Global Warming...

[Legzman]

Re: The Bush administration, post-2004 election ...

Ok,I won`t get any deeper into that argument over US politics and who has done what.I believe that you know better than I do.
From outside it has just looked like Mr.Bush haven`t really done nothing but trying to keep US from reducing it`s CO2 emissions.

Still,I find it difficult to understand how US cannot afford to do more,let alone ratify Kyoto Protocol.

The U.S. can't afford to reduce co2 emissions as we have spent all the money we already don't have on the fuckin bullshit in Iraq! Again :thefinger Bush! But this argument is for another thread!

 

[Member2019]

Political non-sense for the economically ignorant ...

The U.S. can't afford to reduce co2 emissions as we have spent all the money we already don't have on the fuckin bullshit in Iraq! Again :thefinger Bush! But this argument is for another thread!

I wish people would actually read the US federal budget. Social services and pork is the overwhelming majority of the cost. Again, read at least the budget summary sheets from the OBM.

It will take approximately $10T to renovate our power grid over 25 years, a cost that will be financed out to 75+ years by private corporations. That is over an order of magnitude each year more than the cost of the Iraq war per year. And that's just the start.

The "real cost" in the Iraq war, just like Vietnam, has been the increased spending for pork the Executive office ends up approving (not vetoing) to secure support from Legislators for the war.

Wars cost money, but social services cost a crapload more. Anyone who thinks we can "do great things" by not spending money on the military hasn't looked at the budget, let alone how much that is in employment and benefits, let alone how much actual "charity" is spend on salaries and benefits for federal workers.

 

[om3ga]

We could always take up Professor Stephen Hawking's idea and move to new planet......

Move to new planet, says Hawking

 

[Iamforever]

We could always take up Professor Stephen Hawking's idea and move to new planet......

Move to new planet, says Hawking

how much would u-haul charge for a move like that?:rofl:

 

[D-rock]

We could always take up Professor Stephen Hawking's idea and move to new planet......

Move to new planet, says Hawking

We would just wreck that one also. :1orglaugh

 

[Member2019]

Wtf?

We would just wreck that one also. :1orglaugh

I don't think you guys read the article. He was talking about various, "single event" accidents, not "gradual" changes. What this has anything to do with "global warming" is pure BS, and was not even remotely touched in the article.

Our planet is quite capable of "withstanding" long-term human-created effects. It may affect our capabilities, our life, our way, but we will continue to live on this planet despite our defacing it.

This article has to do with "single events" that cause the planet to change in a way that is not "gradual." Context is everything.

 

[om3ga]

Re: Wtf?

I don't think you guys read the article. He was talking about various, "single event" accidents, not "gradual" changes. What this has anything to do with "global warming" is pure BS, and was not even remotely touched in the article.

Our planet is quite capable of "withstanding" long-term human-created effects. It may affect our capabilities, our life, our way, but we will continue to live on this planet despite our defacing it.

This article has to do with "single events" that cause the planet to change in a way that is not "gradual." Context is everything.

Actually I disagree, Prof.

While Prof. Hawkins was discussing mankind moving to another planet as a result of "nuclear disaster or asteroid", if today's scientists are correct about the effects of Global warming (and yes, I know some scientists disagree), then leaving Earth could be an option to our descendants (if they have the technology to travel the required distances).

Therefore I thought it merited inclusion to this debate......Ω

 

[calpoon]

this is all bullshit. any economic system that requires the importation of resources (In other words it uses up, or in some cases, like the US, has nearly depleted all together, resources in the imdediate area faster than they can be replenished) is and will always be by definition unsustainable, and will cause more destruction than good at an ever increasing rate.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Wtf?

Actually I disagree, Prof.
While Prof. Hawkins was discussing mankind moving to another planet as a result of "nuclear disaster or asteroid", if today's scientists are correct about the effects of Global warming (and yes, I know some scientists disagree), then leaving Earth could be an option to our descendants (if they have the technology to travel the required distances).

I don't know of one scientist that has predict global warming will make the Earth uninhabitable for humans, period.
Hawkins is talking about Extinction Level Events (ELE), not gradual change.
The Earth has been under a gradual change since its inception.

