NationStates Jolt Archive

Global warming has had many effects on the weather to date, including:


influencing the numbers, frequency and intensity of recent hurricanes
coastal flooding
ocean warming
glacier/ice caps melting
abnormally hot/cold temperatures


What, if anything, should be done about global warming?

It's not global warming, it's climate change. Some places should actually get colder, others may stay the same but have rainfall affected, etc. It is a lot more complicated than warming.

Eh, natural cycles, let's see if we live through it.

well. The world's biggest ice shelf in antartica is already breaking up. Things are moving a lot faster than some people claim they are.

Its already too late. Nothing that we do, can reverse the effects. Not even the Kyoto Protocol, with everynation on earth participating, will be able to reverse the melting of the world's biggest ice sheet once it has begun.

The great FSM is punishing us for our sins!!
We must have more pirates, so that the FSM will be pleased and global warming shall decrease.


(www.venganza.org)

We're pretty fucked unless all the countries of the world decide to elect governments with brains.

We're pretty fucked unless all the countries of the world decide to elect governments with brains.
No-one with brains wants the job. :D

Adopt a polar bear today.

No-one with brains wants the job. :D

That's sort of true. The type of people who want, and get positions of powers are those with the right social skills to make themselves popular. The kind of people who would actually be best about logical analysing the situation their nation is in and selecting appropriate action are likely to be the shy, scientifically-minded types.

It's only fitting that we aren't able to do anything to stop the climate change considering that we aren't the result of it. Methane gas traps nearly ten times the heat as carbon dioxide and is being continuosly released from the ocean floor; the CO2 we are releasing is inconsequential in the big scheme of things. The world's climate is not static and is always going through cycles and as the climate grows warmer we are just going to have to react to it like all of the animals: adapt or die out. I doubt we'll have any particular problem adapting so we certainly aren't doomed; for the animals, its not our fault and we should set aside the delusion of having to be some sort of vanguard for nature.

It's not global warming, it's climate change. Some places should actually get colder, others may stay the same but have rainfall affected, etc. It is a lot more complicated than warming.

Yeah, when I say global warming I mean it as overall climate change -- I did mention abnormally hot/cold temperatures. The places that get colder tend to do so because of glaciers melting and changing the course of ocean currents that take water from tropical regions and bring them to colder regions, such as Western Europe. I'm talking about the consequences of the greenhouse effect, not only warming.

Methane gas traps nearly ten times the heat as carbon dioxide and is being continuosly released from the ocean floor

Methane gas levels in the atmosphere are 149% higher than in 1750, and that change is not only due to the ocean floor releasing methane.

http://www.thedailyjournalonline.com/article.asp?ArticleId=222749&CategoryId=13003

'the greatest dangers lies in the disintegration of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, which together hold about 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet.
If either of the two sheets disintegrates, sea level could rise nearly 20 feet"

"Oppenheimer said. “Once you lost one of these ice sheets, there’s really no putting it back for thousands of years, if ever.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2016720,00.html

It's all happening faster than we're being told.

The entire West Antartic ice sheet is now breaking up.

"In one of its most worrying conclusions, Professor Chris Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey gives warning that the West Antarctic ice sheet, which had previously been considered a "slumbering giant" in terms of climate change, is now starting to disintegrate at an alarming rate"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/02/05/global-warming-rapidly-ac_n_15132.html


This from today showing that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet has also begun to accelerate rapidly.



But as one of the articles states, its too late for people to do anything, except to get ready and prepare for life in a new climate and environment.

It's only fitting that we aren't able to do anything to stop the climate change considering that we aren't the result of it. Methane gas traps nearly ten times the heat as carbon dioxide and is being continuosly released from the ocean floor; the CO2 we are releasing is inconsequential in the big scheme of things. The world's climate is not static and is always going through cycles and as the climate grows warmer we are just going to have to react to it like all of the animals: adapt or die out. I doubt we'll have any particular problem adapting so we certainly aren't doomed; for the animals, its not our fault and we should set aside the delusion of having to be some sort of vanguard for nature.
Actually a lot of the methane in the air comes from human activity: animal husbandry and agriculture.

