Global Warming, not man made!

[Torn blue sky]

Well thats the kind of mentality that f**ks a lot of things up. \"Aahhh well, what can I do?!\"...\"Lets all just sit on our arses and watch it all unfold\".

I don\'t care what your rational is, but there seems to be a bit of a defeatist melencholy drifting about. The old saying \"How do you know if you don\'t try?\" seems to be wasted really. I\'d rather give it a shot and at least say I DID try.

 

[Sand Rat]

Not what I\'m saying here. But most of the models for climate change that I have read that are widely reported and used by folks that are saying we must change our behavior only site one causal factor for climate change - human fossil fuel usage. Which is hubris plain and simple - in a complex system which we do not fully understand, there is no way to point to one factor and say \"That is the cause, we must stop it and the problem will be solved\". Do we need to cut back on fossil fuel use and find cleaner methods of supplying not only the industrialized nations fuel needs but the rest of the world as well? Hell yes we do - no problem there agree with you 100 percent. But we also need to stop saying \"We\'ve found the cause\" and \"You are a heretic because you don\'t agree with what the rest of us are saying\". Science is about the search for the truth, not agreeing with the herd.

 

[Torn blue sky]

It\'s not a case of choosing a specific camp or scientific theory to side with, I never said that. What I\'m implying is it\'s important to be mindful.

It\'s always better to er on the better side of caution if we don\'t fully comprehend the problem. We know exactly what the outcome will be if it keeps up though. That\'s a pause for thought.

 

[Sand Rat]

Exactly. But when you have the body issuing the reports stating that they are going to leave out a chapter in their next report that deals with the uncertanties in their theories, you have to wonder what the hell the whole thing is about -

According to an early draft obtained by The Associated Press, the report will be the first to include a brief chapter on \"robust findings and key uncertainties,\" in which the authors pick out what they believe are the most relevant certainties and doubts about climate change.

There was no guarantee the chapter would be accepted, however. One of the report\'s 40 co-authors, Bert Metz, said in an interview last week that he expected the section on uncertainties to be an issue of contention.

Among the uncertainties cited in the early draft: the lack of data from key areas of the world, conflicting studies on the effects of cloud cover and carbon soaked up by oceans, and projections on how planners in developing countries will factor climate change into their decisions.

Entire article can be found here.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071112/ap_on_sc/climate_change_conference;_ylt=AlPdBBJS8jlu_fFfBuQpslqs0NU

 

[Torn blue sky]

That looks like a load of bollocks to me. It\'s all just hypothesising and postulating. In the end it\'s like turning round and saying \"Pick a card, any card\".
Some blokes in white coats mulling about saying \"my truth is better than your truth\".

I would like to think for the most part as far as the general populus is concerned ,(IE: Those of us that didn\'t acrue a raft of PHDs and mull about in afore mentioned white coats), would just use a bit of common sense in the mean while.

 

[Sand Rat]

Thats one of the things that concerns me about things like the IPCC reports. Another thing that concerns me about any UN body is the two faced nature of a lot of their work. For example on the one hand you have the IPCC saying that the industrialized nations need to cut back on carbon emissions, and on the other you have the UN food folks saying that the US should not use grain to make cleaner burning ethanol - that grain needs to go to the UN to feed people outside the US.

 

[Torn blue sky]

I agree with that. It\'s all swings and roundabouts when it comes to politics and the enviroment.
Even though all the countries under the UN agreed to cut emissions, theres no real indicator that any effort is being made.
The third world problem hasn\'t been made any better by the current rulers of those countries either! Mugabe had all the white farmers kicked out of africa...wtf did he think that would achieve? Acres of farmable land now lays desolate. The said grain has to NOW go and support people over there. It all knocks back to this issue, which in turn will eventually effect what we can grow and in which quantities...

 

[airhead]

Originally posted by steelcult
...What I object to is guys like Al Gore telling me I have to cut back, while they fly private jets, and pay more each month in electric bills than I pay to rent and heat my apartment. All because they bought an \"Indulgence\" to allow themselves that luxury.

