Global Warming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

So I decided to find out something about it and, quite frankly, I have become quite disillusioned. A plague on both houses! It's just two sets of vested interests competing against each other, one for profit and one for funding. The planet is no more than a political football.

---

Disillusionment can be tough. I'm sorry you have to experience it. I had the same unfortunate occurrence many years ago. All you can do is trust your instincts. Doubt everyone, especially those who holler the loudest. The squeaky wheel may get the grease but that doesn't necessarily mean it should.

Unfortunately, many of those who are most vocal about global warming are in the same boat you were in. They think they know what's happening but generally are only listening to one side of the story. It's not the scientific approach, but it is human.

For my part, I tend to doubt most things, especially when they are espoused by politicians or religions. To my mind neither of those institutions can be trusted. Science, in general, should be trustworthy, but scientists are human as well, and as such are subject to the same foibles and failings as anyone else. Only when multiple sources can agree on a piece of data should you believe that it is probably right. But even then, something we learn tomorrow may toss everything we know today into the trash.

As for conserving species, I applaud your dedication. As long as it doesn't cost HUMAN lives, I see nothing wrong with it. As I've said, though, I personally don't feel the necessity. What will be will be, and the strong will survive, whether they are human, or insect or some nasty fungus. I just wish someone could explain to me why, if man is so good at destroying species, the cockroach is still driving us nuts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

As for conserving species, I applaud your dedication. As long as it doesn't cost HUMAN lives, I see nothing wrong with it. As I've said, though, I personally don't feel the necessity. What will be will be, and the strong will survive, whether they are human, or insect or some nasty fungus. I just wish someone could explain to me why, if man is so good at destroying species, the cockroach is still driving us nuts!

---

The only problem with that equation is that we often have to make a judgement call without sufficient information. Look at the DDT issue. It's pretty well accepted that millions have died because of the resurgence of malaria. What we don't know is if that's a larger or smaller number than if we continued using DDT. Most think the costs were outweighed by the benefits. But the short term view would have beem keep using the DDT.

And TYWD, this is a perfect example of man trying to do the right thing. It just doesn't get enough play because it's old news and 'global warming' is this decade's "buzz."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

I believed what I have been told by those I thought most credible.

So I decided to find out something about it and, quite frankly, I have become quite disillusioned. A plague on both houses! It's just two sets of vested interests competing against each other, one for profit and one for funding. The planet is no more than a political football.

---

If only more people would investigate for themselves! The issue of global warming is not presented to the public in terms of monetary value or political football (love that phrase), but, in essence, that is what it has become.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

So I shall carry on doing my "bit", just in case it helps. I shall continue to sort my refuse for recycling, I will prefer green products. I will try to reduce my carbon footprint because it just seems a responsible thing to do.

---

That was the point I made earlier. There is no reason we cannot all do our "bit." If nothing else than to consider it maintenance of the planet for our children.



I've throroughly enjoyed reading this thread as posts are made. How can one tire of such a friendly debate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

I agree. The biggest negative impact of the icecaps melting is the inundation of the coastal areas where mankind lives. Forty percent of us are in coastal cities.

It'll displace all the myriad city people... where will they go. Inland... to where we tend to grow the food.

It'll be a nightmare of logistics... and we might go down in proverbial flames.

But the world will survive. It's done this before. And myriad species go down with each cycle and new ones arise. The real reason we're upset is we can see it coming and it's going to change how mankind lives.

---

Whether it will be a logistic nightmare or not depends on how fast the melting will happen. This we do not know. So far, we have not seen any rise in the average sea level (which does not mean there must not be any).

Global warming is certainly a threat to civilisation as we know it, but hardly the worst threat there is.

Humans still possess nuclear arms in such a large numbers that there can be a nuclear holocaust many times over. The immediate threat of a nuclear war ended with the fall of the Soviet Union (thank God), but we cannot rule the possibility out. As long as humans know how to make them, nuclear arms will be a fact. Some people have even suggested that there will be conflicts because of global warming so bad that some nations will resot to nuclear war.

At any time, a devastating plague can reappear, just like the Black Death in the 1300's. More and more bacteria evolve multi resistance against antibiotics, what if the medical industry researching for new antibiotics turn out to fail? Sure, mankind survived without antibiotics for millenia, but an airborne disease can spread very fast in this day and age.

