Man Made global warming. Is it real or a massive hoax?

[manhunter098]

Well that article has me pretty convinced. Though I am just trusting in the author's knowledge of science, since the references were not really relevant to the actual scientific calculations that were made, and it was assumed that the reader would know all of the mentioned scientific principles (like Beer's Law, which I though was a funny name for a scientific principle, but I dont know if its real or not, I assume that it is though).


A good article and as long as the science is sound then it means global warming is real, humans contribute, but its such a small amount it wont really make a difference.


Either way I still think we need to limit the use of fossil fuels, simply because they are not good for the LOCAL environment, not necessarily because of the carbon dioxide they contain but rather the other compounds which are noticably harmful to the environment, not to mention human health as well. There are smart reforms in the works because people are crazy about global warming, so I think that the craze is a good thing for the most part, since nothing bad can really come out of most of the reforms that are being pushed for. Like more solar and wind energy, better electrical technology, more effecient transportation methods, etcetera.

 

[adumbrodeus]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/driessen020707.htm

"Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes improve their chances of getting research grants from foundations, corporations – and US government programs that budget a whopping $6.5 billion for global warming in 2007. They also increase the likelihood of getting headlines and quotes in news stories: "Climate change threatens extinction of rare frogs, scientist says." Climate disaster skeptics face an uphill battle on grants, headlines and quotes.

Politicians get to grandstand green credentials, cement relationships with activists who can support reelection campaigns and higher aspirations, magically transform $14-billion in alternative energy pork into ethical planetary protection, and promote policies that otherwise would raise serious eyebrows.

Companies in the CAP and EIC can develop and promote new product lines, using tax breaks, subsidies, legal mandates and regulatory provisions to gain competitive advantages. They get favorable coverage from the media, and kid-glove treatment from members of Congress who routinely pillory climate chaos skeptics."

Not only do scientists profit directly--but it is supported by the politicians which get necessary funding from it and companies make great profits from the fear of climate disaster.
Looking at these facts--global warming crisis is only supported because it is economically beneficial for it to exist, for as Richard Nixon once said " Change is often resisted because bureaucrats have a vested interest in the present."

Opinion pieces are not evidence...

The guy also has an easy to see bias.

Further more, even if the information is to be trusted, it wouldn't prove falsehood or bad intentions on the part of the scientists (or really anyone for that matter).

Try again.

 

[DeliciousCake]

Driessen isn't even saying that global warming isn't a problem, just that we're going about it too fast.

"We should improve energy efficiency, reduce pollution, and develop new energy technologies. But when we demand immediate action to prevent exaggerated or imaginary crises, we stifle debate, railroad through programs that don't work, create enough pork to fill 50 Chicago stockyards, and impose horrendous unintended consequences on countless families. That is shortsighted and immoral."

Like I posted earlier, WE DON'T KNOW what's going on. It's politicians and crazy activists who blow this out of proportion, not scientists.

 

[Aesir]

The problem with the global warming debate is very simple it's more like a religion or political policy then a science. Which creates a lot of false sciences and unfortunately the masses then are unsure what to believe and we get disputes.

A well known scientific consensus is global warming exists and we're at least a part of the problem. in order to understand this theres a basic idea people should know, green house gases aren't a bad thing they're actually a good thing, they help keep our planet warm. However when you have to much of it you risk ruining the balance that this planet has.

Water Vapor makes up about 70% of the green house gases in our atmosphere, thats good simply because it has a short life so it creates a nice heating blanket around the earth. However what many people don't realize is this Co2 methane while don't make up any large part of the green house gases are actually very long lasting approx 50-200 years.

there are many problems that arise from this excess of green house gases, a rise in global temperature of 2 degrees is a pretty significant change and can alter many eco-systems and even drive many species to extinction or endangerment

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Not saying humans cannot damage the environment, but global warming is likely a natural process, such as an ice age, or unusual weather patterns.
Humans can affect the environment in the short term quite easily, but the long term, I doubt we have much of an impact.

 

[Aesir]

How so?

Co2 has life of 50-200 years, lets say at best they stay in the atmosphere for 50 years, we have those excess co2 emissions along with the other natural green house gases. It's creating to much of a good thing, because of that the heat from the sun gets trapped longer in the atmosphere longer then it should.

When heat enters the atmosphere it enters at full strength, however on it's decent to the earth surface it gets absorbed by or reflected by the clouds or sometimes gets scattered into the air molicules. eventually 50% of all that is left over out of that 50% some gets reflected back into space.