It's been like that since man inventing agriculture. There's an article in a back issue of Scientific American.

Nothing will be happening in the near future, so it's nothing that we should be too concerned with. Of course work on maintaining the atmophere, by changing the way we power our cars and other things we use. It's nothing that will affect us in our life time though, but it's still something to be worried about.

It's not global warming, it's climate change. Some places should actually get colder, others may stay the same but have rainfall affected, etc. It is a lot more complicated than warming.


Well, England gets colder because global warming weakens the jet streams which once made England warm.


Most other places get warmer. It's been consitently in the 50s for around a week and a half. I live in Massachusetts.



And all the polar bears are drowning because they have to swim farther to get to ice so they can fish. Don't you care about them? DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE POLAR BEARS?!! :(:confused::(:confused::(

And thousands and thousands of other species that may or may not have even been discovered yet.


Face it, global warming is real, and it is caused by us. It is caused by our factories, our cars, and our burning of everything we can manage to burn.

WE ARE NOT DESTROYING THE WORLD

BUT WE ARE MAKING IT SUCK

I say everybody in the world should all blow on the ocean at once - thus cooling it. Problem solved.

Global warming, or more exactly massive climate change and desequilibrium, is sadly a reality, and it's about to be disastrous for us...

What's the cause of it ? The careless behavior of transnational corprations, only caring about their share holders' immediate profits. The unability of private companies to invest into long term research. The massive wastes of the consumers society (advertising, useless packaging, cheap-low quality stuff that you need to replace often, ...). All those are facets of the same evil which is leading us to a very bleak future: capitalism.

There is no solution, within capitalism, to provide people with what it's required from them to live decently and respect the planet. Capitalism has utterly failed in both. We need to build, together, a post-capitalist society (call it "socialist", "communist" or whatever you want) or I really pity the children who are born today. Because they'll inherit of a devasted planet.

Massive global climate change is happening. It is going to affect us, it is going to devastate however many species of animal, it is going to lead into positive feedback loops making things even worse, and it is probably already too late to prevent it. We can ameliorate it though.

We wont have the catastrophic warming many environmentalists predict. We don't have enough oil to produce it. Soon, we wil enter a permanent decline in oil production. When this happens, probaly in the next five years, you wont even care about global warming anymore... or gay rights or abortion or child tax credits.


http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php

"Our industrial societies and our financial systems were built on the assumption of continual growth – growth based on ever more readily available cheap fossil fuels. Oil in particular is the most convenient and multi-purposed of these fossil fuels. Oil currently accounts for about 43% of the world's total fuel consumption [PDF], and 95% of global energy used for transportation [PDF]. Oil is so important that the peak will have vast implications across the realms of geopolitics, lifestyles, agriculture and economic stability. Significantly, for every one joule of food consumed in the United States, around 10 joules of fossil fuel energy have been used to produce it."

"Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global "Peak Oil."

We've already done enough to cause catastrophic climate change. Even with a global oil production peak in the next few years, and that's assuming they don't exploit the Canadian tar sands, reckoned to contain as much oil as Saudi Arabia.

Actually its not just fossil fuels that cause global warming. It's refrigerants, and aerosols. And the methane released by our produce and livestock and not to mention the carbon dioxide we, the billions of humans on earth, release every second.

We've already done enough to cause catastrophic climate change. Even with a global oil production peak in the next few years, and that's assuming they don't exploit the Canadian tar sands, reckoned to contain as much oil as Saudi Arabia.
Actually it's reckoned to contain much more than Saudi Arabia, but it's not just the amount that matters. Flow rate matters, too. At its peak Alberta is not expected to reach a flow rate of more than 2.5 million barrels/day. Saudi Arabia produces about 10 million. Further, it is not clear that tar sands are exploitable after peak oil, and especially after peak natural gas. With an oil field you simply poke a hole in the ground and the shit shoots out. With tar sands you need to drive these gigantic digging machines that are as big as a mansion and that run on oil. You need to use them to dig out the sand and dump it into equally huge dump trucks that also run on oil. You need to take what you collected and dump it into huge compressors that also run on oil and heat them up to high temperatures with natural gas and then squeeze the oil out. It takes about 2 tons of tar sands to produce a single barrel of oil. I'm nbot sure that that kind of industrial process is possible without easily available, cheap conventional petroleum and natural gas.

