NationStates Jolt Archive

So, yeah, another Golbal Warming thread. Are we causing Global Warming? Or is this just a natural change? Or both? Or neither? Discuss please. I say it's just a natural change, mostly because I don't think that we as humans have the power to make that kind of change, willingly or not! Thoughts?

Doesn't matter.

Take a look at Unlucky_and_Unbiddable's signature.

Yes. Yes! YES! If the weight of 99.99999% of scientific research isn't enough for you, you should be questioning gravity as well.

So, yeah, another Golbal Warming thread. Are we causing Global Warming? Or is this just a natural change? Or both? Or neither? Discuss please. I say it's just a natural change, mostly because I don't think that we as humans have the power to make that kind of change, willingly or not! Thoughts?

Wow, you'd better tell all the scientists and researchers that found out that global warming IS caused mostly by us humans that you "say" it's just a natural change.

Yes. Yes! YES! If the weight of 99.99999% of scientific research isn't enough for you, you should be questioning gravity as well.
Wow, you'd better tell all the scientists and researchers that found out that global warming IS caused mostly by us humans that you "say" it's just a natural change.

Ahem.
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists

http://www.oism.org/pproject/
I have provided a link. Your turn.

My lucky eight ball says no, but i asked it if it was okay to eat fibreglass yesterday and it said yes, my stomach's itchy.
:D
Global warming is baaaad. very baaaad, it means that sun-tan clinics will run out of business, and this means there will be more orange people like David Dickenson.

You are correct that it is a natural process, and not an artificial process solely created by man.

It is infact a natural process being artifically accelerated by man.

So really, we're not the cause of global warming. We're just giving it a damn good shove.

Personally, I'd like someone to catch Nature before it falls over the edge.

Yes. Yes! YES! If the weight of 99.99999% of scientific research isn't enough for you, you should be questioning gravity as well.
No. The science is not as solid as it claims. I'm not willing to take the opposing view and assert that we're not warming the planet, and I might even concede that we're probably warming the planet.

But, the mechanism by which this warming is occurring, if it is occurring, is not sufficiently well understood for us to invest heavily is trying to alter it. We do not have justifcation to claim we know how to fix the problem, if there is one.

I also have yet to find an explanation as to what "average global temperature" means. It doesn't strike me as the sort of thing you can average, and yet a lot of this "science" appears based on it.

Ahem.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/
I have provided a link. Your turn.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Signatories

Where's the "nobody knows" option? That's the real answer.

Where's the "nobody knows" option? That's the real answer.
That's why I voted other.

Yes we (as in NSGer's [more like you then]) are causing global warming... Damned hippies on there computers...

is this really still an issue?

we managed to kick CFCs in the goolies easy enough so why do some countries have such an issue with 90's science?

I say it's just a natural change, mostly because I don't think that we as humans have the power to make that kind of change, willingly or not! Thoughts?

i think you haven't thought about it enough.

Are we causing it? In part.

Can we stop it? No.

It's definitely accelerated by us.

But the last year or so I also feel that the media has started to blow it completely out of proportion. Particularly the "everyone must do their part" line they push is just stupid. The people who must do their part are the ones who will experience the smallest cost for the greatest gain in carbon reductions. That ain't me, I'm afraid to say.

And next they will go "blubblubblub"...

http://michaelgreenwell.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/manmadeclimatechange.jpg

To be entirely fair, I am more worried about the direct pollution, such as smog, leaded gasoline and such, than I am about global warming.

However, given that this pollution is tied in with climate change of any sorts and given that we aren't just a smudge upon the earth but SIX BILLION+ people, I'd say we might as well do something about it. It WILL improve your quality of life to not have to go through a forest filled with plastics, live in a city filled with smog or drink water full of chemicals (to clean the chemicals that are even worse).

So yes, it is caused in part by us over longer periods of time - In the 1980s, we released about 7 gigatons of CO2 for example, in the form of burnt fossil fuels. Only about 3-4 gigatons of this was actually absorbed by the earth again, meaning we saw a net gain of 3-4 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere. This contributes to the planet conserving heat better and generally changes climate (although whether the final temperature sum is higher or lower, it's hard to say. A good guideline here is to follow the ice cores who say that when temperatures are high, CO2 and CH4 concentrations are higher too. Not to say they cause each other, but there is a correlation).

