Politiscience....Global Warming
 

This forum is obviously full of many intellectual people, some schooled in sciences, and some knowledgable of them otherwise

I'm curious what ye of the community think about global warming? It's a rather heated issue to me, and I have argued my position a few times rather passionately with those of whom I do not agree.

I don't plan to join the argument so fervently this time, but I am definitely curious to see which side is better presented.


One of the most interesting things about this debate is that the scientific community has decent evidence to prove (or disprove) either side. Perhaps this will be enlightening...


So, the grand question here is "Is manmade emission of greenhouse gases (a factor that humans could possibly gain a modicum of control over) the major cause of global warming since the Industrial Revolution?"

Have fun!

I tend to take what's seen as a neutrally stance on this issue. There's so much about the Earth we don't know. We only have our theories. Which are not based on universal or absolute fact. The planet has warmed up and cooled down in the past history predating mankind. With factors completely outside of manmade greenhouse gases exerting their considerable influence.

That being said, it's becoming harder to deny that global warming is not in actuality occuring. What I do think is that the emission of greenhouse gases is not the only contributing factor to causing global warming. It might be speeding up the process though. Thinking this leads me to suspect that it is making the weather behave in more extremes. After the multitudes of record-breaking category five hurricanes last season, I have little doubts of that anymore. I dread the coming hurricane season. If scientists are right about this particular theory, what we're experiencing is in fact "time lagged". So the worse is still yet to come.

I've never had a strong science background so anything I said above take with a grain of salt. Or a glass of 'kool-aid' har-har!

We know that greenhouse gases keep the planet considerably warmer than it would be without them. That is a fact.

We know that animals produce them and plantes breathe them.

So there really shouldn't be too much dispute in that if we are increasing greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time deforesting the world, the mean temperature will increase.

Something definately up with the weather too. Watts mentioned the huge hurricane season of last year but did you know that also last year the first recorded cyclone ever formed in the South Atlantic? First EVER.

"First ever" isn't true; cyclones have formed in the South Atlantic before, though they are an extremely rare occurance. Which makes two forming this year, plus two in 2004, noteworthy.

I believe that there is a slight global warming, but I think this is just part of the natural cycle of things. The earth has warmed and cooled many times over the years. Look at Greenland, named because when discovered by Eric The Red it had extensive lush green grasslands, which disappeared as the climate changed. Also the notion that the ice caps are melting has been contradicted by many scientists who say that although the coastal ice of Greenland is depleting the actual ice core is thickening because of more snow falling inland.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage...vironment.html
I think the attitude that man is the cause of global warming is arrogant. Much more greenhouse gasses are released in a single volcanic explosion than man produces. While manmade pollution may be a contributing factor in global warming, I think it is a miniscule one.

As far as I've read, global warming exists, but not because of anything humanity has done. As previously cited, warming and cooling is a natural cycle. This is most likely due to moving slightly closer or away from the sun over the course of centuries, as there is no real way to have a perfect orbit. Of course, there are plenty of other factors as well. While humanity has had a role, that role has been relatively minor.

I read in multiple scientific publications that a single volcanic eruption spews more greenhouse gases into the air than humanity has over the course of its entire history. I think this is a very important deal.

While it's probably a good idea to have some kind of control over industrial emissions, I think that perhaps the government takes it too far much of the time, or expects too much too fast. I'm far more interested in getting rid of the oil dependency, for instance, than I am with controlling factory emissions. The scientific reports are pretty clear on this much, really. Global warming is happening, but there's little no no evidence that humanity has had anything other than a "day player" role in it.

Best case scenario is that humans contribute to it only a little bit. Worse case is that between our greenhouse gas emissions and our deforestation etc. that we've caused much more harm. Many people only look at our role in producing the gasses vs. volcanoes, etc. And ignore what effect we may have had on the plantlife which supposedly could keep things in check.

Either way, there *is* a role played by us, whether it be large or small. No one is denying that these days (I hope..). The argument has now turned into a 'so what?' argument instead. That yeah, we cause 'harm', but not as much as volcanoes so we shouldn't bother to reign in our output. This is an arrogant stance if I've ever seen one.