Actually its not just fossil fuels that cause global warming. It's refrigerants, and aerosols. And the methane released by our produce and livestock and not to mention the carbon dioxide we, the billions of humans on earth, release every second.
well, since the refrigerants and aerosols are all petrochemicals we wont be making many of those anymore, either. Also, all commercial pesticides are made from petroleum. All commercial fertalizers are made from natural gas. You wont see the kind of agriculture post peak oil that you do now, either.

Hell, your computer that your sitting at right now is made of oil...

Not just teh car you drive, but the street you drive it down is made of oil...

remember the phrase "ice age"? well, it's actually a cycle, not a point. we are now in the warm end of a (i think) 10,000-year ice age cycle. true, humans/the farm animals we raise emmit greenhouse gasses, but we're really just pissing in the ocean, so to speak, when it comes to the entire freaking world.

think about it: a single hurricane releases more joules of energy in a few minutes than all the nuclear bombs we've ever detonated. a relatively large volcanic erruption releases more noxious fumes than an industrialized nation can in weeks if not months.

i'm really kinda sick of how ego-centric humans are. we've gotten past the days of "the earth is the center of the entire universe, whoopie!", but we're still thinking we are the major determinate factor in the fate of the world. one earth-killer asteroid, a few monstrous volcanoes, an earthquake comparable to the 2004 Simeulue Island one (that caused the massive tsumani) in a "civilized" portion of the world - see how well we humans could "prevent" that level of damage

remember the phrase "ice age"? well, it's actually a cycle, not a point. we are now in the warm end of a (i think) 10,000-year ice age cycle. true, humans/the farm animals we raise emmit greenhouse gasses, but we're really just pissing in the ocean, so to speak, when it comes to the entire freaking world.

think about it: a single hurricane releases more joules of energy in a few minutes than all the nuclear bombs we've ever detonated. a relatively large volcanic erruption releases more noxious fumes than an industrialized nation can in weeks if not months.

i'm really kinda sick of how ego-centric humans are. we've gotten past the days of "the earth is the center of the entire universe, whoopie!", but we're still thinking we are the major determinate factor in the fate of the world. one earth-killer asteroid, a few monstrous volcanoes, an earthquake comparable to the 2004 Simeulue Island one (that caused the massive tsumani) in a "civilized" portion of the world - see how well we humans could "prevent" that level of damage
On the other hand there's this graph that's a little hard to ignore...

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/images/historical03.gif

remember the phrase "ice age"? well, it's actually a cycle, not a point. we are now in the warm end of a (i think) 10,000-year ice age cycle. true, humans/the farm animals we raise emmit greenhouse gasses, but we're really just pissing in the ocean, so to speak, when it comes to the entire freaking world.

think about it: a single hurricane releases more joules of energy in a few minutes than all the nuclear bombs we've ever detonated. a relatively large volcanic erruption releases more noxious fumes than an industrialized nation can in weeks if not months.

i'm really kinda sick of how ego-centric humans are. we've gotten past the days of "the earth is the center of the entire universe, whoopie!", but we're still thinking we are the major determinate factor in the fate of the world. one earth-killer asteroid, a few monstrous volcanoes, an earthquake comparable to the 2004 Simeulue Island one (that caused the massive tsumani) in a "civilized" portion of the world - see how well we humans could "prevent" that level of damage
I found this just poking around on Google.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011128035329.htm

Volcanos do affect the climate but volcanos are not constantly erupting and from what I understand the effects from a volcano last no longer than a few years. That's what I've come to understand but I could be mistaken about that.