This is how the process is suppose to happen, however theres a problem the excess of green house gases makes this process longer and more drawn out the heat that gets reflected instead staying around for another go so to speak. So instead of being reflected into space the heat is trapped in and stays here, because of the excess of green house gases.

To much of a good thing is hurting us here.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Well, i was just stating what I think, but now that I think of it, if there are being large amounts of Co2 entering our atmosphere, and also, Co2 consumers, which are plants and other photosynthetic organisms are being reduced in number, it throws things off balance. Thus, human activity could impact our Earth.
Well, i believe, we humans must take responsibility for this Earth and take care of it. So if we are doing negative, we must find a solution, and as humans like to hold onto things, let's do something better than remove cars, let's counter the cars by increasing the amount of plants, how much will a tree at a street corner in New York hurt, or a shrub on the corner of Vegas, rather than something else.

 

[Deck Knight]

Anthropogenic Global Warming, err, "Climate Change" now is a massive hoax.

Like any Ponzi scheme, just follow the money:

Al Gore:

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

Consumes more energy per month than average Joe does in a year.

Makes a killing off of carbon credits he buys from his own company.

Stands to make a killing off CFL bulbs as the government declares incandescents illegal.

Makes millions in movie sales for a Moore-esque "documentary" that is now being shown in public schools like so much Stalinist "conciousness-raising."

Holds a rock concert, one of the most "pollutinest" events possible in order to "raise awareness" about how you, the common man, is ruining the planet with your pollution.

Flies around in a private jet to and from The Sierra Club with other bigwig celebrities that flew in on private jets. Teleconferencing, anyone?


Honestly, AGW stinks right from the source.

You're a fool if you think the planet's climate isn't changing, because it always is.

You're a sucker easily parted with both your money and freedom if you think human beings are the primary cause of it, and that it is so important is it that the government should be able to implement expensive liberty-dissolving policies to address it.

Being a good steward of the earth is important, but it seems the loudest mouths have the biggest carbon shoe size.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

You are right, I know those extremists are wrong, i am mostly speculating, and hope I can learn more here, and take my stand on the situation, but for now, I will take a neutral stance, although I am leaning toward the side that says humans aren't the main contributor.

 

[Aesir]

Anthropogenic Global Warming, err, "Climate Change" now is a massive hoax.

Like any Ponzi scheme, just follow the money:

Al Gore:

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

Consumes more energy per month than average Joe does in a year.

Makes a killing off of carbon credits he buys from his own company.

Stands to make a killing off CFL bulbs as the government declares incandescents illegal.

Makes millions in movie sales for a Moore-esque "documentary" that is now being shown in public schools like so much Stalinist "conciousness-raising."

Holds a rock concert, one of the most "pollutinest" events possible in order to "raise awareness" about how you, the common man, is ruining the planet with your pollution.

Flies around in a private jet to and from The Sierra Club with other bigwig celebrities that flew in on private jets. Teleconferencing, anyone?


Honestly, AGW stinks right from the source.

You're a fool if you think the planet's climate isn't changing, because it always is.

You're a sucker easily parted with both your money and freedom if you think human beings are the primary cause of it, and that it is so important is it that the government should be able to implement expensive liberty-dissolving policies to address it.

Being a good steward of the earth is important, but it seems the loudest mouths have the biggest carbon shoe size.

To say humans are the sole contributer is a farce and easily refuted. To deny however we don't play a roll is even a bigger farce and easily refuted.

Climate change isn't a hoax, sorry but point to Al Gores home emissions (which really doesn't prove much of anything, as that report may have come before his house was refitted with a more eco-friendly system) isn't going to prove your case that it's a hoax. Before I continue about the AL Gore thing, exactly how much is he profiting? because last I checked the only thing he's had shown for his global warming crusade was a Nobel Peace prize. Furthermore how is he making a killing off of carbon credits? his company purchases them from another company, in no way does his company actually make them. Please Address this.


The issue at hand is, Global Warming is an issue because it does affect our climate and our actions are contributing to it. Like I pointed out, we're creating to much of a good thing and it's beginning to show it's ugly head now. There should be more effort working toward better sources for energy the ideas are there, and theres willingness to implement them. Unfortunately it comes down to money which is always the problem in anything.