 

[Member2019]

this is all bullshit. any economic system that requires the importation of resources (In other words it uses up, or in some cases, like the US, has nearly depleted all together, resources in the imdediate area faster than they can be replenished) is and will always be by definition unsustainable, and will cause more destruction than good at an ever increasing rate.

That's a farce about the US. The US has extensive, natural resources. The only thing we don't have an abundance of is petroleum, at least what we've discovered, and select minerals only found in select portions of the world.

The US has extensive forests (this single fact is a good way to gage if someone is just a "popular environmentalist" or a real scientist), coal deposits, fertile land and many of the most common, natural resources. In many cases, it's just cheaper to get raw materials from overseas for now, while protecting our own, natural resources.

 

[calpoon]

a crop of 8 inch dougals furs is not a forrest. Yes we have more trees than we had ten years ago, but even at that rate we can barely keep up with the demand. what that means is that whenever a tree gets to a suitable length, usually around five feet, then it is harvested. the process of cutting down trees is damaging to the soil and taking away other plants and not allowing the tree to mature and grow to it's fullness takes away valuable nutrient exchange. what that translates to is that a tree farm crop lasts about three generations and from then on the land won't be able to grow anymore. Of course there are ways to make it possible, but it's not time or cost effective, so they just move on to another spot. It really isn't anymore viable than clear cutting.

I really don't know that much about minerals, but given the ammount of used up closed down mines and the increasing demand and the rising cost and scarcity of some materials, everything I've seen seems to demonstrate that it is quickly becoming a low yield enterprize and will sooner than later be more costly than profitable.

and as far as coal goes, the only reason that we have any is because we stopped using it. given the rate that it was used (millions of tons) when we had only a fraction of our fossil fuel reliance, I don't see how it would last very long at all in todays market.

 

[D-rock]

Global warming is happing on a geological level so fast that it might as well be an instantaneous event considering it takes millions of years for things to adapt on an evolutionary scale. There are in fact scientist that think in the worst case scenario that it could lead to mass extinction of plants and animals and make the world difficult to live in killing off billions of people, if not more. Not only is global warming continuing, it's accelerating. Where going to be at a level at the end of our lifetimes where the Earth has not been in millions of years. Things like mass forest fires because of drought might take even more of the plants that reduce carbon dioxide and release more CO2. Some people think that their are massive amounts of methane trapped under places like Greenland that will be released once the ice sheet starts melting away enough, because of all the decayed vegetable matter underneath it. Methane is a greenhouse gas eight times more powerful than CO2. The oceans and other bodies of water will start holding less oxygen because they will warm up and make it even harder for microbes and other things to grow in it. It can also start changing the waters chemistry. With less snow and ice each year the Earth's albedo will start to lower ass the ice that reflects the sun will never come making yet another thing that will accelerate global warming. Will it be a doomsday scenario, maybe not, but I definitely wouldn't say at this point that global warming and the climate change it brings with it doesn't have the capability to end humanity, or make our lives unrecognizable from what they are now.

 

[om3ga]

Re: Wtf?

I don't know of one scientist that has predict global warming will make the Earth uninhabitable for humans, period.
Hawkins is talking about Extinction Level Events (ELE), not gradual change.
The Earth has been under a gradual change since its inception.

As I said in my earlier post: I know Hawking was debating about seeking other planets because of a sudden disaster.

However although Climate Change is a gradual process, some believe man's industrial and personal consumption activities are a creditable threat to the future of planet Earth.

For example a 2003 report, written by eight leading German professors, claimed that "dangerous climatic changes" will become "highly probable" if the world's average temperature is allowed to increase to more than 2 degrees centigrade above what it was before the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Beyond that level, these professors believed the West Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice cap would begin gradually to melt away, eventually raising sea levels world wide by up to 30 feet, submerging vast areas of land and key cities worldwide. London, New York, Miami, Bombay, Calcutta, Sydney, Shanghai, Lagos and Tokyo would be among those largely submerged by such a rise.