"The halide acid HCl has been shown to be effective in destroying ozone; however, the latest studies show that most volcanic HCl is confined to the troposphere (below the stratosphere), where it is washed out by rain. Thus, it never has the opportunity to react with ozone. On the other hand, satellite data after the 1991 eruptions of Mt.Pinatubo (the Philippines) and Mt. Hudson (Chile) showed a 15-20% ozone loss at high latitudes, and a greater than 50% loss over the Antarctic! Thus, it appears that volcanic eruptions can play a significant role in reducing ozone levels. However, it is an indirect role, which cannot be directly attributed to volcanic HCl. Eruption-generated particles, or aerosols, appear to provide surfaces upon which chemical reactions take place. The particles themselves do not contribute to ozone destruction, but they interact with chlorine- and bromine-bearing compounds from human-made CFCs. Fortunately, volcanic particles will settle out of the stratosphere in two or three years, so that the effects of volcanic eruptions on ozone depletion are short lived. Although volcanic aerosols provide a catalyst for ozone depletion, the real culprits in destroying ozone are human-generated CFCs. Scientists expect the ozone layer to recover due to restrictions on CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals by the United Nations Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. However, future volcanic eruptions will cause fluctuations in the recovery process."
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

You know, once Global Warming/Climate Change/Mass Flooding/Whatever-you-want-to-call-it occurs, theres going to be a war.

My reasoning for this? What happens when a Country suddenly finds habitable land and resources are scarce? They either, A: Try to trade for it(which is really difficult because they now have fewer resources then their fellow nations). Or B: Try to take it(which can be easy or hard, depedning on the nations military). The result of B? War.

You know, once Global Warming/Climate Change/Mass Flooding/Whatever-you-want-to-call-it occurs, theres going to be a war.

My reasoning for this? What happens when a Country suddenly finds habitable land and resources are scarce? They either, A: Try to trade for it(which is really difficult because they now have fewer resources then their fellow nations). Or B: Try to take it(which can be easy or hard, depedning on the nations military). The result of B? War.
You seem to be looking forward to it...

You know, once Global Warming/Climate Change/Mass Flooding/Whatever-you-want-to-call-it occurs, theres going to be a war.

My reasoning for this? What happens when a Country suddenly finds habitable land and resources are scarce? They either, A: Try to trade for it(which is really difficult because they now have fewer resources then their fellow nations). Or B: Try to take it(which can be easy or hard, depedning on the nations military). The result of B? War.
Yeah, except that the war has already started and its not about global warming, its about oil.

Your premise is correct, though.

*runs to middle ground*
natural climate change+the industrial revolution and resutling pollution+(cows farting)^2=OMGWTF GLOBAL WARMING!

well. The world's biggest ice shelf in antartica is already breaking up. Things are moving a lot faster than some people claim they are.

Its already too late. Nothing that we do, can reverse the effects. Not even the Kyoto Protocol, with everynation on earth participating, will be able to reverse the melting of the world's biggest ice sheet once it has begun.
Pessimist.

Plenty can be done to stop global warming without the use of ecoterrorists.

the changes you see nowadays are pretty ordinary there have always been freak weather because there has never been normal weather

of course every now and then you get rapid change but even in the piece of propaganda that was the day after tomorrow they said it was predicted to be at least 200 years from now at which time I doubt it will be a problem

No matter whether or not we can or cannot effect global warming, it doesn't hurt to cut back on the pollution.

the changes you see nowadays are pretty ordinary there have always been freak weather because there has never been normal weather

of course every now and then you get rapid change but even in the piece of propaganda that was the day after tomorrow they said it was predicted to be at least 200 years from now at which time I doubt it will be a problem
Not even the people involved with Day After Tomorrow would argue that that was how it would happen. Sometimes a movie is just a movie. Though it did raise awareness for people to investigate it further. Think of it along the lines of a poorly written wikipedia article with links to more respectable sources.

We're pretty fucked unless all the countries of the world decide to elect governments with brains.
Doomed. Doomed. Doomed doomed doomed ...
...doomed doomed doomed ....
*poof*

Not even the people involved with Day After Tomorrow would argue that that was how it would happen. Sometimes a movie is just a movie. Though it did raise awareness for people to investigate it further. Think of it along the lines of a poorly written wikipedia article with links to more respectable sources.
As i recall, three of the initial conditions for the circumstances in that movie have already occurred.
I'm not saying it'll be overnight blizzardry, i'm saying the damage is already in line.
I've posted it before, so has Gymoor II:The Return. And a few others.