 

[Deck Knight]

To say humans are the sole contributer is a farce and easily refuted. To deny however we don't play a roll is even a bigger farce and easily refuted.

Climate change isn't a hoax, sorry but point to Al Gores home emissions (which really doesn't prove much of anything, as that report may have come before his house was refitted with a more eco-friendly system) isn't going to prove your case that it's a hoax. Before I continue about the AL Gore thing, exactly how much is he profiting? because last I checked the only thing he's had shown for his global warming crusade was a Nobel Peace prize. Furthermore how is he making a killing off of carbon credits? his company purchases them from another company, in no way does his company actually make them. Please Address this.


The issue at hand is, Global Warming is an issue because it does affect our climate and our actions are contributing to it. Like I pointed out, we're creating to much of a good thing and it's beginning to show it's ugly head now. There should be more effort working toward better sources for energy the ideas are there, and theres willingness to implement them. Unfortunately it comes down to money which is always the problem in anything.

The report link shows a 10% increase in energy after Gore implemented his "eco-friendly" improvement. Apparently Gore will need to purchase some more carbon offsets outside the price range of you or me to make up for his bad behavior.

The reason carbon credits are a joke and a scheme is because a) they cannot be enforced b) they are meaningless and c) they are counterproductive if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions. Essentially carbon credits exist to purchase other people's pollution. Al Gore's company works in this fraud of a market, and eventually Al Gore gets cut a check.

The Nobel Peace Prize is now even more of a joke. It was that way after Carter/Arafat got it, but now it is literally of the same value as an Oscar (worthless idol dedicated to aggrandizement of a random leftist). Apparently the best thing that happened to World Peace last year was Al Gore producing a giant crock of a film to fleece the masses into buying AGW.

The reason I explicitly use "Global Warming" is because "Global Climate Change" is a vacuous term that only came about for one reason: It has been getting colder. The hottest year in recent memory is 1998, which would somewhat refute Gore's outlandish claim that we will all melt in 10 years. "Climate Change" literally means anything you want it to. In the 1970's everyone was worried about the next Ice Age, early in the AGW movement the doomsayers proclaimed we would all melt, and now that AGW is shaky, they have moved the goalposts to "Climate Change" because you cannot possibly be wrong if you call your concern "Climate Change." Whether it drops 10 degrees or goes up 5, you can call it "Climate Change." It's a weasel word, in other words.

Since I want this to be somewhat constructive, here are ideas I do support:

Tax incentives for reducing emissions/waste:

Companies are all about "giving back to the community" in their marketing now. This turns corporate social responsibility from green on the outside to green on the inside. If you want something to happen more quickly, incentivise it.

Establishing a public grant fund for integrated energy system development:

Solar and Wind are of themse;ves tpp weak to seriously address energy issues, but if someone can develop an integrated electric/solar/wind/generator system for mass commercial implementation, it would go a long way in both advancing the current technologies and providing opportunities to discover new energy sources. This grant money could be used to start projects that cn be supplemented and taken over later he only twpby private funding.

Expand nuclear and refining capability.

Currently the only two realistic sources of energy for a modern society are petrol and nuclear. We have billions of barrels in shale oik all over America, and if we could get past the throwbacks of the EPA and develop these resources, we could supplant dangerous Middle Eastern regions with our own supply of energy. Until Solar or Wind or water because as widely usable/powerful/efficient, they might be useful. but as of right now they are a bandaid to a much larger problem.

 

[Aesir]

The report link shows a 10% increase in energy after Gore implemented his "eco-friendly" improvement. Apparently Gore will need to purchase some more carbon offsets outside the price range of you or me to make up for his bad behavior.

The reason carbon credits are a joke and a scheme is because a) they cannot be enforced b) they are meaningless and c) they are counterproductive if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions. Essentially carbon credits exist to purchase other people's pollution. Al Gore's company works in this fraud of a market, and eventually Al Gore gets cut a check.

Wheres the evidence that Gore is making money off of this? you make a sound case but you need to back up the claim that he's making money off of his global warming crusade.

The reason I explicitly use "Global Warming" is because "Global Climate Change" is a vacuous term that only came about for one reason: It has been getting colder. The hottest year in recent memory is 1998, which would somewhat refute Gore's outlandish claim that we will all melt in 10 years. "Climate Change" literally means anything you want it to. In the 1970's everyone was worried about the next Ice Age, early in the AGW movement the doomsayers proclaimed we would all melt, and now that AGW is shaky, they have moved the goalposts to "Climate Change" because you cannot possibly be wrong if you call your concern "Climate Change." Whether it drops 10 degrees or goes up 5, you can call it "Climate Change." It's a weasel word, in other words.