There is also a risk of Earth being hit by a large meteorite. It has happened before and may happen again. Astronomers try to chart every object in the Solar System, but are far from finished. Consider if the Tunguska meteorite would have hit a big city instead of the unpopulated reaches of Siberia in 1908? That was not a big meteorite.

There may be other threats as well. It just seems fashionable to speak of global warming right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rce

Humans still possess nuclear arms in such a large numbers that there can be a nuclear holocaust many times over. The immediate threat of a nuclear war ended with the fall of the Soviet Union (thank God), but we cannot rule the possibility out. As long as humans know how to make them, nuclear arms will be a fact. Some people have even suggested that there will be conflicts because of global warming so bad that some nations will resot to nuclear war.

---

I think the threat of an actual nuclear war is pretty small, and always has been. Even politicians were pretty quick to realize that nobody wins a nuclear exchange. Even if you were able to wipe out your enemy their territory would be useless for millions of years, and the damage to your own population, land and infrastructure would be catastrophic.
The real threat in modern society is the whacko with a backpack nuke who has nothing to lose, nothing to live for and is only interested in taking as many people with him as he can. Whether a religious fundamentalist (any flavor) racial bigot (also, any flavor) or simply a nutjob going postal, they can cause a significant amount of damage and are almost impossible to stop.
Of course, there are nut job national leaders (see North Korea or Iran) who could possibly launch nuclear warheads against their neighbors, but that would be a relatively small exchange and not likely to destroy much beyond their own general area.

Quote:

---

At any time, a devastating plague can reappear, just like the Black Death in the 1300's. More and more bacteria evolve multi resistance against antibiotics, what if the medical industry researching for new antibiotics turn out to fail? Sure, mankind survived without antibiotics for millenia, but an airborne disease can spread very fast in this day and age.

---

Yes, disease can be a problem. But even the most virulent of plagues rarely has a death rate exceeding about 75%. Even if you postulate a 90% mortality rate, with a current world population of about 8 billion people the survivors would still number around 800 million! Hardly a wipe out! Of course, they would be spread out across the globe and civilization as we know it would probably be destroyed, or at least set back quite a ways. But with that many survivors, and with all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity still available, recovery would be steady, if not necessarily rapid.

In fact, ANY kind of major catastrophe, other than the complete destruction of the planet or the destruction of the Sun, would invariably leave survivors, and in generally large numbers. Some of them, like nuclear holocaust or plague, would also have significant impacts on other species. But over all, the biggest threat is to our way of life, our civilization. And even then it's mostly a matter of a change in how we must live rather than complete destruction.

Some historians think the European Dark Ages were called that because they were... dark.

Shorter growing season, dimly lit skies, colder weather. All caused by a confluence of volcanic activity that filled the skies with dust and ash that lowered the albedo of the earth, thereby cooling it.

Our concerns over global warming could turn in a second if the Pacific Rim, for example, began to pop a large number of eruptions... not to mention old favorites like Stromboli, Vesuvius, Etna, and others.

Man survives because he is in fact, highly adaptible. Many many life forms do too, but because man is (supposedly) intelligent and self aware, one of the things we do is "categorize" everything, including life. If we didn't differentiate between species then there would not be any extinctions... just life as it was "before" and life as it is "now" and life as it may be in the"future"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I think the threat of an actual nuclear war is pretty small, and always has been. Even politicians were pretty quick to realize that nobody wins a nuclear exchange. Even if you were able to wipe out your enemy their territory would be useless for millions of years, and the damage to your own population, land and infrastructure would be catastrophic.
The real threat in modern society is the whacko with a backpack nuke who has nothing to lose, nothing to live for and is only interested in taking as many people with him as he can. Whether a religious fundamentalist (any flavor) racial bigot (also, any flavor) or simply a nutjob going postal, they can cause a significant amount of damage and are almost impossible to stop.
Of course, there are nut job national leaders (see North Korea or Iran) who could possibly launch nuclear warheads against their neighbors, but that would be a relatively small exchange and not likely to destroy much beyond their own general area.

---

I agree, it is a small risk, has always been small, and smaller yet after the end of the Cold War. However, the threat is there as long as the weapons are there. A complete nuclear holocaust would probably be one scenario where mankind as a whole could be wiped out.