My view is that regardless of how much harm we are doing, we should make a reasonable effort to limit it. Over time it can matter, and if we don't, then we are just going through resources (non-renewable mostly) faster than we could if we didn't take the greedy/easy way out. Innovation with regards to energy efficiency etc. lead to alternative energies which leads to a lessened dependency on oil. Sounds like a good enough 'push' in that direction to me.

My biggest problem with the phenomenon is the alarmist stance taken by environmentalists and the fact that it's used against America as a huge stigma when frankly the scientific data is shaky. Expand industry (guaranteed to) or protect the environment from global warming (dunno if we can do this!) is obviously a choice then of calculated risk


I just don't like alarmists predicting a 5 degree fahrenheit increase in temperature killing the world. It's ridiculous given what data is out there

Sure things get exagerated sometimes. But 5 degrees would make a huge difference (not killing the world) no matter who you ask.

As for it being used 'against America' is a perception that I can't share. Where things get shaky is the sterotypical American stance that they shouldn't bother to control things like pollution. Due to the dismissive attitude of the large corporations and government, it gives a "screw 'em, we'll do what we want no matter how bad it may be. We'll take that chance." impression.

If you really want to see yourself as a hapless victim of the internation community, then go ahead. But you aren't nearly as persecuted as you think yourself to be, nor as much as you would be if consideration was shown on global matters such as global warming etc. /tangent.

touche...good point

I meant the alarmist thing as in they predicted the super huge increase (5 degrees is a HUGE stress on the system), and it has not materialized

Before 1750, the atmosphere, on average, contained 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. As of February 2005 that number is at about 375 ppm (source), and of course, steadily increasing. Say what you want about man's activities having a minimal effect on the heating of the planet, but hard numbers don't lie.

Heating and cooling cycles typically take thousands of years to complete. We're shooting for it in just a few hundred. We can do it if we try hard enough.

It's not alarmist in the sense that, if what happens continues, we're in a lot of trouble. If the Gulf Stream shuts down, Britain is basically stuck in a permanent winter. Oceans around the world will rise to the point of flooding many cities, and situations like Katrina are going to become more common.

It's not that countries are taking issue with the US because they want to, its because the US Government's arrogance in dealing with the issue makes them such an easy target. It's a huge deal, and merely brushing it aside when we see disasters occur around the world is shameful.

The thing is, the majority of people (these days) aren't brushing it aside. The government is. As long as people think an oil-loving bible thumper is the right fit for the job, regardless of how inept he is at dealing with every major issue facing the country, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

Thats why hes there though. The entire middle portion of the country just doesn't get it and continuously votes moral religious beliefs instead of logic.

If this nation were run on logic, it wouldn't be in the position it's in today.

Wow..it sure didn't take long to start blaming Bush for global warming! The Kyoto accords, which we rightly didn't join, would do little or nothing to curd greenhouse gasses since they don't address the worlds biggets polluters, China and India. They would just cause undie hardship on American business. What the hell does Bush's religious beliefs have to do with global warming anyway??

I love the elitist liberal attitude expressed here. The entire middle portion of the country is stupid..if only they could be as smart as the coastal liberals we'd have a regular utopia!

So, even if CO2 levels are on the rise *solely* due to humans, we're going to immediately pin it all on the US? CO2 comes from a very large number of sources, bear in mind. Humans are a cause, yes. But it's more across the board, you realize...

Also, don't forget about China. The US is relatively clean in comparison.

As for temperature swings, the time required can be very narrow. Heating and cooling cycles aren't just straight cooling or heating. Much like a scatter plot, things will swing around. The last major Ice Age ended 10,000ybp (years before present). As a result, the Earth is essentially on a warming spell. Still, things are going to waver.

Now, the CO2 rise is almost in-cue with the Industrial Revolution, so pointing the climb toward humans as the cause is reasonable. But the increase really isn't as "deadly" as folks think it is.

