Let's talk global warming...

[Dude]

This topic gets me very angry and I am very passionate about it. Especially when I see people like Al Gore saying things like, 'the debate is over, it's proven all meteorologists and climatologists agree we are causing global warming and it will be the end of society as we know it'. Without raising my blood pressure, here are a few of my points.

In my opinion people are quite naive when they think that you can go to the wall and set Earth’s thermostat to whatever temperature you feel is Earth’s right or natural temperature. The Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over its history and will continue to do so for eternity, to believe that people have the ability to hold a specific temperature, is laughable.

The global average temperature is somewhere between 12-14C. If you look at the 2 billion year history of the Earth, the global average temperature has ranged between about 10C and 22C. With the cool valleys brief compared to the warm stretches (see http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). Our globe is warming, are humans having some impact? Probably, how much of that is Earth returning to ‘normal’, most of it. Do we also have impacts that cool our planet? Probably. Can you make an accurate climate model that accounts for all of those parameters and unknown natural variation? Definitely not.

One point people like to bring up, it’s not that we are warming, it’s the rate at we are warming. They cite ice core samples that go back hundreds of thousands of years or more. The major problem with that data is, the older an ice sample is, you lose the fine scale (short-term) variability and you see more of a long-term trend. When you compare that to very fine temporal data we have for the past few hundred years, well of course we are warming faster than the past many thousand years, the ice cores you are using intrinsically blur (or effectively time average) that data. It is not appropriate to make comparisons as such.

To construct public and economic policy to attempt to set an artificial ‘normal’ Earth temperature not only is irresponsible, it is a worthless endeavor because it plain will not work.

The attention that these people give to ‘global warming’ should be directed to things we actually do have a large impact on and could change. Fresh clean drinking water that could end up being what the next major regional, if not world war is over, not oil. 80-90% of the rivers in China are polluted to the point where it is undrinkable. Over a billion people with not enough water to drink, sounds like a problem to me. The Earth is overpopulated, some sort of epidemic will occur on this planet, even with modern medicine, will kill millions if not billions, but that will actually benefit the planet in the long run. And we must use the oil on our land now and MUST develop an alternate to oil because it will run out or become unimaginably expensive.

The global warming alarmists like Al Gore are in many ways like religious fanatics, in many ways global warming and his version of environmentalism is his religion. Al Gore and people like him, believe what you like, live how you feel is right, but for one minute don’t push your beliefs on others (note beliefs, his statements are NOT fact), especially when your goal is truly unobtainable, but comes at an extremely high cost.

Stepping down from my soapbox without getting too worked and keeping this short. Yes, I think this is short.

Do you need an aspirin?

I agree with pretty much everything you just said. One point i do want to raise though is that I DO think GW is being perpetuated moreso by humans but not to the degree of the "end is near" way of thinking in the Al Gore camps of the world. Al Gore's agenda is political and he is attacking an issue that is popular right now.

Without making this into a political topic, I think there are so many theories out there that are skewing people to believe what they want to believe and they discount anything else rational.

This is my opinion. The "heat islands" that man has created, and the pollutants that man has created, has very little to do with warming trend of the world, and more to do with natural cycles of global currents--mainly in the oceans. We will never be able to fully understand it and therefore I belong to the camp that we should focus issues on other resources rather than worry about something that more than likely we cannot control.

 

[uwmgdman]

Do you need an aspirin?

A brew wouldn't hurt either.

......I belong to the camp that we should focus issues on other resources rather than worry about something that more than likely we cannot control.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Richard]

As others have stated, there is no way to know with any degree of certainty what impact (if any) we are having on the global temperate. That's unfortunate for those who support the man-made global warming theory, because the burden of proof is on them. They are the ones who want to introduce restrictions that would cripple the global economy, so they have to justify such serious measures. They can't, end of story.