I don't think you understand how detrimental a 10 degree drop would be on a global level. if it rose 2 degrees in say just canada it's nothing special. However a 2 degree rise globally is something to look into.

You're right the hottest year was 1998, However you know what tied for second hottest year? 2007. Before that though? 2006 was the second hottest, and before that? well you get the idea.

Establishing a public grant fund for integrated energy system development:

Solar and Wind are of themse;ves tpp weak to seriously address energy issues, but if someone can develop an integrated electric/solar/wind/generator system for mass commercial implementation, it would go a long way in both advancing the current technologies and providing opportunities to discover new energy sources. This grant money could be used to start projects that cn be supplemented and taken over later he only twpby private funding..

There have been large advancements into solar energy it's getting to a point where it's becoming a viable option, though it's probably not ready for commercial use on a grand scale yet it's getting there. Compare solar energy 10 years ago to today and you'll see what I mean. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_solar_000908.html

by 2030 if all goes well it might be a reality.

Interesting fact solar energy can be used to run single homes, though the house has to be fitted with the panels on the roof and the panels have to be positioned to get the most heat possible. The goal is to make sure the house gains more heat then it loses, whats interesting about this is it actually works in many cases.

 

[Deleted member]

I don't see a problem with Al Gore using jets to spread the message around the world. What else is he going to do? Teleport with corn fuel?

It's a little hypocritical, sure, but when you're booked for show after show, it's inevitable. Just be glad that we are becoming more aware about the inconvenient truths.

Off-topic: I recently read an article about Bill Nye the Science Guy making more energy at his home than he produces. His electricity bill is $8 a month. The excess energy he makes he sends back to the Los Angeles powergrid. He grows all his own fruit / vegetables, and is generally just a really awesome guy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-domains-t.html

Also, this thread can be summed up in one link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

 

[EC_Joey]

Wheres the evidence that Gore is making money off of this? you make a sound case but you need to back up the claim that he's making money off of his global warming crusade.

It was in the article: "In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria."

Interesting fact solar energy can be used to run single homes, though the house has to be fitted with the panels on the roof and the panels have to be positioned to get the most heat possible. The goal is to make sure the house gains more heat then it loses, whats interesting about this is it actually works in many cases.

This is one method, but there are a wide variety of other ways to make a house self sufficient and have a low carbon footprint. A very popular competition to design and build such houses is the Solar Decathlon. 20 college and university teams construct these houses, take them apart, then transport them to Washington where they're graded. The teams often get corporate funding, so commercialization of certain designs that result from this competition may very well be on the horizon.

 

[The Dinkoman]

Global warming is a natural occurrence that happens every once in a while. Global warming occurred when Dinosaurs roamed the earth for 220 million years, and then the Asteroid impact destroyed them. Then after a couple million years the cycle starts over(Ice age, Global Warming, Ice Age, Global Warming etc.). Humans speed up the process of global warming by exclude huge amounts of co2 into the atmosphere. But Scientist already knew it was going to happen anyway, though they did not think that the co2 gasses would speed it up.

 

[Aesir]

It was in the article: "In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria."

Wow I can't believe I missed that lol.

In any case what that article fail to mention is what his work is actually doing, it's raising awareness to the climate issue. People pay him a lot to come and speak on this issue and these people are the ones devoting money to help climate change.

Also the top people will always consume more then the average person. It's just a well known fact.

 

[BFDD]

I recently attended a lecture by a geologist with a PhD who went out and studied glaciers. The data from the glaciers showed that the climate is doing exactly what it did in the past before humans were around.

I don't believe humans have had much if any affect on the climate. However, i do believe that we should try to limit the amount of pollution and environmental destruction done by humans. I am beginning to think that those who push this climate crisis stuff are just trying to scare people into wanting to reduce pollution. Captain planet isn't having the same affect it used to, so they are using a tactic used by many religions to convert followers. I can't say if this is true or not, but it is hard to believe that so many people who claim to know about the environment (such as Al Gore) are buying into this stuff.

However, i do believe that we should try to limit the amount of pollution and environmental destruction done by humans. I think research into is a good idea and we should limit pollution when its possible, but threatening the destruction of the world if we keep using oil as a power source is not the way to do it.