About 300 years ago, the Earth was experiencing the "Little Ice Age." It had descended into this relatively cool period from a warm interval about 1,000 years ago known as the "Medieval Climate Optimum." During the Medieval Climate Optimum, temperatures were warm enough to allow the colonization of Greenland. These colonies were abandoned after the onset of colder temperatures. For the past 300 years, global temperatures have been gradually recovering. In fact, they are still a little below the average for the past 3,000 years. The human historical record does not report ''global warming'' catastrophes, even though temperatures have been far higher during much of the last three millennia.

The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses. The hypotheses that the IPCC has chosen to adopt predict that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere (especially water vapor) to produce a large temperature increase. While CO2 has increased substantially, the large temperature increase predicted by the IPCC models has not occurred. In fact, the computer modeling of climate changes is still very new and full of holes. For example, water vapor is the largest contributor to the overall greenhouse effect. It has been suggested that the computer climate models treat feedbacks related to water vapor incorrectly.

Bottom line is saying that temperature is increasing because humans are here, and they spew out CO2, is very short-sighted. The atmosphere isn't that simple. The computer climate models have tons of uncertainties. This is not surprising, since the climate is a non-linear dynamical system, and a very complex one.

An experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century (my old boss was involved in it). It includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric Greenhouse Gases have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases, temperatures have fallen.

Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed the experimental test, but it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be said that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to Greenhouse Gases will nullify the initial temperature rise.

The global warming hypothesis is not based upon the radiative properties of the Greenhouse Gases themselves. It is based entirely upon a small initial increase in temperature caused by Greenhouse Gases and a large theoretical amplification of that temperature change. Any comparable temperature increase from another cause would produce the same outcome from the calculations.

At present, science does not have comprehensive quantitative knowledge about the Earth's atmosphere. Very few of the relevant parameters are known with enough rigor to permit reliable theoretical calculations. Each hypothesis must be judged by empirical results. The man-made global warming hypothesis has been thoroughly evaluated. I can personally say, having attended the AGU Conference last Winter, that it does not agree with the data and is, therefore, not validated. There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.

We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if the current long-term natural warming trend continues. Bear in mind that the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a320/GeopAg/fig2.gif

*waits for someone to come in and ask Gechmir if that means he thinks we should just go on polluting as much as we want*

I'm quite a fan of burning styrofoam, myself ;D

I personally don't think it is an endorsement to continue what we are doing. Rather, the argument that should be gained from the evaluation Gechmir gave us is that pinning our environmental efforts one something as definitely vague as global warming is misguided.

Personally, I'd rather see the platform for reducing emissions and such be based on conservation and pollution control which have much more immediate and easily quantifiable results. Cutting our output of CO2 and using less fossil fuels to improve our air quality and make our resources last longer would be a more sound philosophy to work with than something like global warming (or the new term to replace it, climate change), which lately has been a vehicle for scare-mongerers and sensationalists. There is nothing sexy about pollution or conservation but impending global disasters gives you Hollywood attention and media publicity.

Then again, I'm a geology major. I get all sorts of weird looks from the meteorologists and climatologists when I state my opinions on human effects on the global climate.

Problem with the idea that we're simply getting caught up in some natural cycle of climate is that by the time we're sure its just a cycle it might be too late and the human-caused global warming might have already caught up. Scientifically however we've already shown with numbers and pie graphs of all sorts that our activities do impact the planet although we like to tell ourselves otherwise and although our planet certainly has experienced climate changes in the past the current rate at which the climate is changing probably isn't natural.

The quote in my signature has never had more relevancy to a topic.

The Kyoto Accords are worthless. It's not just due to non-participating countries like China/India/US. Why? No country that has signed and ratified the accords has met their emissions goal. Except France. Hooray! We're really saving the world now aren't we?

Let's all buy hybrids. So not only can we increase the CO2 emissions from cars, but we can use more electricity/metal in the manufacturing process! It make's great marketing oppurtunities, and make's you feel good that you're doing something for the environment. When in reality you're doing nothing, but help speed up a collapse.

Uhh yes they are. Don't just blame our government. How many people do you know have stopped flying, stopped driving, stopped using electricity, stopped buying stuff, stopped eating organic food they haven't grown themselves, and overall just stopped or lessened their consumption of goods/services?