 

[olllllo]

Just a few observations:
1.) Whether it is man-made or natural or any combination, does not mean that we cannot impact it in some way OR mitigate the negative effects of the change. As Dude points out, there are man-made factors currently affecting local weather. Lessening some of these (and more importantly) making sure that 1-2 billion people that will move from a annual income of $9000 to $35,000 (8-9% China economic growth) in the next 30 years keep thier impact to a minimum.

2) Someone stated in an earlier post that the Chinese could basically ruin thier own country with acid rain etc, and it would be a disincentive for them to pollute or if they didn't well too bad for them.... This is not a well thought out idea. Most of the Chinese population is on the Pacific coast. Guess where all of that goes.
Weather patterns flow from West to East. And the oceans.

3) Here is the real doomsday scenario. We can debate how likely or what we can or cant do....

Ocean temperatures rise (not a whole lot) enough to promote O2 depleting bacterial life (already happening in sea dead zones). Since we have over fished or seriously stressed the middle tier of predators (through pollution and pesticdes) that consume this and since these bacteria compete with and crush plankton the bacterial growth spreads unchecked further deoxegenating the oceans.... oceans rich in dissolved organic carbon.

Basically the oceans would then release enough carbon to cause an irreversable (in man's time on earth terms) die off.

This theory is supplanting the asteriod or volcano theory of a 90% die off that occured at the end of the Permian Era.

4) Again, the odds of this are debatable. The odds of a large object smashing into the earth is debatable. There are people looking into preventing or seiously mitigating such a collision. No one thinks that these people are crack pots. We don't have the debate about it being a natural event.

But then that issue hasn't become a political issue.

5) There are no technical barriers to getting this done. There are only economic and political ones. Technology however can help to reduce the economic and political (read cultural and life-style acceptabilty) cost.

 

[fifelee]

Lets say Al Gore is right and we need to drastically cut greenhouse gasses to save our ass. How much do we need to cut…25%…50%…75%? My guess is that the economic hit from even a 25% cut forced upon society would do more damage than global warming ever will. Plus if Al Gore is right and CO2 is so bad, I doubt a 25% cut would do anything to stop global warming.

Now don’t get me wrong I hate pollution and think we all should work to reduce, but I also think scaremongering solves nothing. Let nature and the free market take its course and don’t force me to change my live. I will choose to do so freely as energy prices rise and as nature requires. All oil and food isn’t going to disappear overnight. Earth won’t turn into a ball of fire tomorrow. It will happen gradually and we will adapt. As oil gets scarcer the free market will find alternatives (as the current alternative energy boom shows) and people will use less. If food becomes more expensive, more people will start growing their own. As the ocean slowly rises coastal cities will evolve and change (hell the Venusians built a city on water).

We have heard the dire predictions many many times before, yet we are better off today than any point in history. I wish the fear mongers would quit trying to scare the crap out of everyone and just RDWHAHB.

 

[olllllo]

Getting back to something discussed by Dude as to wheter we can control this.

Perhaps we cannot. We cannot prevent an earthquake, but we can do things to lessen it's impact. We do not, for example, store our nuclear waste in a fault zone. We create building codes to mitigate damage.

So, perhaps we cannot "change" global warming. We can however change some of our practices so that we do not accelerate deleterious effects. Reducing our impact on the environment seems to be a good start.

 

[z987k]

Just a few observations]
2) Someone stated in an earlier post that the Chinese could basically ruin thier own country with acid rain etc, and it would be a disincentive for them to pollute or if they didn't well too bad for them.... This is not a well thought out idea. Most of the Chinese population is on the Pacific coast. Guess where all of that goes.
Weather patterns flow from West to East. And the oceans.

It was me. First the acidification of the oceans would be detrimental to fishing ecosystems and many other things. Second, yes they are polluting themselves very badly. Most rivers there are undrinkable - as I think someone said.. Second the acid rain does go to the ocean somewhat, but a lot of it still get rained down into the rivers streams and lakes in the mainland. Remember it doesn't necessarily matter where the population is, it's where the Sox and Nox polluting sources are, in this case mostly coal burning power plants.
And remember acid rain is strictly a local problem, it is not carried all that far.
Slide 41 has a good map to consider.