 

[Aesir]

There's no scare tactic when it's backed by hard science, Co2 emissions have been proven to be a significant force in climate change.

Al Gore is just an Environmental Activist he reports the finds of scientists. Climate Change is a cycle that earth goes through no ones denying that. However Civilization has become a force to be reckoned with. Green House gases are over abundant and speeding up the climate change.

Many things effect Climate change, Volcanoes, The Sun, Extraterrestrial impacts, even humanity plays a role now. Our use of Co2 is playing a role now theres many reports that have been issued on this as far as back as 2002.

 

[BFDD]

There is also hard science that says Co2 emissions do not have a significant effect on climate change. Read the article in the very first post in the topic. Gore reports the finds of scientists that agree with him. Scientists that disagree with him have a difficult time getting funding. Scientists that do agree are able to get funding because people are freaking out about global climate change. There is a large amount of politics in this and many people stand to gain a lot of money from this.

When someone who has been in the field and done the research shows me evidence that the climate is doing exactly what it did before humans I'm going to believe that person over a politician who reports scientific claims that agree with his ideas.

 

[Aesir]

There is also hard science that says Co2 emissions do not have a significant effect on climate change. Read the article in the very first post in the topic. Gore reports the finds of scientists that agree with him. Scientists that disagree with him have a difficult time getting funding. Scientists that do agree are able to get funding because people are freaking out about global climate change. There is a large amount of politics in this and many people stand to gain a lot of money from this.


When someone who has been in the field and done the research shows me evidence that the climate is doing exactly what it did before humans I'm going to believe that person over a politician who reports scientific claims that agree with his ideas.

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the earth’s atmosphere and causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. It is now the consensus of the science community that the changes observed over the last several decades are most likely in significant part the result of human activities and that human-induced warming is expected to continue (NRC, 2001).

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=107 it's from a 2002 report but it's still valid.

Someone will gain something regardless of the action, to write it off because a few scientists go against the consensus is a leap of faith. A fun fact almost every advocate stood to gain from their crusade against something. No one is selfless however if your selfish actions some how are beneficial to everyone else it's a good thing.

 

[BFDD]

I'm not taking a leap of faith I have seen the evidence of both sides, I have read through most of the links provided in this topic. Those who claim global warming is human induced say Co2 cause more heat to be trapped, they don't say how much heat, they also frequently refer to computer models, which are not very accurate. The people who disagree have evidence to show the earth does this all on its own and is following the patterns of the past, and agree that Co2 will cause heat to be trapped but not enough to make any significant difference. If you read the link in the first post, the author uses math to determine the temperature change, not a model. I have seen computer models at work on the weather channel, they are very often wrong when predicting a day in advance so why should we trust them to determine years in the future?

 

[Aesir]

It's a simple word play, when there isn't an over abundance of co2 in the atmosphere the role it plays is very insignificant. However the increased density of co2 has increased since then and has made co2 far more potent then it previously was. The increase of Co2 is largely due from the rise of the industrial age.

50-200 years is the approx half life age of Co2. However in terms of heat trapping co2 isn't nearly as efficient as methane, which ironically enough like co2 emissions has substantially increased since the rise of the industrial age.

Like I pointed out earlier, it's to much of a good thing, when these gases exist naturally in the atmosphere they're very helpful and help keep our planet habitable. However when you have to much of a good thing it can be detrimental.

 

[BFDD]

Word play? It was determined that doubling the Co2 will cause at most and increase of 1.7C. That takes into account the over abundance. This was all mentioned by Kur earlier in the topic and is much better at explaining these thing than I am.

And again you say this too much of a good thing, and yes I agree that adding more Co2 and methane will trap more heat but, again the amount that we are producing now is not enough for it to cause any significant change.

 

[Aesir]

Word play? It was determined that doubling the Co2 will cause at most and increase of 1.7C. That takes into account the over abundance. This was all mentioned by Kur earlier in the topic and is much better at explaining these thing than I am.

I've read it same thing I've seen over and over again.

Anyway.. 1.7 degree rise doesn't sound like a big jump I'm sure places like Canada and Siberia would love that increase.

However the rise wouldn't be isolated, a global rise of 1.7 is something completely different. The fact is it's a steady rise, you won't go from bearable temperatures to unreasonable hot temperatures in a matter of a few years. Only an Asteroid the size of the KT boundary (that's just an example I'm sure other sizes would have the same effect.) would have that kind of effect.