That is the scarey part. How much longer before the \'carbon credits\' become mandatory? What are you truely buying with your credit? Who says how much credit you have to buy? Who owns the \'credit company\'? (I\'ll give you a hint on the last one - Al Gore owns a big chunk of a new upstart that he purchases his \'indulgences\' from.)

quote]Originally posted by simmuskhan
I mean, seriously, burning stuff to generate power? It\'s so old fashioned!
Regardless of the climate issue I think we should be promoting the use of newer and cooler tech, what\'s the harm in it? [/quote]
What chemical byproducts are genereated from the production of photo-voltaic cells? There is some nasty stuff involved with their production, what are we going to do with that in 10-20 years?

Acid rain - it does not make the news much anymore, not the lastest mantra. Just remember, it was brought to you by the fine environmentalist that denied you nuclear power.

 

[Torn blue sky]

There are cleaner alternatives, Using nature is an extremaly viable source, it just hasn\'t been used on a wide commercial scale. Another source is fusion, thats also clean from what I understand. The solutions to efficient and clean energy are there, we just need to USE them. We\'re going to have to turn to alternate methods fairly soon anyway, the natural resources are finite.

 

[Evil Dave]

Steelcult is making most of my points for me.
An increase in CO2 does not necessarily mean man is to blame, nor does it mean that it is linked to Global Warming.
Global warming and an increase in CO2 may be two separate phenomenons.

In 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted and put more CO2 in the air than if every citizen of the US, man, woman and child, were to drive 24/7 for ten years straight.
We have active volcanoes all around the world pumping out more CO2 than our dirtiest factories.
Anything man can do, nature does better, or worse depending on your point of view.
If CO2 is the cause of global warming, then there is no natural way to stop it, even if we give up our fossil fuels it is unlikely that we will delay it in any significant way. Nature puts out far, far more CO2 than we do.

It will happen.

Do I want a clean, cheap energy? Absolutely. (especially cheap)
However, every power source we have even looked at has it\'s ups and downs and most do damage to the environment in one form or another, and every one of them will, you can\'t get power from nothing.
Am I willing to change my lifestyle in the degree it would take to matter? In the degree those like Al Gore say I should?
To the degree where I should pay an additional tax to a government that has consistently produced mediocre if not down right horrible programs every time it has gotten involved?
No. How many of you would?
Let\'s take a look at our hobby for example, Plastic figurines that are produced from fossil fuels, created in factories using fossil fuels, transported using fossil fuels.

Let\'s look at the sciences, for example, Physics labs. My synchrotron ring costs over $600 USD in electricity for an eight hour shift, and mine is super small. I can\'t even imagine how much power it takes to run the Japanese ring that goes around a mountain, nor the physics labs in Geneva, or the multiple labs around the world.
Should we abandon them?
Look at everything you own or do and ask yourself how much are you willing to give up.

Global Warming will happen. Now it\'s a choice between wasting our energy and money trying to stop the inevitable, or finding new ways to adapt to it.

 

[fieldarchy]

Scientifically speaking, all of the data I\'ve seen (I\'m an archaeologist) states that there have always been periods of warming and cooling. Currently we are in the epoch called the Holocene. The last ice age was the previous epoch called the Pleistocene. We are currently in the warming epoch and in the next few thousand years we will be in the cool epoch.

It\'s a natural state, some of the activities of man may have made a little dent in temperatures but it is not the sole reason for global warming.

 

[simmuskhan]

I gotta admit, (I live in Australia) that regardless of \"Global warming\" it\'s man made climate change that is screwing around with us down here.
Not necessarily global in scale, but a lot of unsustainable mining and farming is starting to cause big problems with (mainly) water.
There aren\'t any active volcanoes here, so we can\'t blame them either =) A lot of CO2 going up that is not from natural sources!
Cut a long story short, I\'d rather err on the side of caution regardless!

 

[Trevor]

Not true, it\'s by no means unprecedented; this is one of the key exaggerations put forward in the media that\'s not actually reflected in some of the scientific data. And no, we\'re not in a cooling trend*.

Yes we are. To clarify my point.