Next to everyone, I guess I don't really care which way you think on the subject as long as you are making an informed decision. Don't believe everything Al Gore or whoever the right wing anti-global warming nut job is says either. Find the facts (data) and make your on INFORMED decision, but please don't base it on an opinion.

 

[DeadYetiBrew]

Next to everyone, I guess I don't really care which way you think on the subject as long as you are making an informed decision. Don't believe everything Al Gore or whoever the right wing anti-global warming nut job is says either. Find the facts (data) and make your on INFORMED decision, but please don't base it on an opinion.

I agree 100% with you there... Nothing I hate more than yuppies driving SUV's talking about how coal plants are polluting... Or EX-politicians doing an eco-crusade with their Motorcades and Jumbo Jets... all because it's the 'popular' thing. Always get the facts for yourself and decide, don't go by another person's opinion.

 

[Nexus555]

Want proof for global warming? Let's look at the planet Venus.

Venus is the SECOND planet in the solar system. It's however the HOTTEST terrestrial (rock) planet in the solar system? Why isn't Mercury (1st planet) the hottest? It's much closer to the sun than Venus.

The reason is this. Venus' atomosphere consist of mainly CO2 and a very small trace of nitrogen. What is CO2? A greenhouse gas. CO2 has been proven scientifically to be a greenhouse gas. (Traps heat on the surface)

Now obviously there are natural cycles on earth. Volcanoes release CO2, alcohol fermentation rockin: ), etc. However so does burning of fossil fuels. Oil is supposed to be under the ground or under the ocean. When you burn gas, you are adding more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Every planet has natural cycles (Mar's is getting warmer right now.) However, if CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we release UNNATURAL amounts of CO2 in the air, it's obvious that eventually the surface temeperature is going to get too hot.

Finally, it might not be as bad if we wouldn't cut our trees. Plants take in CO2 and release oxygen that we breathe. Unfortunately we are killing all the trees and plants, thereby less CO2 is being converted into O.

So basically you got this:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Fact)
Earth does have a natural cycle (Fact)
Trees and plants are in this natural cycle to turn CO2 into O (Fact)
There are a diminishing amount of trees and plants (Fact)
There are still the same natural CO2 emitters (Fact)
There is an additional CO2 emitter, humans (Fact)

With less plants and trees to convert CO2 into O, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. Between more CO2 being emitted by humans and less CO2 being converted into oxygen because of tree and plant loss (humans fault) there will therefore be more CO2 greenhouse gases causing the surface temperature to increase (see: greenhouse gas in dictionary and Venus.)

Thank you.

 

[Pumbaa]

Nexus see link in post 27

 

[olllllo]

It was me. First the acidification of the oceans would be detrimental to fishing ecosystems and many other things. Second, yes they are polluting themselves very badly. Most rivers there are undrinkable - as I think someone said.. Second the acid rain does go to the ocean somewhat, but a lot of it still get rained down into the rivers streams and lakes in the mainland. Remember it doesn't necessarily matter where the population is, it's where the Sox and Nox polluting sources are, in this case mostly coal burning power plants.
And remember acid rain is strictly a local problem, it is not carried all that far.
Slide 41 has a good map to consider.


Next to everyone, I guess I don't really care which way you think on the subject as long as you are making an informed decision. Don't believe everything Al Gore or whoever the right wing anti-global warming nut job is says either. Find the facts (data) and make your on INFORMED decision, but please don't base it on an opinion.

I think on the balance then with respect to acid rain we're in agreement. Acid rain wasn't the curx of that point and I should have been more clear. It is the oceans, and other particulate pollutants that can travel with the weather.
And the fact that the Chinese government has a history of allowing the people to bear the brunt of whatever the government deems a priority. In 1939, (pre communtist era) they let 500,000 people die because of flooding and subsequent famine in N. China. Dams were destroyed to slow down the invading Japanese armies in Manchuria.