Quote:

---

Yes, disease can be a problem. But even the most virulent of plagues rarely has a death rate exceeding about 75%. Even if you postulate a 90% mortality rate, with a current world population of about 8 billion people the survivors would still number around 800 million! Hardly a wipe out! Of course, they would be spread out across the globe and civilization as we know it would probably be destroyed, or at least set back quite a ways. But with that many survivors, and with all of the accumulated knowledge of humanity still available, recovery would be steady, if not necessarily rapid.

In fact, ANY kind of major catastrophe, other than the complete destruction of the planet or the destruction of the Sun, would invariably leave survivors, and in generally large numbers. Some of them, like nuclear holocaust or plague, would also have significant impacts on other species. But over all, the biggest threat is to our way of life, our civilization. And even then it's mostly a matter of a change in how we must live rather than complete destruction.

---

What I wished to point out was that there are scenarios that are, potentially, much worse than global warming. Sure, there is a smaller risk for them to happen, but we shall not neglect the risk because it is small.

Having re-positioned myself with regard to the who’s responsible argument concerning global warning, I wonder what people’s reaction is to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s challeng to act on the findings of the latest report on climate change: “Real and affordable ways to deal with the problem exist.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that climate change is "unequivocal" and may bring "abrupt and irreversible" impacts, per BBC News. Mr Ban said, "Today the world's scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice. In Bali I expect the world's policymakers to do the same. I come to you humbled after seeing some of the most precious treasures of our planet threatened by humanity's own hand. All humanity must assume responsibility for these treasures."

Is this as more mumbo-jumbo designed to scare us and distract us from the real problems of the world, or, this time, has he highlighted the fact that we have a real and pressing problem?

"Approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5C,” per IPCC. But then, increased risk? What does that mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Is this as more mumbo-jumbo designed to scare us and distract us from the real problems of the world, or, this time, has he highlighted the fact that we have a real and pressing problem?

---

Actually, few intelligent people can deny that there is, most definately, a problem. The Earth is growing warmer. The question is, how much of that warming is caused by man's activities? In my opinion, very little. Sure there is a lot of localized effects of industry, smog and acid rains among others, but global effects? I've seen no definitive proof of it.

The article I saw today about the UN's statement also said that the earth is now the warmest it's been for the last 12,000 years. And we are only 1.8 degrees cooler than the highest temperature in the last million years. This clearly points to the fact that the Earth has undergone these kinds of warming cycles in the past. What makes us think it's our actions that are causing it this time?

Scientists have shown that the planet has undergone several periods of glaciation over its lifetime. To my knowledge there is no definitive understanding of what caused the glaciers to grow out of control, nor any understanding of why they stopped. But it wasn't mankind's doing, that's certain.

There is even one area of thought which hypothesizes that global warming can trigger an ice age. I don't know if this is true or not, but one thing I do know. The future will be different. Maybe worse, maybe better, but certainly different. And regardless of what you believe, I suggest you sell that beachfront property and move inland a good ways. About five feet higher up, if that UN report is accurate. Looks like Venice isn't going to be the only canal city anymore.

I couldn't agree more Thorne!

I think Global Warming is overstated in order to strike fear in people, so that in turn they will give more power to the government. The government wants people to believe that they are the only ones that can protect us....from everything. I, for one, am not convinced!

So... the question remains... should we attempt to modify our behavior to alleviate the impacts of the globe potentially warming.

I say, not only "sure, why not" but "yes, absolutely!"

One: It couldn't hurt.
Two: The easiest things we could do are also things we should be doing to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons. More solar, hydro, wind, geothermal... and yes, more nuclear power.

My problem with things such as hybrid and electric cars... is that the electricity also comes, primarily, from hydrocarbons... and usually much dirtier hydrocarbons at that. Sulfated coal for example. Get us off of coal fired power plants and I'd be all over a hybrid or electric car. In fact, I believe that cars that are purely electric happen be the worst polluters if you count the pollution created making the electricity. At least hybrids use gasoline to generate their electricity... Cleaner still would be methane powered hybrids.

One day, if we can get off of coal, hydrogen, which creates nothing but water when it burns, would be the cleanest.

That aside, you actually make a bigger difference if you reduce your electricity consumption in your home. That's one of the things that really annoys me about Al Gore. He is the worst kind of band-wagon wannabe. Al Gore has a $30,000 per year electric bill.

Al Gore has a $30,000 per year electric bill. Jesus!!!! And just how many 60 watt light bulbs does that pay for?