Are we causing it? In part.

which non-anthropogenic mechanisms are causing net warming? as far as i am aware, the natural forcing is negative.

Can we stop it? No.

evidence?

So, yeah, another Golbal Warming thread. Are we causing Global Warming? Or is this just a natural change? Or both? Or neither? Discuss please. I say it's just a natural change, mostly because I don't think that we as humans have the power to make that kind of change, willingly or not! Thoughts?

Ha!
Take a look at the computer you're typing this on.
It's got an incredibly complex series of circuits in it that are all designed to be modifiable to some degree(if it's a PC) and none of which can be made by hand.
Not to mention all the other stuff in it that would be insanely complicated to make.
And there are millions of PCs around the world.
And that's just PCs. The same basic principle applies to any kind of building, or any kind of technology, or pretty much anything else manmade you can think of. (Not that nature isn't every bit as complicated, but it doesn't apply to this example)
And you think we can't raise the temperature of the earth by a few degrees.

Are we causing it? In part.

Can we stop it? No.

We can build islands, hills, mountains, rivers, dams, lakes, drain lakes the size of seas and empty vast quantities of resources hidden beneath the earth.

But somehow, we cannot cool or heat the earth a single degree one way or the other?

I find that hard to believe.

Some.

CO2 isn't the only cause of warming, nor is it even the strongest greenhouse gas. Methane is 21 times more warming, per weight, than CO2 is. Nitrous Oxide is 310 more times more warming.

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, and is responsible for anything between 36% and 70% of global warming (scientists aren't sure - put that in your "99.99999%" and smoke it).

We don't emit water vapor (unless we convert to hydrogen fuel cell cars... then we have a problem).

I thought global warming was caused by the flatulance of drunken Irishmen.

Some.

CO2 isn't the only cause of warming, nor is it even the strongest greenhouse gas. Methane is 21 times more warming, per weight, than CO2 is. Nitrous Oxide is 310 more times more warming.

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, and is responsible for anything between 36% and 70% of global warming (scientists aren't sure - put that in your "99.99999%" and smoke it).

We don't emit water vapor (unless we convert to hydrogen fuel cell cars... then we have a problem).

Water is also omnipresent, as you said yourself. If we added the same amount of water into the atmosphere that we've added of CO2, there'd be absolutely no change at all.

CO2 isn't the only cause of warming, nor is it even the strongest greenhouse gas. Methane is 21 times more warming, per weight, than CO2 is. Nitrous Oxide is 310 more times more warming.

and?

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, and is responsible for anything between 36% and 70% of global warming (scientists aren't sure - put that in your "99.99999%" and smoke it).

We don't emit water vapor (unless we convert to hydrogen fuel cell cars... then we have a problem).

what is the primary determinant of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere?

and?

He is trying to explain that with all these super heat-trapping gases, global warming is a real issue.

Climate change has been happening for ever. Nothing new.

Of course, I still think that we should be more environmental and change our habits. Eventually it is going to catch up with us.

Merely pointing out that we can get a substantial cooling effect just by cutting emissions of Methane and Nitrous Oxide.

Certainly CO2 emissions must come down as well. Adopting a new program that would eliminate the Methane and Nitrous Oxide more quickly, however, would be a good proof-of-concept vehicle.

While they are much more warming-causing than CO2, there is less of each being emitted, therefore reducing or eliminating human emissions of them should not be as monumental a task.

This was done with CFC's.

Then one would be able to demonstrate, convincingly, that cutting emissions does not have to have a drastic effect on economic activity. A substantial propaganda (pardon the term) coup.

We could then run more accurate models that would factor in the reduction of those gases and give us more accurate, harder-to-challenge data as to the need to reduce CO2 emissions.

which non-anthropogenic mechanisms are causing net warming? as far as i am aware, the natural forcing is negative.

I didn't know it was a net negative, just that the amount of carbon emitted from natural sources is might higher than the amount from humans. Which I guess could be looked at as a way to say that humans are responsible for global warming, but its not like nature is a single block. Various parts contribute to emissions and various parts have a negative effect.


evidence?

I didn't mean for it to be interpreted as if natural sources are sending us on an unstoppable path towards global warming.

Instead, given that the UN projects the world population to be about 9 million in 2050 - and every population projection to this point has been low - there's no real way I can see to stop carbon emissions. Unless every industrialized country took a serious step backwards in quality of life, the world's average carbon footprint is going to be bigger than it can ecologically support.