In the cold war period Mao strategized that he could prevail in a nuclear exchange with the US or Russia because he could outlast us with the size of the population.

 

[z987k]

Want proof for global warming? Let's look at the planet Venus.

Venus is the SECOND planet in the solar system. It's however the HOTTEST terrestrial (rock) planet in the solar system? Why isn't Mercury (1st planet) the hottest? It's much closer to the sun than Venus.

The reason is this. Venus' atomosphere consist of mainly CO2 and a very small trace of nitrogen. What is CO2? A greenhouse gas. CO2 has been proven scientifically to be a greenhouse gas. (Traps heat on the surface)

Now obviously there are natural cycles on earth. Volcanoes release CO2, alcohol fermentation rockin: ), etc. However so does burning of fossil fuels. Oil is supposed to be under the ground or under the ocean. When you burn gas, you are adding more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Every planet has natural cycles (Mar's is getting warmer right now.) However, if CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we release UNNATURAL amounts of CO2 in the air, it's obvious that eventually the surface temeperature is going to get too hot.

Finally, it might not be as bad if we wouldn't cut our trees. Plants take in CO2 and release oxygen that we breathe. Unfortunately we are killing all the trees and plants, thereby less CO2 is being converted into O.

So basically you got this:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Fact)
Earth does have a natural cycle (Fact)
Trees and plants are in this natural cycle to turn CO2 into O (Fact)
There are a diminishing amount of trees and plants (Fact)
There are still the same natural CO2 emitters (Fact)
There is an additional CO2 emitter, humans (Fact)

With less plants and trees to convert CO2 into O, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. Between more CO2 being emitted by humans and less CO2 being converted into oxygen because of tree and plant loss (humans fault) there will therefore be more CO2 greenhouse gases causing the surface temperature to increase (see: greenhouse gas in dictionary and Venus.)

Thank you.

Yeah CO2 and H2O both trap about ~90% of IR radiation. That's a fact no scientist will argue.

 

[Pumbaa]

Found this today, pretty interesting viewpoint
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html

 

[olllllo]

Now that you NE'sters are getting a taste of the summer heat the rest of the country has been getting...

bump

 

[Ryanh1801]

This has been the coolest summer I have ever experienced.

 

[Orfy]

We are officially not having one this year. RAIN!!!!!!

 

[talleymonster]

It's hot....

LOL!

It was 117* Here in Las Vegas on the fourth of July.

I was down the river about 100 miles this past weekend in Bullhead City, Arizona. The billboard said 124* when I drove by it!

 

[jarrid]

regarding The Great Global Warming Swindle:

I think they make a solid hypothesis against man-made global warming, but they fall short of proving anything. They say: "you can't prove that CO2 levels cause warming." Then they only show a few graphs that suggest the complex relationship between greenhouse gases, but it doesn't definitively prove their argument to be right, nor their opposition to be wrong. (I think you guys have summed up the ins and outs of that debate pretty well here already, so it's kindof moot.)

In the last 20 minutes or so they lose a lot of credibility when they try to accuse environmentalists of waging some campaign to destroy civilization as we know it. Sure, there are plenty of pretentious idiots in the far left green machine (like in any political extreme) but they fail to acknowledge the notion of sustainable progress. That is the key issue that most people in the environmentalist camp are advocating. Global warming or no global warming, changes need to be made.

These guys in GGWS swear up and down that they are not financially vested in the status quo, but they seem awfully defensive against change (doesn't the bit about the solar powered clinic in Africa remind you of the in the Simpsons?). I say stick to science, ********, and use it for something other than beating a dead political horse.

 

[EdWort]

I don't need A-Holes like the Goracle telling me how to live when that tard uses more electricity in a month than I do in a year. F'ing Fat hypocrite. Don't tell me he's carbon neutral either. Buying credits from himself. What a f'ing joke.

By the way, fermenting beer produces mass quantities of CO2, now considered a pollutant thanks to unelected men in black robes. If the Goracle would have his way, he'd tax beer production for all the CO2 generated.