So... the question remains... should we attempt to modify our behavior to alleviate the impacts of the globe potentially warming. 'Sright, Ozme. I'm past caring who's fault it was, or is, or will be. But if it's in our power to do something worthwhile about it at any level - individual to supra-national, then we will be to blame if we fail to do so.

The worst-case scenario is the collapse of civilisation as a result of severe climatic change, at some time in the near future (2nd worst scenario is if it's a long time off). We'll lose everything.

Why not, then, invest some of what we have but don't need into the environment in the hope of averting or reducing the impact? Perhaps we could start by moderating our use of power resources, as Ozme suggests. Perhaps we could share our resources more evenly, so that we don't think in terms of national wealth, but global wealth. Maybe we could help the emergent "locomotive" economies develop cleanly. After all, we will stand to benefit when those economies are pulling ours along with them.

Perhaps we could also stop enveloping everything new we manufacture in useless plastic bubbles.

As for electric/hybrid cars - if Ozme says they're rubbish, then I'll accept his word. So why don't we try walking? We could even use horse and cart a bit more, and use the additional manure to fertilise our vegetable gardens so we eat more fresh food and require less to be proceesed and packaged and transported to Supermarkets ... or am I just letting my imagination run wild now?

TYWD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

We could even use horse and cart a bit more, and use the additional manure to fertilise our vegetable gardens so we eat more fresh food and require less to be proceesed and packaged and transported to Supermarkets ... or am I just letting my imagination run wild now?
TYWD

---

Problem is, if you use a horse you have to have something to feed it. So a lot of your new garden is going to be used up by growing feed for the horse. If you have to buy the feed, then other farmland will be used to grow the feed, instead of growing food for people. Plus, horses are herbivores and, like any other herbivore, produce large quantities of methane. Adding to the problem rather than helping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Perhaps we could also stop enveloping everything new we manufacture in useless plastic bubbles.

---

Yep, and if it is popping the bubble wrap we miss, we can do that on line.

;che

I understand the average cow produces somewhere between half the amount of pollution that the average car produces in a day, and the same amount (UK statistics). We have many many more cars in the UK than we have cows and horses, so it'd be a good trade-off.

LOL, I didn't exactly say rubbish.

Pure electic cars... yeah, so long as our electricity comes from coal, are no better than gas drive vehicles. Both from a carbon footprint perspective and from a pollution perstpective.

Hybrids are okay... because they still burn the cleaner of the two hydrocarbons... but if a hybrid SUV gets 30 mpg, and you could get the job done with a pure gasoline guzzling Metro that gets 50 mpg, then you're just pretending to be green.

Some says that electrified railways are the most environmental friendly ways to travel, but you have to know where that electricity comes from as well. It is easy in Norway and Sweden, where most electricity comes from hydro power or (in Sweden) nuclear power, but in Germany, a lot of electric power comes from coal.

well it's already happen in here... in indonesia jakarta city.. the sea level is up and already flooded in some area... every afternoon and night... it's said because of the global warming... i can see the sea is really up than before since my place is near to the sea :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yullie

well it's already happen in here... in indonesia jakarta city.. the sea level is up and already flooded in some area... every afternoon and night... it's said because of the global warming... i can see the sea is really up than before since my place is near to the sea :(

---

Are there any measurements on the average sea level supporting this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yullie

well it's already happen in here... in indonesia jakarta city.. the sea level is up and already flooded in some area... every afternoon and night... it's said because of the global warming... i can see the sea is really up than before since my place is near to the sea :(

---

Are you sure it's from the sea rising and not from the land sinking? I only ask because it is my understanding that there are some islands in the Pacific which, if the kind of rise you are talking about was happening, they would already be underwater. Yet they are not, or were not last time I checked. Some coastal areas can be extremely unstable and slowly sink over time, such as Venice, Italy. Even simple erosion can make it seem as though the sea level is rising when in actuality the land is being washed away. This is especially prevalent around barrier islands. Also, that area is very active geologically: lots of volcanoes and earthquakes, all of which can cause settlement of the land masses.

I'm not disputing your observations, but I should think that rising sea levels of the magnitude you are indicating would be observable worldwide and not just locally. As far as I have been able to find out there is no real evidence of any major increase in sea level. I don't deny the possibility, I just haven't seen any indisputable proof.

a few links i have..

http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2785477.ece


http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWa...RiseIndex.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/eff...tal/index.html :

Quote:

---

Sea level is rising along most of the U.S. coast, and around the world. In the last century, sea level rose 5 to 6 inches more than the global average along the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, because coastal lands there are subsiding.