As i recall, three of the initial conditions for the circumstances in that movie have already occurred.
I'm not saying it'll be overnight blizzardry, i'm saying the damage is already in line.
I've posted it before, so has Gymoor II:The Return. And a few others.
All I know is that I'm not seeking Jake Gyllenhal for salvation.

All I know is that I'm not seeking Jake Gyllenhal for salvation.
Is that a pre- or post-Brokeback Mountain mentality? ;)
Besides, he saved lots of people in Donnie Darko. Even if he did have to call Patrick Swayze "the f*cking Anti-christ".

Is that a pre- or post-Brokeback Mountain mentality? ;)
Besides, he saved lots of people in Donnie Darko. Even if he did have to call Patrick Swayze "the f*cking Anti-christ".
But Donnie was nothing without Frank. Now there's a spooky bunny who could stop all this Global Warming.

But Donnie was nothing without Frank. Now there's a spooky bunny who could stop all this Global Warming.
Well, to be fair, some of that got borrowed (IMO) from Harvey from that Jimmy Stewart movie ... but yes, i and probably a lot of other folks would be inclined not to rest if that bunny was giving them an intense prodding of sorts.
Although Frank gave him options, it still was Donnie's choice. The two couldn't be seperated, i guess ... but as i said, it took Donnie to laugh it off when committing to the engine.
I wonder if, in that context, heat was generated by potential of choice, and the heat was dissipated by the commission of the causality lines? Thermodynamic wormholes! (Not that wormholes don't already require that ... just a different angle)

Global warming has had many effects on the weather to date, including:
influencing the numbers, frequency and intensity of recent hurricanes
coastal flooding
ocean warming
glacier/ice caps melting
abnormally hot/cold temperatures
What, if anything, should be done about global warming?

THE Magnetic Poles also happen to be changing.. a natural process. And Global Warming can be attributed to a natural cycle as well. Although I do think we're screwing with things.. and should stop.

THE Magnetic Poles also happen to be changing.. a natural process. And Global Warming can be attributed to a natural cycle as well. Although I do think we're screwing with things.. and should stop.
You should research the bolded part a little better. The VAST MAJORITY of people WHOSE BUSINESS IT IS TO KNOW don't take it as lightly or generally as you.

Climate change can only be affected to a certain degree, and the precise amount of that degree is highly speculative. Nevertheless, even the slightest improvement in human-generated emissions would give us valuable time to prepare ourselves for the eventual outcome of the natural aspects of the warming cycle, with the result being that we would be able to weather the natural climate change without difficulty. What's happening now is a natural process being increasingly accelerated by human action, and it is possible to slow or even stop the human component.

I believe that we need to get India, China, and the US to conform to Kyoto or a similar or better treaty. Otherwise, all of the emissions gains in Europe are utterly meaningless. The US is already relatively flat in its emissions growth, but China is one of the world's worst polluters, as is India; failing to regulate them will spell environmental and economic disaster.

I'd like to ask if there are others like me, who oppose the Kyoto treaty but support actions against global warming? The Kyoto mechanism is a income transfer from highly developed corporations from polluting corporations with obsolote technology. If you have an old polluting factory, you can sell the carbon quota to a highly developed company for good money. With an environmental tax, you would've closed the old factory.

Kyoto doesn't address the new polluters (China, India) either.

Biodiesel and biofuels could be used, instead of mineral oil, but the difference is their sustainability. Irrespective of global warming, the lack of sustainability of an oil-based economy isn't addressed by anyone. "If a soldier can fight now, he should be able to fight tomorrow", is something I remember from the army.

Climate change can only be affected to a certain degree, and the precise amount of that degree is highly speculative. Nevertheless, even the slightest improvement in human-generated emissions would give us valuable time to prepare ourselves for the eventual outcome of the natural aspects of the warming cycle, with the result being that we would be able to weather the natural climate change without difficulty. What's happening now is a natural process being increasingly accelerated by human action, and it is possible to slow or even stop the human component.