I am old enough to remember when the "great majority" of the scientists were yelling that we were headed towards a destructive ice age. Then there was the bit that when the total population reached 1 billion people, that was going to deplete all the natural resources of food, and there was going to be global wide starvation, famine and death. Then they moved the number up to 3 billion. Then the apocalyptic threat was the ozone hole in the south pole. It was going to destroy the atmosphere, or melt the antarctic ice cap, whichever the flavor was. Of course, now it is global warming. But what I really want to know from these folks that yell about the imminent threat of it; how many of them are going to really change their way of life, and show us how should it be done? Not a damn one of them. After 40 years of listening to their doom and gloom, just like politicians.

I am old enough to remember when the "great majority" of the scientists were yelling that we were headed towards a destructive ice age. Then there was the bit that when the total population reached 1 billion people, that was going to deplete all the natural resources of food, and there was going to be global wide starvation, famine and death. Then they moved the number up to 3 billion. Then the apocalyptic threat was the ozone hole in the south pole. It was going to destroy the atmosphere, or melt the antarctic ice cap, whichever the flavor was. Of course, now it is global warming.

Odds are, they are eventually going to be right.

Not to mention that you would need to be very isolated not to realize there is something not-quite-right about the levels of pollutants and other goings on in nature today.

Its been proven that temperatures are increasing at the moment so we aren't the cause of Global Warming.

But seriously there are 6 Billion more people than there use to be. Its almost impossible that we won't cause something unless we all live like cave men.

Odds are, they are eventually going to be right.

Not to mention that you would need to be very isolated not to realize there is something not-quite-right about the levels of pollutants and other goings on in nature today.

True. But I also remember them telling us about the doom and gloom when Mt. St. Helens blew her top, and when Mt. Pinatubo blew up. Each volcanic eruption spewed more sulfur and other "greenhouse" gases than all of mankind. And they were supposed to speed the melting of both global ice caps and flood all the coastal areas, kill all the agriculture, etc.

I am not denying that something is changing. I am only saying that there is a group of persons that are pushing an agenda with their doom and gloom scenario on a daily basis. Afte 40 years, I have yet to see any of it happen. It's just like a younger firefighter that was in my engine company. Every day he said that this was the day we would have a structure fire. Of course, the day we had one, he would brag about how he was able to call that we were going to have a fire. Just like my firefighter, if these scientists keep calling for gloom and doom every day, sooner or later they are going to get it right; then they will brag about how they were able to predict it. Just an obervation from an old fart, that is all.

True. But I also remember them telling us about the doom and gloom when Mt. St. Helens blew her top, and when Mt. Pinatubo blew up. Each volcanic eruption spewed more sulfur and other "greenhouse" gases than all of mankind. And they were supposed to speed the melting of both global ice caps and flood all the coastal areas, kill all the agriculture, etc.

Actually, no. Even on the worst years, the total carbon emmission by vulcanism never gets much higher than 600 million tons.

The human output is around 10 billion tons now, and steadily increasing. Human impact outweighs vulcanism by a whole order of magnitude.

In Soviet Russia, global warming causes YOU!

True. But I also remember them telling us about the doom and gloom when Mt. St. Helens blew her top, and when Mt. Pinatubo blew up. Each volcanic eruption spewed more sulfur and other "greenhouse" gases than all of mankind. And they were supposed to speed the melting of both global ice caps and flood all the coastal areas, kill all the agriculture, etc.

I am not denying that something is changing. I am only saying that there is a group of persons that are pushing an agenda with their doom and gloom scenario on a daily basis. Afte 40 years, I have yet to see any of it happen. It's just like a younger firefighter that was in my engine company. Every day he said that this was the day we would have a structure fire. Of course, the day we had one, he would brag about how he was able to call that we were going to have a fire. Just like my firefighter, if these scientists keep calling for gloom and doom every day, sooner or later they are going to get it right; then they will brag about how they were able to predict it. Just an obervation from an old fart, that is all.

your memory is not very good anymore. like, you've got nothing but wrong so far.

Global warming, IMO, is almost certainly a natural process being accelerated by human activity.

Whether anything can be done about it is something else altogether. We know far too little about the vastly intricate and interconnected processes of the Earth to know for a fact that a particular action will achieve a desired result.