The IPCC found significant uncertainty in the analysis of 20th century sea level change. Also, there is little knowledge about the regional pattern of sea level change. IPCC identified a number of recommendations for reducing uncertainties (IPCC, 2001).

EPA, in coordination with other agencies, is leading the development of a federal study titled “Coastal Elevations and Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise.” The study is one of 21 such studies being conducted by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. The study will include maps and other information useful for community and environmental planning. The prospectus for the report, which will be completed in late 2007, can be found at the CCSP Web site.

Higher temperatures are expected to further raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers and small ice caps, and causing portions of Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets to melt. The IPCC estimates that the global average sea level will rise between 0.3 and 2.9 feet (0.09 to 0.88 meters) in the next century (IPCC, 2001 ).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

In the last century, sea level rose 5 to 6 inches more than the global average along the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, because coastal lands there are subsiding.

---

This is what I was saying. Subsidence is causing more of the rise than actual increases in sea level.

All three of those source you linked to seemed to be saying the same things: future rises in sea level; sea levels may rise; potential increase in sea level. While I do not doubt that global warming is occurring, and that the sea levels may rise, there does not seem to be, as yet, any conclusive evidence that it's occurring yet, at least not to any significant degree.

Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear" is a fictionalized account of the politics of environmental terror. I have checked on several of his sources and found his basic premise to be fairly accurate. Environmentalists in particular, and even some governments, are using the potential for environmental catastrophe as a lever to raise the level of fear in the general population. This allows them to siphon more and more funds into their own pockets.

And even conceding that global warming is occurring, which I do believe, there does not seem to be any scientifically valid evidence to determine just how much of it is of natural origin and how much is caused by humanity.

I know I tend to go off at irrelevant tangents in these discussions, but I do wonder just how many subscribers to the Ptolemaic theory of the solar system visit this site, and if they are also members of the Flat Earth Society.

Global warming is as certain a fact as natural evolution is (well, if I'm going to be controversial, why stop at global warming?). Actually, global warming isn't controversial: all the major and respectable scientific academies and institutions agree. It's controversial to deny it - just like denying the holocaust. This summer, the Arctic ice cap was the smallest it's ever been since records began, and the North West Passage was open for the first time; Greenland will soon be able to live up to its name; and Antarctica is sloughing off icebergs as large as countries. All that melted water has to go somewhere, and consequently, Tuvalu faces total submersion as the sea levels rise, despite the fact that that poor nation produces virtually no pollution at all - less than the pollution produced by a small American town.

I also understand that Indonesia is one of the places suffering already from rising sea levels. And so far as land falling into the sea is concerned, land erosion is speeded up by rising sea levels and harsher weather conditions. Weather conditions are changing noticeably – or maybe you hadn’t noticed? Look at Bangladesh, then. That might not be due to global warming, but, hey, who are you fooling if you say it isn’t?

Earth is now 9 degrees warmer than it was in the depths of the last ice age, and in 100 years time, it's expected to be us much as 6 degrees warmer still. Unless, of course, someone has evidence to prove those projections wrong. Ther is a long-term trend towards higher temperatures. I don't know whose fault that is: Nature's or mankind's, but it is within our power to influence it.

We must all wake up and smell the coffee ...yuck - it's tainted with salt water! I do detect an "I'm OK, so the rest of the world can f*** itself attitude emanating from the west.” Fortunately, it’s the poorer and least influential countries that will suffer the most, so why worry? Certainly not politicians. (By west, I am don’t mean USA alone, although USA is probably the most blatant, I mean ALL developed countries.). We have a duty to ourselves, and to the whole world to minimise the adverse consequences of global warming – and to take advantage of any beneficial windfalls – maybe English wine will replace Californian. But burying our heads in the sand isn’t a viable option.

We can't shoot the sea as it breaks into our homes and washes away our property and drowns our loved ones, can we? So what are we waiting for? Why aren’t we “shooting” the intruder now before it gets us, by taking serious steps to mitigate the potential damage? We all have an inalienable right to keep our feet dry, and God help the bastards who try to take it away from us!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Greenland will soon be able to live up to its name;
Earth is now 9 degrees warmer than it was in the depths of the last ice age, and in 100 years time, it's expected to be us much as 6 degrees warmer still. Unless, of course, someone has evidence to prove those projections wrong.