This is a slow and steady process.

And again you say this too much of a good thing, and yes I agree that adding more Co2 and methane will trap more heat but, again the amount that we are producing now is not enough for it to cause any significant change.

It's a build up of these long living GHG, unlike water vapor co2 and Methane along with others stay in the atmosphere for long periods of time. when gathered in large density their potency will certainly have an effect like I mentioned before it's a slow steady rise.

also about that scientist who talked about ice cores;

The in-depth analysis of air bubbles trapped in a 3.2km-long core of frozen snow shows current greenhouse gas concentrations are unprecedented.

-from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

 

[SSBbo]

I've heard that the term "global warming" was obsolete, because it's now considered a "climate crisis."

I'm not saying that humans didn't take part in the "climate crisis" I'm just saying it's not entirely man-made. I think we play a major part in it. the natural trend plus our emissions is bound to be pretty horrid.

 

[blazedaces]

I've heard that the term "global warming" was obsolete, because it's now considered a "climate crisis."

Why is this relevant? Who cares what we call it?

I'm not saying that humans didn't take part in the "climate crisis" I'm just saying it's not entirely man-made. I think we play a major part in it. the natural trend plus our emissions is bound to be pretty horrid.

Do you have any evidence to support either of those points?

"I think" is not a valid reason. Why do you think this way?

How is "bound to be" a convincing argument?

-blazed

 

[manhunter098]

To an extent, it does matter what we call it. Global warming is an extremely general term that is rather misleading. Its more accurately stated as "rising average global temperature". Which is still misleading and doesnt really even call attention to the actual problems caused by a "rising average global temperature". Calling it an issue of climate however while I suppose less descriptive, doesnt mislead people about the changes that will occur. Which could even be cooler temperatures in some regions, less rain fall but the same temperature in others, etc.

That said there really is no doubt that we are influencing climate, but thats not necessarily due to emissions. Destroying forests and planting crops or grazing livestock on the cleared land can have a profound effect on local and even regional weather patterns.


However something that is a bit important to understand is that a small change in the average global temperature can have profound effects on the environment in a region, since one region may not change at all in its average temperature, but the entire climate of another region could be altered greatly. Kind of like what we are seeing with the Arctic. Average global temperature hasnt changed much, but the ice shouldnt really be acting the way it is normally.

 

[blazedaces]

To an extent, it does matter what we call it. Global warming is an extremely general term that is rather misleading. Its more accurately stated as "rising average global temperature". Which is still misleading and doesnt really even call attention to the actual problems caused by a "rising average global temperature". Calling it an issue of climate however while I suppose less descriptive, doesnt mislead people about the changes that will occur. Which could even be cooler temperatures in some regions, less rain fall but the same temperature in others, etc.

I agree with you about how a name can mislead people. On the other hand, in this debate hall I don't think it matters how we label something. What is relevant in this topic is whether or not global warming, climate change, or whatever is being caused by man or not.

That said there really is no doubt that we are influencing climate, but thats not necessarily due to emissions. Destroying forests and planting crops or grazing livestock on the cleared land can have a profound effect on local and even regional weather patterns.

I'm not saying I don't believe you because it sounds plausible, but would you mind finding a source to prove this?

However something that is a bit important to understand is that a small change in the average global temperature can have profound effects on the environment in a region, since one region may not change at all in its average temperature, but the entire climate of another region could be altered greatly. Kind of like what we are seeing with the Arctic. Average global temperature hasnt changed much, but the ice shouldnt really be acting the way it is normally.

Define "normally". See, here's the problem. "Normally" for the earth might be this "global warming" following into an ice age. What proof do you have that the ice caps aren't acting "normally"?

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

The problem with this debate is it comes down to sources, lets face it I doubt anyone here has a PHD in climate science to be able to critique a peer review paper which is sadly what this issue is going to boil down to.

As it stands there's a lot of deniers who are trying their hardest to create this veil of doubt that we're not causing global warming. It's not a question of whether or not we're causing it, it's a question of how much are we contributing, and how can we reconcile this issue?

Skepticism is always good in science.

 

[blazedaces]

The problem with this debate is it comes down to sources, lets face it I doubt anyone here has a PHD in climate science to be able to critique a peer review paper which is sadly what this issue is going to boil down to.