I believe that we need to get India, China, and the US to conform to Kyoto or a similar or better treaty. Otherwise, all of the emissions gains in Europe are utterly meaningless. The US is already relatively flat in its emissions growth, but China is one of the world's worst polluters, as is India; failing to regulate them will spell environmental and economic disaster.
(bolded)Certain, or speculative? Which is it?
When you say that, you mean that it's scientist's experience in the matter that is speculative, whereas the ... i dunno, Bush administration's perspective that is the certain part?
Admittedly, the administration has been
wrong
on SO many fronts that you may consider qualifying what you're trying to say here.
Not much argument with the rest.

Certain, or speculative? Which is it?

Certain meaning limited, not determinate. I think.

I'd like to ask if there are others like me, who oppose the Kyoto treaty but support actions against global warming? The Kyoto mechanism is a income transfer from highly developed corporations from polluting corporations with obsolote technology. If you have an old polluting factory, you can sell the carbon quota to a highly developed company for good money. With an environmental tax, you would've closed the old factory.

Kyoto doesn't address the new polluters (China, India) either.

Biodiesel and biofuels could be used, instead of mineral oil, but the difference is their sustainability. Irrespective of global warming, the lack of sustainability of an oil-based economy isn't addressed by anyone. "If a soldier can fight now, he should be able to fight tomorrow", is something I remember from the army.
Yes. I agree. Kyoto is blocking the path toward agreement. The solution is not to abolish capitalism or take away freedoms and rights.
But I don't agree with the credit exchange idea either.

I believe the first world has a responsibility to share its clean energy technology with all nations of the third world, free of charge.
And that the Europeans and the Americans both have a responsibility to pay for the adoption of clean energies and clean technologies in the third world nations, since the third world can't pay for such things themselves.

Yes, we are going through a slight warming stage...but what these "it's only a cycle" people forget is that a natural warming trend leaves the climate more vulnerable to even more warming, or more correctly, more drastic climate change.

Man's contribution to climate change wouldn't matter so much if we were going through a cooling stage.

So, all these people who have been taught to parrot the same "cycle" line don't realize that they're actually arguing FOR the importance of controlling our contributions to the global climate.

(bolded)Certain, or speculative? Which is it?
When you say that, you mean that it's scientist's experience in the matter that is speculative, whereas the ... i dunno, Bush administration's perspective that is the certain part?
Admittedly, the administration has been

wrong
on SO many fronts that you may consider qualifying what you're trying to say here.

Certain as in there is only so much we can do, and even that amount is speculative (it could be higher or lower than we think). Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that global warming (or more accurately, climate change) is occuring and at least a part of it is due to human action. Removing the human component will give us the time and experience to prepare for the natural part of it. If we do nothing, we're in for some serious problems.

Certain as in there is only so much we can do, and even that amount is speculative (it could be higher or lower than we think). Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that global warming (or more accurately, climate change) is occuring and at least a part of it is due to human action. Removing the human component will give us the time and experience to prepare for the natural part of it. If we do nothing, we're in for some serious problems.
It's already past the point where we could do anything about it.
The scientists involved predicted that when one or both of the Greenland and West Antartic ice sheets melt, it would be disaster. Well, both are now melting at an acclerated rate. As shown in the articles I linked to previous post.

All we can do, is deal with the new era and the new climate regime.

We're pretty fucked unless all the countries of the world decide to elect governments with brains.

Even if that did happen, it wouldn't really make a huge difference. The present is too late; the idiots of the past few decades have fucked us past the point of no return. It's no longer a reversible trend.

Even if that did happen, it wouldn't really make a huge difference. The present is too late; the idiots of the past few decades have fucked us past the point of no return. It's no longer a reversible trend.

It's no longer reversible but there are steps we can take to live in the new reality.

BTW, just as the human part in global warming is uncertain, the idea that fossil fuels will run out in 2020 is also an uncertainty. No one really knows how much oil is in terra firma. Or under the seas for that matter.