Mars is warming at the same rate as Earth. Hmm, could it be a solar cycle?

Check this site out. It's a hoot. http://carboncreditkillers.com/

/soap box off

 

[DeathBrewer]

i think whether or not burning fossil fuels causes global warming is a stupid argument. no matter what it still has an adverse affect on our environment and we should be continuously exploring and experimenting with clean, safe, alternate means of energy.

fossil fuels won't last forever, anyway.

i'm sick of hearing all these debates on unimportant issues. it seems to me they're just a distraction from the real problems.

 

[user 574]

We're probably in for a long debate based on this one still hanging around

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatWhyFlat.htm

 

[uglygoat]

i think we humans should be the best stewards we can possibly be and turn over the earth to the next generation in as good, if not better condition than we inherited it.

i also think the politicization of global warming is sick. science shouldn't be bought by either side. it seems to me, both sides have their conclusion, now they're busy building models to prove what they want the outcome to be.

 

[mr x]

The human race has developed a lot of real bad habits, and if they aren't undone real soon, the consequences are going to be terminal for many species. Beyond those already destroyed.

"According to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, there are currently 539 plant and animal species at risk in Canada."
"Another 13 species are already extinct."

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

That's scary.

 

[Drunkensatyr]

Just face it.... We are going to tumble into the sun.

The end is Neigh and Zombies will rule the world.

 

[Ryanh1801]

The human race has developed a lot of real bad habits, and if they aren't undone real soon, the consequences are going to be terminal for many species. Beyond those already destroyed.

"According to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, there are currently 539 plant and animal species at risk in Canada."
"Another 13 species are already extinct."

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

That's scary.

Dude animals died off way before Humans had anything to do with it, its part of life. Survival of the fittest. Like Ed im sick of seeing these people that live in huge house's, private jets bitching about it. If they were so worried about it they would move into a 1500 sq foot house and drive a Honda, do they? hell no. People like Sheryl Crow drive around in huge cat powered Diesels talking about pollution. Give me a brake.

 

[mr x]

Dude animals died off way before Humans had anything to do with it

Not all of them. The ones dying off now are a direct result of human influence. Whatever Sheryl Crow does doesn't change that.

 

[jerly]

I live in a 900 sq ft house and drive a Honda.

I think there is mostly something to global warming. I definitly think people need to drive less and it would be a good idea to reduce carbon emissions whether it has any effect on the climate or not.

Those of you who don't believe it at all possibly could end up being right, but I tend to think the idea of less polution sounds good regardless.

Now give me my commie pinko membership card.

 

[FlyGuy]

Dude animals died off way before Humans had anything to do with it, its part of life. Survival of the fittest.

I think that's the point -- mass extinctions have happened in the past (dinosaurs being the most well known). But never in the history of our planet has one species been known to cause the demise of so many others. It is kinda scarey.

And don't confuse species extinction with survival of the fittest -- very common misconception.

 

[EdWort]

The human race has developed a lot of real bad habits, and if they aren't undone real soon, the consequences are going to be terminal for many species. Beyond those already destroyed.

"According to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, there are currently 539 plant and animal species at risk in Canada."
"Another 13 species are already extinct."

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

That's scary.

I would not necessary put any faith into whatever is posted at Wikipedia. There is a lot of BS there.

On the other hand, species die out all the time and we discover new ones all the time too. It's the cycle of life.

 

[mr x]

I would not necessary put any faith into whatever is posted at Wikipedia. There is a lot of BS there.

On the other hand, species die out all the time and we discover new ones all the time too. It's the cycle of life.

If you follow the trail in this case you'll find it's not BS.

You aren't going to find new species of burrowing owls, right whales and other large animals. The majority of new species are being found in remote places unaccessed until recently by humans. Now that we have access, these species will no doubt be at risk too...

What's going on isn't the cycle of life, it's destruction of life - plain and simple. Erase a life form and it is gone forever.