Not many.... if at all any.

We shot ourselves in the foot back in the 1950's when we thought energy was going to be free. Too late to go back now. That oil-loving bible thumper is just giving everybody what they want. Which is infinite growth in a world of finite resources. He's failing miserably.

"The American way of life is not negotiable."

Exactly my point. So what? You and I both know that we're going to use every drop of oil and every lump of coal that we can get our hands on. Why should we try to slow it down? It's not going to work. Nobody want's to slow their consumption. Mouthing platitudes is one thing, but actually doing something to help is quite another. Take a shit, or get off the toilet.

Energy efficiency only offsets depletion. Efficiency does not do anything for unbridaled consumption. Utilizing alternative energies only leads to more consumption which only leads to more environment damage. What do you want? To protect the environment or to continue to consume? You can't have both. You will get neither.

But at least some British conservative get's it....

All it might take for oil prices to spiral out of control is another bad hurricane season, rising ocean levels threatening offshore oil production, or some unrest in any oil producing region. Just don't cry when we all look back to the days when 3 dollars a gallon was cheap. One more month until hurricane season begins...

Wow, so not going to win any friends with this post. Ahh well. Least I can say life isn't boring. This just keeps getting more exciting. Cheerio! :)

The main thing that most scientists don't know is what global warming's effect will be. There are a lot of guesses, but, up until maybe no less than a year ago, most of it was guessing and biased science. It is a huge jump to say that global warming and the recent hurricane seasons are related, I doubt any sound science would support that (I doubt any sound science has even been completed).

I've never been much on the side of the environmentalists on this debate, mostly because I do believe that the planet is very, very resilient and humans can certainly withstand heat increases, what with genetically-altered crops to get us our food. And we'll certainly protect the animals we like.

Animals and plants go extinct every day, ones we don't even know about, so that's not really much of it.

I think the big furor that we're going to see is mostly economic, as many people have to move from just about the dumbest place you can build a city: right next to the ocean. I guess it's not our fault, it was necessary to have those ports back then, but inland is the place to be, dudes. Vacation at the beach.

What I'm for is responsible and sustainable living. I agree that getting off oil is a shitload more important than cleaning up the air. I want to live cleanly because I want to walk outside and not see a cloud of brown blanketing my city.

China doesn't give a fuck about other parts of its environment, like the Yellow River, so I don't really see why they'd care about the air.

It is true that the orbit is a large contributing factor, you see a pattern in global warming, every 11,000 years, the graph looks exactly the same.

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynolog...climastro.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

The shape of our orbit changes from round to ellipse. We are on, currently, a very round orbit, which means that the difference in solar radiation in the summer and winter is very, very low.

The tilt of the Earth with relation to the sun also cycles about every 40,000 years. We are near the middle of the cycle, which also means there is less variation between the seasons.

The Earth also moves off its orbit slightly, it won't stay on a 2D plane with relation to the sun.

Most people who bang the drum about how awful humans are and how we are destroying the planet and such don't even know that this exists. That is what bothers me about the environmentalists in this debate. If you want changes, then educate yourselves. Hell, you'll see that these theories can't really be proven as large effects any more than CO2 can, we just don't know enough yet to make sweeping changes.

It doesn't matter whether the planet is very resiliant or wether human ingenuity will make the banana survive the century. What does matter is how expensive the process will be. Certainly an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Because it's unreasonable to ask people to go on Walden-esque retreats. Nigga's gotta work, nigga's gotta eat. And for all the personal sacrifices someone has to make to unhook themselves from the grid*, it won't make a lick of difference. A larger trend in society would, and efficency changes in industry better still.

Also I like people who get defensive because America is seen as being anti-environment, and then go on to say that global warming isn't a big deal because some predictions didn't come true. Why get defensive when it's true? Embrace your flaws. It's more interesting than screeching liberal bias, Wesker.

* christ I hate that phrase.

By the way

I don't understand what you mean by organic, and I doubt that you understand what the word organic means

Also, if everybody ate only what they grew for themselves, then we'd have a famine on our hands


Are you for organic fertilizer, too? What is organic fertilizer?