We can still compare sources. How are you supposed to ever debate a topic that you're not an "expert" in?

As it stands there's a lot of deniers who are trying their hardest to create this veil of doubt that we're not causing global warming. It's not a question of whether or not we're causing it, it's a question of how much are we contributing, and how can we reconcile this issue?

Skepticism is always good in science.

How much we are contributing is a way of putting a gray scale to a black and white question. That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the answer posited by the OP: a negligible amount (almost 0 on that scale of yours).

How can we reconcile this issue? The question is, do we have to do any more then we're doing right now? Is technology not progressing at an exponential rate? No matter how you look at it, there is no plausible future the human race as well as the rest of the world won't survive in...

-blazed

 

[SSBbo]

I'm not saying I don't believe you because it sounds plausible, but would you mind finding a source to prove this?

I admit, i don't but people do, you could research it (i'd research it now, but i'm busy)

Define "normally". See, here's the problem. "Normally" for the earth might be this "global warming" following into an ice age. What proof do you have that the ice caps aren't acting "normally"?

I love it when people bring this up, because the earth does have warming and cooling trends, and the climate crisis will, more than likely, melt the ice caps, thus (in theory) stopping the currents bringing warm water from the gulf of mexico to northern waters and cool water back down to the gulf (i'm pretty sure this current has a name, but i forgot what it's called) which would start another "little ice age".

*fun, irrevelent fact: without "the little ice age" people may not have ever started eating potatoes*

 

[SSBbo]

No matter how you look at it, there is no plausible future the human race as well as the rest of the world won't survive in...

alot is plausibe... how about a world bambarded by solar winds with no magnetic field big enough to prevent them, or a world during a neuclear world war 3 where every place with human beings is about to be destroyed by orions (neuclear bombs that orbit the earth to get to their destination)?

 

[manhunter098]

I dont know of any sources, but it probably wouldnt be too difficult to find. The effect is similar to what has already been proven with cities and how they have their own little climate bubble. When you drastically change the surface of a large area of land, it has a profound effect on the weather because of changes in surface reflectivity, and the amount of moisture that is absorbed into the atmosphere.


As for the Ice Caps not acting normally. Im pretty sure that while not stated specifically, it isnt hard to understand the implication that normally, would basically be what all the people who are crazy about saving the Polar Bears who have less sea ice to stand on view as a healthy arctic environment. Not to say that the changes in arctic sea ice isnt what is supposed to happen during the warming period after an Ice Age, but in modern times we are most comfortable with the climates we have become familiar with, and though they may even improve life for humans, we fear climate change on a massive scale since we dont really know what will happen for sure. Guess I could word that a little bit better, but I do think you get what I mean.

 

[blazedaces]

alot is plausibe... how about a world bambarded by solar winds with no magnetic field big enough to prevent them, or a world during a neuclear world war 3 where every place with human beings is about to be destroyed by orions (neuclear bombs that orbit the earth to get to their destination)?

I obviously meant in regard to the context of "global warming". Solar winds and World war three are going to happen regardless of the climate.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

We can still compare sources. How are you supposed to ever debate a topic that you're not an "expert" in?

if you want to. I really don't want to look through 20+ pages of peer review papers but hey burden of proof is on me I guess.

How much we are contributing is a way of putting a gray scale to a black and white question. That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the answer posited by the OP: a negligible amount (almost 0 on that scale of yours).

Not really by indicating how much we're contributing we can weight our involvement, if we're not contributing a lot and if other factors contribute more then the science is wrong and something isn't adding up. however if we find out we're contributing a lot and are one of the main contributors then we need to rethink our energy usages.

How can we reconcile this issue? The question is, do we have to do any more then we're doing right now? Is technology not progressing at an exponential rate? No matter how you look at it, there is no plausible future the human race as well as the rest of the world won't survive in...

Ignoring and continuing to do what we're doing is probably the worst course of action we could do. if a series of people drop dead from chewing a specific brand of bubble gum would you write it off as just coincidence? probably not. So why should we right this off and not be cautious and look for other forms of energy?

 

[blazedaces]

I dont know of any sources, but it probably wouldnt be too difficult to find. The effect is similar to what has already been proven with cities and how they have their own little climate bubble. When you drastically change the surface of a large area of land, it has a profound effect on the weather because of changes in surface reflectivity, and the amount of moisture that is absorbed into the atmosphere.