---

Just remember, Greenland was named so about 1000 years ago, when it was green. Was humanity responsible for that bit of warming?

It would be hard to understand if the world today were NOT somewhat warmer than it was in the depths of the last ice age. That's why we're not in an ice age now, isn't it? And projections for future temperature increases are just that: projections. They are based on statistical models and the models are constantly changing, being refined, as our data collection improves. The problem is that the ways we collect that data are so much improved within the last 20 - 30 years, with the advent of satellite weather monitoring, that much of the data we are trying to compare it to from prior times is unreliable. How can we know what kind of evolution the Greenland ice sheets have undergone in the last 10,000 years or so? Sure, there's ice core sampling, but that's like looking at an elephant through a microscope and trying to decipher its shape with only a handful of views. Possible? Perhaps, but it's unlikely you'll get it exactly right.

As you noted, it would be foolish in the extreme to deny the existence of global warming, just as it would be foolish to deny that the earth is round. The big question is how much of that warming is caused by man's actions? If it's a lot, then yes, we should be able to have a large impact by reducing our carbon footprint. If it's only a little, than any attempt we make to mitigate it will also be quite minor.

well support by generator pumped the water...(sorry didn't know the english word for that) but if the sea level going up well it's flooded but until now it's safe :) hope it's gonna be like that forever...

as the sea level rises the salinity actually will decrease. think...

also the temp rising will eventually cause a rubberband effect actually snapping back to a another iceage "at a future point" much as in the past cycles. a geological event that is repeated just as the climate is to change.

We may contribute to speeding it up but I seriously doubt we are going to change it or hinder it at this point perhaps a couple decades agao our influence to speed it up would have been possible.. now I think that choice and it's impact is inconsequential.

There's no evidence that the rise in temperature creates a 'rubberband' effect per se. Some believe that the (modest) desalinization of the Arctic Ocean, as it spreads into the North Atlantic, can stall the Gulf Stream and THAT would cause an iceage... but there is no historical evidence that this is what causes iceages... or even that the mini-iceages that have occurred in (relatively) recent times, over the last 1300 years. No one had measured these currents before the last century.

We just don't know. Nor do we know if all this worry will be offset by a huge series of volcanoes throwing ash into the air... and creating a 'shadecloud' that cools the planet... (maybe the cause of the Dark Ages?) and we'll be scrambing to increase the greenhouse gas effect.

It's the world... and the solar system. It's been around for a long long time and we haven't... and don't really know how it all works.

Where's that hole in the ozone? Oh yeah... went away on its own. Turned out to be a cyclic phenomenon... we just jumped to conclusions... because it was the FIRST time we happened to be able to measure it.

Thorne says: Just remember, Greenland was named so about 1000 years ago, when it was green. Was humanity responsible for that bit of warming?

Was that a slip? Greenland got colder after its original discovery.

Anyway, I looked it up and it seems most likely that it was called Greenland by Erik the Red or some other Norse character to make other settlers think it was a pleasant place to live, rather than because it really was green and lush, although it might have been in a very few places in the extreme south: this was during the Mediaeval Warm Period, as I'm sure you are aware. (I didn't know that myself, however, and was just making a play on the country's name to emphasise my own arguments.)

I have already conceded the point regarding whose fault global warming is. I don't necessarily blame mankind for it now. But that's not my argument now.

Wolfscout: It would be utterly selfish and grossly inhumane to sit back and do nothing to avert the worst consequences of global warming if it is within our power to mitigate it. On an individual level we should do all we can to minimise our own effect on the planet - to reduce our carbon footprint as it is quaintly called. And on a global level, we should be taking steps now to protect those at greatest risk by helping build flood defences, reclaiming land and, where necessary, relocating whole communities.

We're not defeatists, are we? I'm sure we can find a way if we want to. See below.

Ozme: Good point about the hole in the ozone layer. The hole fluctuates in size according to the season. In 2006, the hole over Antarctica was the biggest ever due to tropospheric ozone depletion (am I convincing you that I know what I'm talking about?). The stratospheric ozone layer - which does more to protect us from the sun's radiation than it affects global warming - is/was slowly diminishing, by about 4% every decade.

