where are we with global warming?
- Started
- Last post
- 26 Responses
- johnnnnyh
Watched the BBC prog about GW - I'm still not sure what I think on this subject. I know that I would rather think it wasn't happening (that would suit me as I quite like things the way they are - I drive a car, I fly etc). Nevertheless I look at the evidence as it is presented and I'm still not 100% sure what I believe. I "do my bit" in that I've changed my light bulbs, I do drive less and I consider the global impact of most things I do. However, I still worry about the "concensus" idea and the fact that the counter arguments are always destroyed without making real comparisons between the arguments. What's the common view on this, anyone? Are you all as confused as me?
- whereRI0
whats global warming?
- mikotondria30
Try taking a course on oceanography and some units of paleoclimatology at any decent modern university for a few years then try to fathom what the hell they're talking about, and more sinisterly why they are trying to cajole people on such a massive scale by scaring them.
Oh, and if you really really can't be assed to get a job, climb up a power station chimney to protest the building of its cleaner more efficient replacement, and daub paint on it - non-biodegradable paint mind you, which actually does nothing to prevent the cause of what you 'think' the problem is, causing people to risk their necks removing it. Go to court and win.
Fucking useless shit-heads.
- jonatne0
I've always been a bit skeptical.
I studied geology and one of my teachers was really against the idea of global warming. He really made me think about it.Also, Michael Crichton has a ton of good ideas and evidence.
http://www.michael-crichton.com/…
http://www.jonesreport.com/artic…
- lowimpakt0
There are some decent scientists with a strong basis for skepticism.
Science can and will always be wrong on issues.
- Nairn0
Regardless of what Is or Is not - think of it this way - we KNOW the physical effects of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. We can test these effects in the laboratory, and we have Earth's sister Venus, to consolidate our view.
Now, if you've travelled any amount, or have even merely spent a few hours gandering at Google Earth, you should have some feel for the sheer breadth of human activity - most of it powered by so-called 'fossil fuels'. However you describe them, they are reservoirs of bound Carbon, not naturally part of our atmosphere.
Just take a second and imagine the fullness of human activity - right now, what it is doing through its daily efforts - the millions of people using computers this second, the millions driving cars, the billions with fridges, the billions with light bulbs, the billions cooking up lunch. Most, if not in practical terms 'all' of them, expelling more carbon in the atmosphere.
The natural world has spent the last few hundred million years getting the balance of carbon consumption and carbon locking into parity.
Over the last 150 years, humans have altered this balance. In the last 50 years - we've completely transcended any sense of balance.
It doesn't take a scientist to work this out - just a bit of common sense and an imagination - something I'd hope most designers would have access to.
So, am I confused as to its reality? No, not at all.
Am I confused as to what to do about it? On the one hand - no - wipe out 60% of the human race, and spend the next 50 years technoogising our way out of our hole with alternate power sources and an active carbon locking campaign (aka planting trees'n'shit). Of course, this isn't a reality I can effect, so ultimately - yes, I am confused.
- Nairn0
Oh, and yes, certain countries (France, Japan) rely heavily on Nuclear power - but don't be deluded by the facade of that shit not emitting carbon - what do you think powers all the mining, processing, transportation, construction and ultimate locking of that energy resource (over a scale of 150-200 years, never mind the hundreds of thousands after where the radioactive decay renders the waste material 'harmless')?
- mikotondria30
Yes, Nairn, let's think about all of that activity, all those millions of this that and the others. All the years that all of those have been running, every power station, every car, everything manufactured, all of it - has increased the atmospheric CO2 by 0.01%
During some of the glacial periods, levels have been 2000% of what they are today - global warming PREcedes carbon dioxide levels, which means that the carbon cycle is affected BY the global temperature flux and not the other way around.. Climate change is most closely tied to the cycles of the sun than and\y biogenic processes.
- johnnnnyh0
OK Nairn, I'm with you in what you've laid out as the reasons why. I still wonder whether, given the size of the planet mans' influence can be that great (in this context). I hate the fact that all I'm shown is graphs which don't really make sense and can probably be manipulated in any way shape or form. I'm worried about flawed computer models and the way that GW is a controlling tactic for governments.
I hate the fact that I don't really want to believe it because it *gets in the way*.- Me too, but that's the reality.
Thankfully, there's a massive consensus on the matter, so I'm happy to defer to experts.Nairn
- Me too, but that's the reality.