It depends upon the time-scale you are looking at. Oxygen isotope data indicates a cooling of approx 5 degrees C in the last 5 million years (approx the period when early hominids started making tools). The quaternary covers the last 1.8 million years, and has had approx 7 cooling/warming periods. The Holocene, last 10,000 years is basically measured since the end of the last ice age, it has had a remarkably consistent and constant temperature (as determined from oxygen isotope, foraminifera and other sources) compared to pretty much any other 10,000 year period in the last 1 million years.
Human civilisations are pretty much restricted to the last 10,000 years. Thus, modern human civilisations have existed within a time frame of (geologically speaking) constant temperature.

The current and predicted warming trends are unprecedented within the last 10,000 years. Temperatures stayed within 2-3 degrees over 10,000 years, yet if we look at current predictions we are expecting a rise of 2-5 degrees in the next 100 years (according to wikipidia summary of various sources).

Human civilisation has NEVER experienced such rapid changes. It is very likely to cause us some problems, how serious is unknown, but we need to consider what we will do about things like rising sea levels and changes in agricultural productivity.

*North Africa was the breadbasket of the Roman empire before the encroachment of the sub-Saharan zone. Other sources (including parts of the Bible) make it plain that the Middle East was not nearly as dry & hot around the beginning of the CE.

There is evidence that this encroachment was at least partly due to overfarming leading to massive soil erosion and desertification.

 

[farseerlum]

Originally posted by Trevor
There is evidence that this encroachment was at least partly due to overfarming leading to massive soil erosion and desertification.

funny you should mention this. i\'ll give you one guesss what will happen to all the arable land if people continue to burn enthanol.

 

[Sand Rat]

Hmm - looks like NASA is backing off of the Ice Melt in the arctic being totally a result of Global Warming -

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ipy-20071113.html

 

[Torn blue sky]

This is awesome, everyones agreed no one can pinpoint the factors for sure, but they\'re still to-ing and fro-ing lol

I say cage fight! Winners theory sticks!

 

[supervike]

I think we are only seeing the beginning of the scientific debate. I will safely sit on the fence as the debate grows. I\'m neither a scientist or even inclined to be interested enough to understand it. I can only put my trust in those that do.

In the meantime....

Why are we not all converting to Nuclear Power?

It\'s efficient, is less harmful to the environment, and would give us time to work out a real viable solution instead of continually burning fossil fuels.

Three legged chicken only means more drumsticks!

 

[Avelorn]

Found two exellent guides that takes up many questions raised here. I\'m sure not all answers are entirely accurate but it makes a good place to start.

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic

 

[supervike]

I appreciate you posting this, and I will absolutely read through it.

But, just to point out, these are hardly unbiased sites.

Here is one I found just recently, and I found it rather interesting....

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

and for the sit back and watch set:

Here is John Stossel (my favorite reporter)
on the topic:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o&eurl=http://www.junkscience.com/

Pretty eye opening....and relates what I feel the real problems are.

 

[Avelorn]

Cheers! They probably aren\'t but I\'m not sure there are any unbiased pages about anything if you mean that the pages are without an agenda. However... there are levels of everything.

Junkscience that you linked to for example is (if you don\'t know it) run by Steven J. Milloy. I wouldn\'t consider what he writes as serious works, there are always grains of truths in everything but he seem to have a pretty firm political agenda with what he writes and thus doesn\'t care if he mixes truths with halftruths and outright lies. Something you might expect from a former tobacco company lobbyist. Scientists most often don\'t write about these kinds of sites as they aren\'t seen as something you need to debate which imo is a problem. In searches these kinds of site generally provide the first information. And \"debunking\" sites often have problems themselves when written by laymen.. and the battle continues.

The important is if the bias shows in the information and to know that you have to cross check with other sites I guess. However in that crosschecking... hours and hours get lost. Yesterday I spent 4 hours reading about global warming, today I\'ve spent at least 2 or 3. lol

EDIT: Debate over? Hm. this is my thoughts on the subject:

The debate will never be over in anything that concerns future events. We must always work by the best theories at hand and I can\'t see that there are any better ones. The only thing I am fearing is that if Global warming is proven to be natural effect that science will loose credibility. I feel that in the heat of winning the argument people seem to need to claim things that are at best guesses... Because if everyone aren\'t entirely convinced that we are heading for our doom... why would we do anything about it? Give us proof they say.. there can never be proof until it\'s over I guess.. until then the most wellfounded theory is the best we got.