It was thought that the reduction of ozone was due to the emission of CFC's at ground level. I wouldn't dare to suggest who or what was emitting them, or how long for, but as soon as international resolutions to replace CFC's with something not quite as bad (HFC's) were implemented due to the Montreal Protocal (yay Canada!) in 1987 things started getting better, or at least, stopped getting worse.

This demonstrates mankind's ability to influence natural events.

However, the hole over Antarctica is still there and, provided global warming doesn't slow its repair, it will remain until somewhere around 2024, while the hole over the Arctic is likely to be there much longer: possibly until 2075. So make sure you're using factor 40+ sun lotion for quite a while yet.

TYWD

We should keep in mind that the Earth's warmth is almost completely dependent upon the Sun (other than geo-thermal heating, which is not used very much, and the heat humanity itself creates, which is pretty small as well). If the Sun increased its output by only 1%, the Earth would (within the span of several months to a year or two) become completely uninhabitable. Luckily, the Sun is a very stable fusion engine - it's been going for billions of years, and it will continue to go for several billion more. However, all these temperature fluctuations on Earth could be due simply to the Sun changing its output by a fraction of a percent. That does not mean that humans are completely innocent (I'm sure all these greenhouse gasses don't help the situation any), and it doesn't imply that humans should throw up our hands and say that there's nothing we can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GregortT

We should keep in mind that the Earth's warmth is almost completely dependent upon the Sun (other than geo-thermal heating, which is not used very much, and the heat humanity itself creates, which is pretty small as well). If the Sun increased its output by only 1%, the Earth would (within the span of several months to a year or two) become completely uninhabitable. Luckily, the Sun is a very stable fusion engine - it's been going for billions of years, and it will continue to go for several billion more. However, all these temperature fluctuations on Earth could be due simply to the Sun changing its output by a fraction of a percent. That does not mean that humans are completely innocent (I'm sure all these greenhouse gasses don't help the situation any), and it doesn't imply that humans should throw up our hands and say that there's nothing we can do.

---

While it is very stable, by comparison to some variable stars, the Sun does have some variability of its own. The sunspot cycle runs 11 years from maximum to maximum, and their is a slight increase in luminosity at the peak of the cycle. The sunspot cycle has been shown to have an effect on global temperatures.

There is also a study here (http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ut_030320.html) which indicates that the Sun's radiation has increased by .05% over the last decade. Though they've only been able to monitor it since the advent of satellite technology, there seems to be some evidence that the increase has been occurring over the last century and may be a significant factor in the current global warming scenarios.

Sunspot do go in cycles, but since they're cyclical they are not a cause of global warming (at least not the global warming that we are talking about) because the duration of the cycle is only 11 years, while the warming that is generally discussed is over the course of the last century or so. As was stated above, such global temperature phenomina have occured in the past over several centuries (if not millenia), so you could argue that even an entire century is simply too short a time-scale to tell. Remember: a century may seem like a long time to us, but it's almost negligible compared to the age of the Sun or the Earth. On those scales, an 11 year sunspot cycle is practically the blink of an eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GregortT

Sunspot do go in cycles, but since they're cyclical they are not a cause of global warming (at least not the global warming that we are talking about) because the duration of the cycle is only 11 years, while the warming that is generally discussed is over the course of the last century or so. As was stated above, such global temperature phenomina have occured in the past over several centuries (if not millenia), so you could argue that even an entire century is simply too short a time-scale to tell. Remember: a century may seem like a long time to us, but it's almost negligible compared to the age of the Sun or the Earth. On those scales, an 11 year sunspot cycle is practically the blink of an eye.

---

True, the sunspot cycle itself, while contributing to fluctuations in weather, do not directly affect climate, as far as we know. What they are showing at that link is different. I quote:
"The recent trend of a .05 percent per decade increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in watts per meter squared, or the amount of solar energy that falls upon a square meter outside the Earths atmosphere. The trend was measured between successive solar minima that occur approximately every 11 years." (Bold emphasis is mine.)

It's my understanding that these kinds of measurements have only been available for the last 30 years or so, but that IF this kind of trend has been going on for the last century then it very well could be affecting our climate.

This site (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/cycle.html) states that during the period between 1645 to 1715 there was virtually no sunspot activity and the climate here on Earth was "unusually cold."