It may be that it is already too late to reverse the damage already done. It may be that any such attempt to reverse that damage will only make matters worse.

This is not to say that nothing should be done, but damnit, maybe we ought to spend more than a couple decades going over the data before trying to "solve" an issue that has natural roots extending millions of years in the past.

So, yeah, another Golbal Warming thread. Are we causing Global Warming? Or is this just a natural change? Or both? Or neither? Discuss please. I say it's just a natural change, mostly because I don't think that we as humans have the power to make that kind of change, willingly or not! Thoughts?

I think it's more accurate to say that humans are exacerbating climate change.

My biggest complaint with Human Caused Climate Change* is that it touted as a scientific theory, but anyone who brings up opposing views, theories, questions, or criticisms is labeled as an idiot at odds with "99.9999% of scientists."

No scientific theory is free from criticism.

Yes. Yes! YES! If the weight of 99.99999% of scientific research isn't enough for you, you should be questioning gravity as well.
It worked for Einstein.

This debate ended ages ago, and the scientific conclusion the world over was that man causes global warming.

NEXT.

Some.

CO2 isn't the only cause of warming, nor is it even the strongest greenhouse gas. Methane is 21 times more warming, per weight, than CO2 is. Nitrous Oxide is 310 more times more warming.However, CO2 is being produced in the highest amounts. However, with all the CO2 hype, Methane intense businesses, such as ranching, are being ignored when they should be cutting back as well.
Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, and is responsible for anything between 36% and 70% of global warming (scientists aren't sure - put that in your "99.99999%" and smoke it).

We don't emit water vapor (unless we convert to hydrogen fuel cell cars... then we have a problem).We don't emit water vapor? You're kidding, right? Ever heard of cooling towers for powerplants?

I am old enough to remember when the "great majority" of the scientists were yelling that we were headed towards a destructive ice age. Then there was the bit that when the total population reached 1 billion people, that was going to deplete all the natural resources of food, and there was going to be global wide starvation, famine and death. Then they moved the number up to 3 billion. Then the apocalyptic threat was the ozone hole in the south pole. It was going to destroy the atmosphere, or melt the antarctic ice cap, whichever the flavor was. Of course, now it is global warming. But what I really want to know from these folks that yell about the imminent threat of it; how many of them are going to really change their way of life, and show us how should it be done? Not a damn one of them. After 40 years of listening to their doom and gloom, just like politicians.I'm sure naming some names and credible sources arguing in favor of these hypotheses. And perhaps you would like to research on the topic of sustainable growth while taking into account discoveries, such as the green revolution, which push the size of the population up again? And research into the Ozone hole and what it actually is would be helpful as well.

This debate ended ages ago, and the scientific conclusion the world over was that man causes global warming.

Ahem...

No scientific theory is free from criticism.

No scientific debate ever "ends", and there is never a total consensus among scientists on any issue.

Seriously, do you ever read threads before you post in them?

It's Already Too Late! We're Just Speeding It Up!

I believe that Global Warming started when the Ice Age began to end.

Have you ever watched an ice cube melt? I know it's rather silly but the more water there is, the faster it melts.

So basically all we can do is stop worsening it by using all that stuff that apparently :rolleyes: caused it and it will follow the natural course, rather than going faster than normal. It was already too late when it started.


-The Kingdom of Serpentsortia ^-^

I doesn't really matter what the science says, people will always find some lame reason why they themselves don't need to do anything.

Either there's no substantial evidence, so do nothing. Or not every scientist in the whole world agrees, so do nothing. Or there is evidence, but it must be an unstoppable natural phenomenon, so do nothing. Or China is much more of a problem than the US or Europe, so do nothing. Or it's too late anyway and we're all doomed regardless, so do nothing.

I accept that we can't be certain on this, but the responsible option is surely to err on the side of caution. It's clearly easier though to come up with pony reasons why buying a Humvee is in fact the ethical choice, and insulating your house a stupid waste of time.

If I had my finger on the nuclear button I would probably push it. I can't stand most people, they're arseholes.

i'm pretty sure god didn't fart.

yes we're pushing the buttons by dumping carbon rather then letting plants sequester it the way natures cycles of renewal were ment to.

=^^=
.../\...

Odds are, they are eventually going to be right.