Above this mark too, other "devastating" and "irreversible" changes would be likely to take place. These include a cessation of the Indian monsoon and the ending of the Gulf Stream, which would dramatically worsen the climate in Britain and western Europe, even as the world warms. Another risk is the so-called "runaway greenhouse" where rising temperatures lead to the release of huge reservoirs methane stored in permafrost and the oceans, adding to global warming and starting a self-reinforcing cycle that would eventually make the earth uninhabitable.

Details:
Global Warming: Melting Ice 'Will Swamp Capitals'

Also the rising population would make the idea of terraforming a planet like Mars a more attractive prospect. Over six billion people currently live on Earth, and that number continues to increase. As a solution to planetary overcrowding, space exploration would be considered a worthy objective. Our decendants will be forced to eventually consider new homes within our solar system like Mars

OK, I'm done arguing over this. Let's just say you like tomato and I like tomahto..........

 

[Red Spyder]

I really enjoyed reading "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton, didn't agree with all of it but had some really good points.

 

[Member2019]

a crop of 8 inch dougals furs is not a forrest.

Can we get a little less rhetoric and a little more fact? No? Okay, no sense in responding any further.

There are in fact scientist that think in the worst case scenario that it could lead to mass extinction of plants and animals and make the world difficult to live in killing off billions of people, if not more.

"mass extinction of plants?" Excuse me? That doesn't make sense. While a "mass extinction of animals" might be a possibility, and I'm sure many habitats are being destroyed by climatic changes, anything relying on photosynthesis is thriving now more than ever!

Will it be a doomsday scenario, maybe not, but I definitely wouldn't say at this point that global warming and the climate change it brings with it doesn't have the capability to end humanity, or make our lives unrecognizable from what they are now.

I'd have to very much disagree with you there.

 

[calpoon]

Can we get a little less rhetoric and a little more fact? No? Okay, no sense in responding any further.

how is that rhetoric? the fact is that a natural forrest is self-sustaining. a monocrop tree farm isn't. please feel free to dispute this, I'd love nothing more to be proven wrong, to have it demonstrated that there is a way for nonrenewable resources to last indefinitely and not irreparably destroy the landscape.

 

[Roughneck]

Roughneck - of course you believe Global Warming is a myth and/or the ozone holes are unrelated to Northern Hemisphere emissions?

Don't put words in my mouth.

I asked a simple question - if greenhouse gas emissions are what caused the ozone hole, why is there a big hole in the hemisphere with the lower gas emissions?

Logic would state that since the northern hemisphere is more industrialised and populated and produces more emissions, there should be a bigger hole in the North - especially since atmospheric circulation and currents pattern in such a way as to generally avoid large scale mixing of air from either hemisphere (Coriolis effect, Hadley cells, Farrel cells, Polar cells and all that).

Do I know the full answer to that one? I doubt it - I'm not a climatologist nor a research scientist dealing with atmospheric conditions. I work in a hospital and I deal primarily with humans (with the occasisonal cat or dog or hamster). But I doubt you know any more of it than I do.

I should have called that one. Am I allowed to personally consider you less credible in other areas if indeed you do think Global Warming is unrelated to pollution?

Global Warming a myth? Hardly. Only an idiot would claim that there is "no global warming". Mean temperatures have been going up for years now.

Is it completely all man's fault - that's a good debate right there.
You weren't around when Time magazine released a report predicting the coming of the "next ice age" 30 years ago, were you? Funny how no one talks about that now!

The way I see it:

a) Man-made global climate change is real, and we need to stop greenhouse emissions immediately to avert disaster.

b) Man-made global climate change is real, and it's too late to stop it.

c) Man-made global climate change is not real, and we need to stop worrying about it.

d) Man-made global climate change is not real, but we should reduce greenhouse emissions because they're bad anyway.

Me? I go with option d. Weather is an incredibly complex system (hell, we still can't predict with good accuracy what the weather will be 10 days from now!) and I honestly don't think man's activity short of "global nuclear war" will have any real, lasting permanent impact on climate.

That being said - it doesn't mean it's a license and carte blanche to continue the way we are. It's a good idea to reduce emissions simply because they have a number of other effects - smog, acid rain etc. that aren't good.