- johnnnnyh0
I worry that at the end of the ICE AGE the earths temp must have been going up - man wasn't around then, so I'm assuming this was not man made and was part of a natural cycle.
I worry that the graphs I see seem to go up and down and actually correlate with mans carbon emitions.
I worry that hot summers are "a sign of global warming" when cold summers are not a sign of anything they're just weather. Surely you can't have it both ways.
I worry that science isn't really being challenging on this - it's as if no one wants to table an alternative theory.
- You may be interested to read through this, then..
http://en.wikipedia.…Nairn
- You may be interested to read through this, then..
- lowimpakt0
I totally agree with you John. It can be hard to negotiate the complexity of it. It can be hard to know who to trust. It can be hard to take a position on it if you have a fear you may be wrong. The main problem is the inter-relatedness of the issues.
Personally, I would love it if I was wrong (or that the position I took on the issue was wrong)
p.s. I'm not a climate scientist but I work in an environmental area (eco-innovation and socio-technical systems for sustainable development)
- sputnik20
i'm all for doing my bit, reducing emissions etc. but to keep things in perspective, it was not very long ago that the craze was global cooling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glo…
point is, the earth has been warming and fluctuating for eons. do we contribute to more warming? i think so...so we have to do what we can. but i really have doubts that were we still to be living in trees, there still wouldn't be some degree of warming.
- mikotondria30
The REAL ecological/green issue we need to address is pollution, in all its forms. I mean poisonous stuff going into the water and the air that destroys ecosystems on which everything depends, and of which pretty much everything is a part. Clean water for everyone, air free of smog, rivers and lakes free of metals and pcbs. Anthropocentric Global Warming is a dangerous myth - the more we talk about it, and spend on it, the less time and money there is for takling the real issue.
- I'm writing an answer to you now, but for this point - what do you think CO2 is? Forget AEI's assertion that 'Carbon isNairn
- life' as they so laudably put it a couple of years back. It's pollution, pure and simple - like all other human excreta.Nairn
- All human industry should be a closed-loop system.Nairn
- ...or how else will we learn to live on the moon?!
:)Nairn
- lowimpakt0
I agree to a certain extent but the issue are interrelated. Maybe you could consider "potentially" climate affecting emissions as a form of pollution?
Basically, the risk from a policy perspective is that if you continue focussing soley on command and control policies to deal with typical pollutants and you ignore the potential impacts of climate change you are in deep shit.
- Nairn0
Not sure what your motivation is, or which bit of your backside you pulled that '2000%' figure from, mikotondria, and I haven't the time to bother fighting you on this. Historically, 'yes' solar cycles are theorised to be large drivers of environmental change in an otherwise balanced system (along with tectonic and possible hyper-successful speciation events*) - I'm not disputing that - I didn't mention that in the 'balance' I alluded to, because that balance is a cyclical event and things get complex to explain then (and, frankly, I'm not that smart). What we're experiencing is an 'unnatural' (again, for the sake of simplicity, let's ignore the fact that human society is a function of nature*, that's a different philosophical, not practical debate) offset in the balance of the contemporary state of the cycle. ie. We're at the bit of the cycle where things are likely getting cooler again, but our actions are pulling environmental cues the other way.
Suffice to say (and I'm sorry, I'm going to pull a flagellum here), read through..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oce…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plo…Great! I'd just spent ages digging around the NewScientist archives for articles to support my stance, but have just noticed they've kindly compiled their resources into an area that does not appear to require subscription, so knock yourself out..
http://environment.newscientist.…
* these two are interwined, obviously.
- lol, I just counted all the NS tabs filled with stories to support my stance as I closed them - 24. NEED 2 WORK!!!Nairn
- stem0
You Guys!
You're way behind the times... Didn't you know it aint called Global Warming any more. (Since there's no evidence to sugesst the world is getting warmer).
It's now called "Climate Change".
Get with the script!!!
- zombee0
I agree with stem. Also, strictly speaking, the 'global' part is also incorrect, as every self-respecting 'flattest' knows that the world is actually... er... flat!
- CALLES0
i farted... i'm sorry mother earth
- SteveNo0
You mentals!!
My f*cking pits are boiling, and they werent 10 years ago, were cooking the lot and its not good!!
- Nairn0
You may joke, CALLES - but Methane's 4 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is, which is part of the current worry and a potential explanation for mikotondria's assertion that, historically, global temperature rises preceded CO2 level rises.
- *sucks potential for humour right back out of thread*Nairn