Well, I'll just let it be then. Normally I would say without a source you have no basis for that to be true, but in this case we'll just say it's considered common knowledge. I was mostly just curious to see some hard facts to further educate myself (I can't find much myself)...

As for the Ice Caps not acting normally. Im pretty sure that while not stated specifically, it isnt hard to understand the implication that normally, would basically be what all the people who are crazy about saving the Polar Bears who have less sea ice to stand on view as a healthy arctic environment. Not to say that the changes in arctic sea ice isnt what is supposed to happen during the warming period after an Ice Age, but in modern times we are most comfortable with the climates we have become familiar with, and though they may even improve life for humans, we fear climate change on a massive scale since we dont really know what will happen for sure. Guess I could word that a little bit better, but I do think you get what I mean.

I have a few questions. What is this really about? Keeping things in a so-called "normal" or "natural" order (logical fallacy technically, but whatever) or is this about saving/keeping nature/normality as we see it now? Another words, if the earth's climate is changing without our influence and the polar ice bears even go extinct, is that a bad thing? Do we try to save them? Why? Because polar bears are cuddly? Because change is bad? Because nature will adjust itself accordingly?

Look, if you want to start a topic about saving polar ice bears, then go right ahead. But otherwise it in my eyes comes down to two things: A) whether we are causing the death/extinctions of this animal and B) whether we can realistically stop it.

A is part of what we're debating right now and B is another matter entirely that I don't care much to discuss.

-blazed

 

[SSBbo]

I obviously meant in regard to the context of "global warming". Solar winds and World war three are going to happen regardless of the climate.

-blazed

i know, i just thought that it would be nice to catch someone else out of context for once.... lol.

anywho, i agree. there are people that live in the artic and there are people that live in the tropics, i think that whether it be hot or cold, humans could live in it.

"global warming", "climate crisis", "hot", whatever you want to call it, is only a minor inconvieniance for makind. treefrogs on the other hand are dropping like flies (the "frogs" "like flies" pun was totally unintentional.).

 

[blazedaces]

So why should we right this off and not be cautious and look for other forms of energy?

Do you mean what is proposed in the Kyoto Protocol (reducing emissions) or do you literally mean "new forms of energy" which is exactly what I said earlier, technological advancement.

You seem to suggest that by me saying "do we have to do any more then we're doing right now" I'm asking if we should do nothing. Regardless of this issue technology will continue to grow at its current rate. In fact, regardless of the truth more and more funding is being given to research for solutions to this so-called problem. I'm sure every research proposal out there with half an idea that might have to do with "global warming" is stacking that on as well in the hopes of getting more money. Scientists will continue to research this subject heavily and we will find alternative means to survive.

If the truth is as I claim, that we are not having a significant affect on the global environment, than most of these solutions will be ignored. Sure, they'll be implemented and used, if they're needed just like anything else, but we won't see a major impact to the environment.

-blazed

 

[manhunter098]

Well that wasnt exactly the point I was trying to make. I was just trying to clarify the state at which I felt the arctic ice was normal, so that you could understand the change from what I see as normal to what it currently is. Mostly I was trying to make the point that climate change is without a doubt happening. The thinning of the arctic sea ice IS proof of a change in the climate of a large region during the past decade. Now the issue lies in how long it will continue the current trend.

 

[Aesir]

Do you mean what is proposed in the Kyoto Protocol (reducing emissions) or do you literally mean "new forms of energy" which is exactly what I said earlier, technological advancement.

my appologies I thought you were implying we shouldn't be advancing in new forms of energy at all.

You seem to suggest that by me saying "do we have to do any more then we're doing right now" I'm asking if we should do nothing. Regardless of this issue technology will continue to grow at its current rate. In fact, regardless of the truth more and more funding is being given to research for solutions to this so-called problem. I'm sure every research proposal out there with half an idea that might have to do with "global warming" is stacking that on as well in the hopes of getting more money. Scientists will continue to research this subject heavily and we will find alternative means to survive.

If the truth is as I claim, that we are not having a significant affect on the global environment, than most of these solutions will be ignored. Sure, they'll be implemented and used, if they're needed just like anything else, but we won't see a major impact to the environment.

-blazed

More a less in agreement, however I think we're playing a significant role, I think this for the simple reason that IPCC reports point to our significant involvement.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf <- Faq

2.1 deals with the human activity bit.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html their 2007 report.

I would suggest the faq as the actual report where the faq is from is a pretty long read.