And please remember - science is about being right, not popular. They threw out Galelio and Copernicus because their version of science was askew of the "popular" view - despite the fact that they were right and the "established scientific community" was wrong.

To dismiss those folk who say "man made climate change is not all it's being made out to be" as weirdos/freaks/kooks is no different than those clowns who insist "there is no global warming and its all bunkum".

That for me would be a smart man only believing the science that fits his views. Just my opinion.

Hey Fox - answer a simple question:
What gas is the biggest "greehouse gas" ?

We'll go from there....

cheers,

 

[calpoon]

I don't know, I have conflicted feelings. I like what you said Rough, and I want to agree with you, but at the same time, I kinda of feel like it's so much splitting hairs. we have a tendancy to talk a lot back and forth on these boards, and that really is a good thing in terms of education and social discourse, but in the end I can't help but feel that actions speak the loudest over words.

to admit that Global Warming is happening seems to be a step in the right direction.. but God helps us when being able to see what's plainly obivous is considered a radical step away from the mainstream viewpoint. But to say 'It's not my fault' seems kind of like a cop out, because whether it's true or not, it takes the focus away from trying to find a solution to the problem which is more important than the cause. (I'm not saying you are doing this, just that it's happening in the general sense.)

My question is where does the burdan of proof lie? If it's asked "prove to me that industry is destructive". I say "prove to me that it's not."

I don't want to work toward a sustainable way of living 20 years or more down the road. I want it today. Because all the losses that we've suffered and will continue to suffer until that day comes, won't be made up for.

 

[Roughneck]

And my assumption was essentially correct though of course with you there will never be a yes or no answer.

And naturally, you've dodged my question and not answered it - AGAIN.

I won't discuss climate change with you

And yet you post a half-page-length response to my post?

because the rest of the world is already freaking the hell out about it, and researching it, and scientists working hard to resolve it, meanwhile at least half of America continues to deny that man is creating an environment that will become inhospitable to life very quickly.

Which part of "we should reduce greenhouse emissions because they're bad anyway" did you not understand?

that benefits most directly from the industry that causes global warming

You assume this to be true - despite many scientists who say that this is not necessarily the truth.

seems to have an abundance of so-called scientists

So-called? Why? Because they have a different perspective on things? Science isn't about consensus - it's about trying to arrive at the truth.

and well-informed economists and pro-Americans like yourself, who deny that man is directly causing rapid climate change that will lead to an inhospitable earth for human beings.

In 1883, the largest volcanic event ever recorded occurred when the Indonesian island of Krakatoa was destroyed. The sound was heard as far away as Perth, nearly 2000 miles from the site.

While the amount of dust and gases thrown into the atmosphere cannot be accurately determined, it is estimated at 25 cubic kilometers of material, and he debris from the explosion covers over a million square kilometers of ocean floor surrounding the island. That's a cube 15 miles high and wide!

Every recording barometer in the world registered the atmospheric shock wave.

Global climate change was indisputable. The worldwide mean temperature dropped about 2.4 deg F the following year, and weather did not return to something approximating 'normal' for about five years. That's about three times the current estimate of man-made global temperature rise.

The red sky in Munch's Scream is attributed to dust from the explosion.

Why didn't such a cataclysmic event cause a permanent change? The effects of greenhouse gases contained in the explosion were undoubtedly mitigated by the ash in the air - but the ash settled. By current models, the greenhouse gases would have persisted long after the ash was gone.

But it didn't. Why?

only you would come out with "of course I don't deny GLOBAL WARMING, the climate changes all the time" etc... you talk to me like I'm a fool and from someone so biased and nationalistic in matters which are truly and undeniably international... there's really no point whatsoever me debating this with you.

Fox, if you stopped foaming at the mouth and actually read what I'd posted, you could have saved yourself much of a rant because you never addressed the fundamental point in my post.

I'm not denying climate change. I'm only disagreeing with the experts on HOW much is man responsible for it.

Oh please You compare the American "we're not destroying the planet, it's all fine" LIE to great men like Galileo and Copernicus? The popular view and the American view are very different in this case. The popular view is driven by ecology and science, the American view is driven by economics and business. Which do you trust?