The point I'm trying to make is that, while there is no question of mankind having SOME influence on global warming, there is so much else happening that it is impossible to truly understand exactly how large an influence that is. The solar cycle is only one of the possible culprits. Tectonic activity within the Earth also plays a major role. Scientists have also recently (within the past 20 years) discovered huge deposits of methane ice buried under the sea bed. Disturbances, such as undersea mudslides and earthquakes, can uncover enormous quantities of this ice which then sublimates, releasing methane gas, a major greenhouse gas. All of these things seem to have a far greater influence on the global climate than anything we can do.

Sure, reducing our "carbon footprint" can reduce greenhouse gases somewhat. How much good it will do is questionable. One thing is practically certain. Any changes we make will be far less effective, and far more expensive, than politicians and conservationists want you to believe.

GregortT says: We should keep in mind that the Earth's warmth is almost completely dependent upon the Sun ... [That] doesn't imply that humans should throw up our hands and say that there's nothing we can do.

Quite right. My point of view exactly.

Thorne says: Sure, reducing our "carbon footprint" can reduce greenhouse gases somewhat. How much good it will do is questionable. One thing is practically certain. Any changes we make will be far less effective, and far more expensive, than politicians and conservationists want you to believe.

Sounds defeatist to me. We all know that politicians and activitists tell lies, but that shouldn't divert us from what we believe to be a sensible course of action.

TYWD

This should settle the Global Warming question once and for all!

TYWD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

Sounds defeatist to me. We all know that politicians and activitists tell lies, but that shouldn't divert us from what we believe to be a sensible course of action.

---

The key word there is, "sensible." In any group of ten people, you are liable to have 12 different ideas of just what "sensible" means. For myself, it's a matter of convenience. If it's easy and cheap, it's sensible. If it's a pain in the ass and expensive, it's crazy.

What the hell, we're all going to be killed by a rogue asteroid anyway. Or by super-volcanoes. Or by plagues from outer space. Or some whacko religious freak is going to "save" our souls by incinerating our flesh in a nuclear holocaust. Defeatist? You bet! I can't do anything about those things. In my opinion, I can't do anything worthwhile about global warming, either.

And like religion, I don't really care if other people believe in global warming and conservation and all that stuff. What pisses me off is those who want to force me to adhere to their rules for making this a better world. Where I live the city pays a "recycling" company to transport trash from "recycling centers" to the dumps. Fine, no problem. But then that company decrees that I must SEPARATE my trash into recyclable and non-recyclable items. Then I must deposit my trash into the appropriate containers. Wait a minute! Isn't that what we're paying them to do, through taxes? It is! So I dump ALL of my trash into one container. Let THEM separate them out if it means that much to them.

It's the same thing with global warming. Al Gore (among many others) tells me I MUST reduce my "carbon footprint" (I hate that term! Makes me want to take a nice, hot bath!) while his own "footprint" grows ever larger. Why should I do what he wants me to do when he isn't even willing to follow his own advice?

It's all a shell game. People will use whatever means possible to try to control other people. Whether it's environmental fanatics, or religious fanatics, or any other kinds of fanatics, they want to keep your attention focused on things which cannot be helped in order to divert your attention from their inability to correct those problems which CAN be helped.

10 people; 12 "sensible" ideas; and at least one loony one - and a conspiracy plot into the bargain.

I certainly don't want to "control" you, even though I do advocate you sorting your rubbish. It must be twice as expensive, and half as effective to sort it out after it's all been mixed up with everyone else's crap. But I'm a liberal, as you know, and I can only point out what I think is the right way forward.

You admit you're a defeatist, so what more is there to say?

In my opinion, the biggest reason for reducing our carbon footprint is to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

That it 'kills two birds with one stone' is just gravy.

I prefer to say realist when someone mentions defeatist.
It Tells me their ideas are only ideas or theories being bantered about and not actually in place.
Most liberal ideas don't come into fruitation because for the most part their ideas are expensive and there's no way to fund them.
Many great ideas , aye and most any thing put forth by .gov , take away from personal freedom. Trying to impose their idea of a utopian society that if enacted would be so screwed that it would be no better than what is here now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

In my opinion, the biggest reason for reducing our carbon footprint is to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

That it 'kills two birds with one stone' is just gravy.

---

On the other hand, the sooner we use up the fossil fuels, the sooner governments will have to turn to alternative, cleaner energy sources. We can't keep stretching out the oil and coal without seriously considering something else. But don't anyone tell that to the oil companies!