Not to mention that you would need to be very isolated not to realize there is something not-quite-right about the levels of pollutants and other goings on in nature today.

just cos there eventually going to be right dose not mean we have to do what they want now. I can pridict that i going a die tomoro, using my general lifestyle etc as evidence, eventually i going be right (in theory i am planing to live forever)

I am old enough to remember when the "great majority" of the scientists were yelling that we were headed towards a destructive ice age. Then there was the bit that when the total population reached 1 billion people, that was going to deplete all the natural resources of food, and there was going to be global wide starvation, famine and death. Then they moved the number up to 3 billion. Then the apocalyptic threat was the ozone hole in the south pole. It was going to destroy the atmosphere, or melt the antarctic ice cap, whichever the flavor was. Of course, now it is global warming. But what I really want to know from these folks that yell about the imminent threat of it; how many of them are going to really change their way of life, and show us how should it be done? Not a damn one of them. After 40 years of listening to their doom and gloom, just like politicians.

I had a teacher who told me the same thing. He say a lot of these future apocalyptic threats were mere money graping for research grants

I wish people would stop using the phrase 'global warming' when discussing climatic change- it's inaccurate and misleading, and accomplishes nothing other than opening a little door so that people can crow "ahh, but you said we were heading for an ice age a few years ago so you obviously don't know what you're talking about, nyah nyah nyah, etc."

Are humans contributing to climate change? - Yes, without question. We most certainly contribute to it simply by dint of the fact that we introduce pollutants that would otherwise not be present in the ecosphere. That's not up for debate amongst the rational people of the world.

Are we the main contributor to the changes that are being recorded (that's recorded, as in observed and measured, not merely theorised)? - Perhaps... there's a body of evidence that says we are. On the other hand, perhaps we're not.

Does it matter whether we're the main cause? - Not one whit. Whether we have triggered/caused it or not is irrelevant but, unless there's some bolthole planet we can emigrate to that I'm unaware of, it's criminal to continue ignoring that it's happening. What matters is that we attempt to use our big brains and much-vaunted technologies to do something about it.

A lot of people seem to be pretty blasé about the evidence that exists showing that the climate is changing. They get caught up arguing about the causes rather than investigating possible solutions, and seem to be unable or unwilling to accept that we're still just animals that have to fit into the ecosystem that we find ourselves in, or suffer the same fate as the myriad other species over the geological ages that have found themselves in environments lethal to their continued existence.

Some people even make comments about it not being 'fair' that they might have to start recycling some of their waste, or cut down on their energy consumption, or actually think about the impact that they themselves are having on things just by consuming certain items (do you really need that fruit grown 5000 miles away and shipped to a supermarket on your doorstep?). They moan that it seems unfair that they might have to rein in their consumption across the board whilst there are still societies elsewhere who aren't doing the same. Newsflash, life's not fair.

It's an unholy combination of nimbyism run wild and market-driven selfishness writ large, and it both sickens and depresses me in equal measure.

Probably. We should stop being assholes to the environment even if we're not, though.

Probably. We should stop being assholes to the environment even if we're not, though.

That sums it up quite nicely, I think.

If we've got global warming, how come it's freezing cold and the snow's not melted in the hills?

Did anyone see the EDP article on the secret plan to flood part of Norfolk to save money? That's all Global Warming is, an excuse to save money.

Found it online: here (http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED28%20Mar%202008%2008%3A36%3A43%3A787)

Slow crisis are always subject to such absurdity.. whether or not we are the sole cause of the problem, we need to do all we can to stop it.

If your stove bursts into flames you don't stand there wondering if it was your fault or the manufacturer's.. you grab an extinguisher and put it out before your house burns down.

For the record, I think there may be a natural component but it is being vastly exasperated by human activity.

I personally suspect the big round thing that shows up between cloudy rainy snowy days.

Probably. We should stop being assholes to the environment even if we're not, though.

i like that. reminds me of this (http://www.storyofstuff.org/)

Probably. We should stop being assholes to the environment even if we're not, though.Absolutely. Regardless of the cause, we'd still do well to reduce our impact.

Slow crisis are always subject to such absurdity.. whether or not we are the sole cause of the problem, we need to do all we can to stop it.

If your stove bursts into flames you don't stand there wondering if it was your fault or the manufacturer's.. you grab an extinguisher and put it out before your house burns down.

For the record, I think there may be a natural component but it is being vastly exasperated by human activity.The problem with that analogy is: if the majority of the change is because of natural causes, then there's a possibility that no matter how green we convince people to be, the problem might still be there. In that case, we better find a decent way to adapt.

