our last major blizzard and 10 years before that.

Do freak storms happen? Yes! Is it due to Global Warming? I don't think it does personally but then, I"m not an atmospheric specialist nor a meteorologist though I wanted to be but just couldn't do the math.

ROFLMAO, I can't believe how many people picked the first option! :D

Goes to show the stupidity of some people. :D

ROFLMAO, I can't believe how many people picked the first option! :D

yeah, people read a choice that paints the US to blame and pick it as a kneejerk reaction. Ah, the America is evil choice, *clicks mouse as quickly as they can nearly spilling their coffee in haste.

It is almost a plant to put it in a poll, it is garanteed to get the most votes and usually that is why it is put into a poll. Another, heh heh, I want to blame the US for something thread.

I remember the worst human rights abuser thread and the US was put in the poll at first and of course it got tons of votes. Laughable.

I just recently read the book State of Fear by Micheal Crichton. He makes a point of trying to show that global warming is something that could happen and that has actually has happened over the last thirty years but, the actual change in temperature was 0.3 degrees celsius if I remeber the book right. So according to his new book (in which he cites sources though I have checked none of them personally I would think that an author of his renown would not write a book containing false information) global warming does not post a threat at this time. That doesn't mean it couldn't someday though...

Not proved and the world is getting colder. It is something green peace made up

No, that's the number who signed the petition saying that the Kyoto accord was garbage and that global warming wasn't a real issue.

First: Did you have a link, by any chance? Because - at the moment... we are just taking your word for it.

Second: Of all the hundreds of thousands of scientists, to manage to dredge up a few thousands isn't much of an acheivement... and I'd be wanting to see who footed the bill for the petition, and who paid the salaries of those scientists that WOULD sign their name to that.

You should have said that my last line counters my previous statement, saying it makes a lie of my previous statement is incorrect. But to think that the only reason we should worry about pollution is its effect on global warming is wrong. I don't worry about global warming at all even though I acknowlege it is happening. I think about pollution from an asthetic viewpoint. It is just ugly and smelly and should be avoided. Sorry if that is not a valid enough reason for you.
My point is stop worrying about things that are not really the threat they are painted to be. Stop fretting.

As a scientist, for more than a decade - and since I actually work in an environmental field - I have had to stay abreast of certain elements.

One of the things I have had to keep up with, is the threat of pollution - in terms of short-term, and long-term risks.

I think 2004 was a year that pretty much tied up the question of whether there were risks from global warming, and whether or not human pollution was a strong contributor.

Yes - pollution is unattractive... but the risks go far deeper than that. Our water sources today are paying for the sins of our fathers, in terms of pollution... and our children's children will be paying for OUR sins.

Personally - I am not content to know that, provided I don't live in Colorado or Texas, I shouldn't notice MUCH change in the next 10-20 years. I would ideally like to be able to hand on a legacy of a world that might actually STILL BE habitable, to my grandchildren.