What bullshit. I pointed out Galelio and Copernicus simply because they were scorned for going against "established thought". Scientists once justified racism and the sterilization of different races of people - I don't see you defending them.

How does the Royal Society grab you?

Almost ignored by the media the Royal Society has quietly published what may prove to be the most significant paper on Earth's climate in decades. Here we present background on the paper and explore some of its ramifications.

Why is nobody complaining about China? Her emissions are set to over take the US by 2009, and yet, even if that holy cow of environmentalists (Kyoto) were to be implemented, China would not have been touched!

What is the American agenda?

What is **********' agenda?

Wait! I know! "Power to the people!" "Down with American government!", right?

What the hell reason does the "popular" view have to publicize the forthcoming end of the world? What would be the motive there?

You think these chaps live and work for free?

I know exactly where you're coming from and I understand why you feel what you feel. I understand the science behind it is probably very convincing. The American business market wouldn't have designed this "alternate explanation of global warming" unless it could be credible. "No-one really knows" - maybe. But I trust the ones without the business agenda.

Ahh yes. The old Party line about "evil capitalists" line again.

Business agenda, huh?
Did you know that our gloom-doom predictions come from computer models? That the models have routinely been derided by empiricists because they make many, many assumptions before the crunch numbers?

Well, lookie here! Error discovered in the BBC Climate Change Experiment. So now even they know they're wildly over-guess-timating.

but once the UN is the force it should be, dominant and influential, then no country will be ALLOWED not to adhere to Kyoto.

Once again hotshot - you're long on fancy talk but short on practicality. When you say "UN will become dominant and influential" - just how do you propose to enforce it? Or do you just wave a magic wand? "Power" and "influence" only derive from the respective member states. The US pays 22 percent of the regular UN budget and 27 percent of it's peacekeeping budget. Since you don't like what the US does, why should we keep paying for your pet projects? Why should we send our boys and girls to die for your interventions?

Here, let us use an example:
Assume tomorrow that the UN has this "influence and dominance" you claim. Let us assume that it is still big bad USA, worlds polluter extraordinaire.

Make us stop.

and there are men here like Al Gore to set the precedent for the change that we will all have to make sooner or later.

:1orglaugh Yes, Al Gore is so knowledgeable and so dependable, that he refuses to answer or debate those who disagree with him (Junkscience offered to debate him almost a year ago).

Is it carbon dioxide? If that is the wrong answer

Actually, it is water vapour.

Why is it important if I know

"As ill informed and as unfounded my opinion maybe, I'll loudly state it and demand that you give it equal importance".

You said it, not me.

You have no respect whatsoever for those that disagree with you unless they play by your rules.

I admit to not liking it when people don't know what they are talking about yet insist that they do and when challenged, refuse to provide facts, data or other assertions to build and prove their case.

We don't have to be able to prove it.

Then you shouldn't get angry when others call you out on it and say you've got your facts wrong.

You don't want to take the trouble to back up your opinions, then you have no right complaining that others treat it like drivel.

We don't have to know the facts behind it.

Keep digging Fox. Just keep digging...

And since you seem so invested in scientifically backing up opinions - which no-one else does around here, I might add -

A real pity, I might add.

why don't you tell me scientifically why you disagree with conventional science and believe that global warming is a myth.

1. I never said gobal warming is a myth. I say man's impact on it is up for debate.
2. I've told you before - I don't reward intellectual sloth. But I'll try this time...

Because so far you have only quoted the "buzz words" as such.

Like you haven't? :1orglaugh

The Time article about the ice age. How many times have I heard economists and so on use that one? Do you know how much respect I have for Time? Who the hell cares what they said? They're trying to sell issues.

Errr, actually they were quoting leading "climatologists" in those days.

As if anyone here is even reading this.

Which is exactly why you make lengthy rebuttals to posts


cheers,

 

[Roughneck]

Text of the Time article I mentioned (from 1975 I believe):

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Wow! ALL that industrialised output over the decades casue a global COOLING! Only from 1980s onward did it magically flip over and start causing warming...

Me thinks there is a lot of money to be made from government grants to "study" these potential disasters-in-the-making. I persoanlly know of some just from medical research alone.


cheers,