...we're still just animals that have to fit into the ecosystem that we find ourselves in, or suffer the same fate as the myriad other species over the geological ages that have found themselves in environments lethal to their continued existence.
Actually, no. Technology being the difference.

People in the developed world have nothing to fear from climate change but inconveniences (some of which may be major, but still not existential threats). The only thing that could get even close to being a problem is food production, and the effects of climate change aren't rapid enough to stop us from making sure.

The people that need to worry live in Africa, Bangladesh and those sorts of places. They're gonna be the ones suffering, and they're the ones who are much less removed from their original ecosystems than we are.

Which is not to say that the deaths and suffering there is any less tragic, or that we shouldn't allow the victims to move to other places on the globe (like our countries). But lets face it: doomsday scenarios aren't the way to make a proper argument.

Newsflash, life's not fair.

It's an unholy combination of nimbyism run wild and market-driven selfishness writ large, and it both sickens and depresses me in equal measure.
Take your own advice. There are a lot of people who can live with your sickness and depression. Self-righteousness, regardless how strong, is not a way to convince anyone of anything.

Right now the Green movement has found a cause that seems to be infinitely more powerful in motivating "the masses" than anything they had before (at least in some countries). They now have to decide how to use it - either in the genuine cause of addressing a problem and fixing it, or simply to abuse it in the name of a larger, longer-running and much less useful fixation they've always had: anti-establishment, anti-capitalist, anti-American and so on and so forth.

Fact of the matter is that this is a problem, and it presumably has a solution. We think that cutting CO2 emissions will be a big help in reaching this solution. No reasonable person disputes that anymore. But that's not a free-for-all to start controlling people's lives. If someone wants to spy into my bedroom window to see what I'm up to I don't really care if that someone is a religious nutjob or a green nutjob.

This is still about costs and benefits, and it can't ever be about anything else. If I turn off my appliances for "earth hour", or you take away my car or you do to me whatever else you come up with, that has a cost associated with it. And it's a pretty significant one, not just in terms of my pain, not just in terms of monetary costs but also in terms of the society you create. If you want my car - fine, show me what is gained from it. Show me why it has to be my car and not a coal-fired power station. Show me why "everyone has to do their part", why everyone must be treated equally, when we're clearly not in any way when it comes to this issue.

I don't deny that climate change is a fact. I don't deny that humans are making an apparently significant contribution to it. I don't deny that action has to be taken. I deny that we should throw all good sense out the window and submit unquestioningly to a new popular movement which ultimately knows not a thing more than anyone else about this. I deny that any good would be achieved by the destruction of a part of my life in the name of saving the planet, because the planet will not be saved by it. I deny that everyone must do their part, or rather that everyone's part must be significant enough to cause pain. I don't believe in suffering to make up for what we now know are past sins, just so I finally learn a lesson of a whole different kind.

I think the question of environmentalism vs civil rights and liberalism will be with us for some time. I'm just worried that people at the moment are so swept up in the former that they don't even see that the question exists.

To be entirely fair, I am more worried about the direct pollution, such as smog, leaded gasoline and such, than I am about global warming.

A good guideline here is to follow the ice cores who say that when temperatures are high, CO2 and CH4 concentrations are higher too. Not to say they cause each other, but there is a correlation).

It's also good to look at them closely and listen to the scientists who say temperature cuases CO2 to go up, no the other way round. http://www.homeworking.ws/megalightning,%20mummy,%20flying%20saucer/templag.jpg http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/algoreco2debate5b.jpg
http://www.sosforests.com/wp-content/postedimages/sunspotcycle.jpg

If we've got global warming, how come it's freezing cold and the snow's not melted in the hills?

Many reasons, but the most obvious is because global temperature =/= your local temperature.

It's also good to look at them closely and listen to the scientists who say temperature cuases CO2 to go up, no the other way round.

let me tell you about an awesome new discovery. there are these amazing things called 'feedbacks', where one change causes another which then causes further change in the original thing. mind blowing! anyway, we know, objectively, that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations increases temperatures, all else being equal. this is just a physical fact about them and their properties.

but it turns out that these are not the only things that can cause warming or cooling. crazy talk, i know, but if you think about it, it makes a sort of sense. so then we must look at what the various factors were doing at a given point of time and how they were interacting.

luckily, we have entire fields of scientists checking into this sort of shit for us, which is good, because you certainly don't have the time or training to do it. perhaps we should pay attention to what they have to say in the actual peer-reviewed scientific literature - or at least what they say they said there, since it is all rather huge and technical.

so, do you know what causes the two-state climate that the planet has been in for the past couple million years? how is this similar or different from what is going on now?

Be careful, CM. There are those on this very forum who would see you jailed for suggesting such a thing.

Be careful, CM. There are those on this very forum who would see you jailed for suggesting such a thing.

People who you imagine don't count as members of this forum.

The Dutch are causing global warming. They have the most to gain. Only they can stop the flood of the melted icecaps.


In other news, "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Find it, watch it, it's pretty awesome.

One thing that we need to do is lose this Chicken Little mentality. Planetary climate changes over time. This is a fact. We know it to be true and it has always been true. That means that we as a society can't assume that the climate 200 years ago will necessarily be the same as the climate 500 years from now.

If we have the ability to prevent that, why should we? Would it be wise to try and control nature? Somehow it strikes me as silly to think that somehow the current climate found in each region of the world is necessarily the best, just because it's what we're used to.

Should we be environmentally aware and avoid polluting it? Of course we should. That's common sense... But at the same time it's naieve to assume that the planetary climate would just remain static just from us limiting or even eliminating pollution entirely. The planet changes. Its orbit isn't a perfect circle. The energy given off by the sun fluctuates. Axial wobble cycles. These are all factors that have a huge impact on our climate and quite beyond our control.

It's also good to look at them closely and listen to the scientists who say temperature cuases CO2 to go up, no the other way round. http://www.homeworking.ws/megalightning,%20mummy,%20flying%20saucer/templag.jpg http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/algoreco2debate5b.jpg
http://www.sosforests.com/wp-content/postedimages/sunspotcycle.jpg

Or you could study geology and figure out that when you increase greenhouse gasses, it will increase temperatures due to an increase in Albedo. Similarly, if you reduce the sun's energy, the albedo will still reflect the same percentage resulting in, GASP, lower temperatures.

Really, there is such a thing as having several reasons for the same thing.

Btw, every referenced link to the sunspot cycle thingy that I've seen has been thoroughly WRONG in their conclusions drawn from the original work.

Many reasons, but the most obvious is because global temperature =/= your local temperature.

shit, next you'll be suggesting that when it is raining here it isn't raining everywhere. fucking bullshit.

One thing that we need to do is lose this Chicken Little mentality. Planetary climate changes over time. This is a fact. We know it to be true and it has always been true. That means that we as a society can't assume that the climate 200 years ago will necessarily be the same as the climate 500 years from now.

If we have the ability to prevent that, why should we?
Because if we don't then many people will die or become homeless. If we could stop tsunamis then what kind of person would suggest that we shouldn't?
Would it be wise to try and control nature? Somehow it strikes me as silly to think that somehow the current climate found in each region of the world is necessarily the best, just because it's what we're used to.
It's not that the climate is best as it is, it's that the climate changing could(and probably will) fuck up a lot of lives.

Should we be environmentally aware and avoid polluting it? Of course we should. That's common sense... But at the same time it's naieve to assume that the planetary climate would just remain static just from us limiting or even eliminating pollution entirely. The planet changes. Its orbit isn't a perfect circle. The energy given off by the sun fluctuates. Axial wobble cycles. These are all factors that have a huge impact on our climate and quite beyond our control.

Which of course doesn't disprove anthropogenic climate change.

i like that. reminds me of this (http://www.storyofstuff.org/)

Since I feel critical, I think the most glaring error in that was the part about computers. Anyone who chucks out their computers to get a faster processor, upgraded ram or a new graphics card is pure and simply stupid.

Now, laptops are a bit more of a problem... but I'm sure there's a way around that too.

Man does cause the global warming. With more than 95% This is a clear result of science and I know that since I worked some years in an atmospheric chemistry department of an university.

The discussion - for me - is meaningless as the answer is obvious.

But the question is: Is this "bad" / "immoral" / "dangerous" (for whom?) / "just Darwin's selection" ?
O.k. Polar bears will die. There have been millions of animals that died due to climate change, in history these changes were "natural". And man belongs to nature aswell. But it is also quite nice to pay less for a warm home in winter as the winter is not that cold anymore. And life will continue, although some kind of plant and animal will die out, there will be new possibilities for the surviving species.
The greatest danger of global warmig is that we dry out some regions ba strong warming. In consequence there are millions of men and women without water / farming etc. This may cause war, immigration, integration problems ...

Hence, we should do a lot to slow down global warming. Maybe from the moral aspect of conserving some species. But we should also do something to avoid war, genocide and intercontinental conflicts as some regions will be affected stronger than others.

As fossile material will run out within a century there is a "natural" end to global warming acceleration. And we must start regulating the handling and management with resources like water to avoid lacks in supply.

I don't mind global warming the onl problem is that it doesn't exist. I live in MI and theres still snow on the ground and ice on the roads so if by any chance it could warm up i would enjoy it

I don't mind global warming the onl problem is that it doesn't exist. I live in MI and theres still snow on the ground and ice on the roads so if by any chance it could warm up i would enjoy it

Many reasons, but the most obvious is because global temperature =/= your local temperature.

learn2read thread.

I don't deny that climate change is a fact. I don't deny that humans are making an apparently significant contribution to it. I don't deny that action has to be taken. I deny that we should throw all good sense out the window and submit unquestioningly to a new popular movement which ultimately knows not a thing more than anyone else about this. I deny that any good would be achieved by the destruction of a part of my life in the name of saving the planet, because the planet will not be saved by it. I deny that everyone must do their part, or rather that everyone's part must be significant enough to cause pain. I don't believe in suffering to make up for what we now know are past sins, just so I finally learn a lesson of a whole different kind.

Very well said.

I think the question of environmentalism vs civil rights and liberalism will be with us for some time. I'm just worried that people at the moment are so swept up in the former that they don't even see that the question exists

It's certainly an issue, and one that will likely grow larger over time.

One thing that we need to do is lose this Chicken Little mentality. Planetary climate changes over time. This is a fact. We know it to be true and it has always been true. That means that we as a society can't assume that the climate 200 years ago will necessarily be the same as the climate 500 years from now.

If we have the ability to prevent that, why should we? Would it be wise to try and control nature? Somehow it strikes me as silly to think that somehow the current climate found in each region of the world is necessarily the best, just because it's what we're used to.

Naive would be the more approriate term there, I think.

Should we be environmentally aware and avoid polluting it? Of course we should. That's common sense... But at the same time it's naieve to assume that the planetary climate would just remain static just from us limiting or even eliminating pollution entirely. The planet changes. Its orbit isn't a perfect circle. The energy given off by the sun fluctuates. Axial wobble cycles. These are all factors that have a huge impact on our climate and quite beyond our control.

Those and a whole host of others.

As George Carlin said: "The planet is fine, the PEOPLE are fucked."

Because if we don't then many people will die or become homeless. If we could stop tsunamis then what kind of person would suggest that we shouldn't?

Stopping tsunamis would mean stopping all tectonic activity on Earth.

Do you know what that would do to the planet? Cause I sure as hell don't.

If we're applying that kind of mentality to environmental issues, then maybe we're better off screwing ourselves over the way we already are.

It matters little what kind of analogy you want to use. Acting in such a far-reaching manner, without sufficient knowledge of the consequences, is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Because if we don't then many people will die or become homeless. If we could stop tsunamis then what kind of person would suggest that we shouldn't?

It's not that the climate is best as it is, it's that the climate changing could(and probably will) fuck up a lot of lives.

Tsunamis are not climate change.

If the planet is on its way into another ice age (as has been suggested by some) then the goal of saving lives would be best served by taking an honest look at what's happening, do our best to predict what's coming, and start getting ready for it.


Which of course doesn't disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Nor does it need to. Those factors alone are enough to merit the idea that the planet's climate will change no matter what we do, and prudence demands that we be ready.

So, yeah, another Golbal Warming thread. Are we causing Global Warming? Or is this just a natural change? Or both? Or neither? Discuss please. I say it's just a natural change, mostly because I don't think that we as humans have the power to make that kind of change, willingly or not! Thoughts?

Yeah, like totally dude. I mean, no way can 6 billion plus people with massive amounts of eath-shaping technology in any way be responsible for like, you know, that global warming crap.

The only thing stupider than denying our part in climate change is holocaust denial. Yeah, there's a Godwin for ya.