Polluters use the untenable global warming argument to shelf every environmental damage. Emission reduction having a negligible effect (even geologically) is by no account an excuse to continue as normal when the same practices that produce those emissions are still destroying other parts of the environment.

It's like a tug-of-war of the same political package. Environmentalists want the global warming issue to stop all pollution and polluters want the possibility of ineffectuality to keep lucrative practices intact.

(This may have already been stated, but some of you occasionally have a case of the Tl;drs.)

Well, and I agree. The largest problems are economic, but, as usually happens, when people/companies/goverments jump into a problem without thinking it through thoroughly, they end up spending a fuckload more money in the end, which is what Kyoto would have done (maximum cost for minimal impact).

Where are all these criticisms coming from? The only ones I ever hear are from Crichton, that guy who typed 700% instead of 70% for icecap mass, and I guess Rush Limbaugh counts ("somehow we're warming up the ice caps even though our cars and smokestacks are here in America, hah-hah").

Someone's got link me up on the doubters news train, yo.


You can bump the numbers higher if you like! Which is hilarious because the UK was all like "if we go over 400 that's the tipping point and baaad things will happen."



Was it this study? Or a similar one? (Controversy bolded)

Or of course you can look at recent data, if you like



Could you explain the negative feedbacks? Most of what I've heard has been positive feedbacks. Which are "supposedly" what scare the scientists shitless.

• Heating decreses glacier surface area, decreasing white space on the earth, increasing thermal radiation pick-up, which melts further ice...
• Heating kills plants, which release CO2, which further heats, which...
• Heat causes summer droughts, which speeds CO2 release from peat bogs, which, causes harsher droughts, which...
• Heating melts methane hydrates, which...

etc. etc. until you weep for the baby owls or something.


This goes for the entire 6 billion of us, does it? :eyebrow: It's a good thing farmers are wealthy and dynamic enough to move, or retrain and retool for new crops, if the climate shifts. Then there's the fact that we never get food from say, trees that have to be decades old for harvesting. And it's also good that the moving of sea level or the drying of rivers or the chaning of weather patterns can't impact access to freshwater or good farmland. We're a pretty fucking lucky species.



...But I agree that Kyoto is bullshit

It's not that Kyoto is subsidizing Chinese coal plants, oh no! It's investing in Chinese efficiency for the good of the planet!! :edgartpg:


Bush was completely right to ditch Kyoto, unfortunately. No one is going to cut their air travel, which alone is almost enough to "fuck the planet" (if the enviros are right). The only reason part of Europe even got a good start was because they (stupidly) started building natural gas plants. They stopped doing it, so they're screwed. The other countries are even worse off. Enjoy paying "we failed, we suck" money to a stupid treaty instead of investing it in research or efficiency, suckers! What's that money going to go towards anyway?

Can't argue with that, but at the same time
is an exceptionally short-sighted and expensive line of thinking.

It's not saying that it isn't a bad thing, but I do believe there are more important things to worry about than Unnamed Bug being able to stick around.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. You seem to understand that we are talking about global climate which implies not only a wide range of the Earth (all of it) but a wide swath of time.

Again, the biggest problem of warming is that people chose to live by the oceans because you can't move, you know, skyscrapers. And if humans never touched the air, the Earth would heat up naturally at some point. Maybe we accelerated it early. But the natural time for it would have come around eventually and we'd still be fucked.

I'm not sure why you think that farmers are going to be in such trouble. Genetically-modifed crops can be (and not necessarily now, but soon) made to live in all kinds of climates. And if it becomes economically infeasable to grow, I dunno, bananas, then we'll start eating other, more adaptable fruits. Are you saying if the Earth heats up, there will be no crops which will be around? None that can adapt?

Not to mention that people in Africa are starving now. Are you not worried about people eating now? You only care about crops when it might come close (yeah, right) to actually affecting you? So, you're not really worried about global warming, but local warming.

See, this is the environmental lobby's problem: people like you. It's not as extreme as you say; calls of hellfire and brimstone is what led average Americans to not give any shit until very, very recently. It's not as extreme as the people who are crying for no change say; humans can and do need to act better. There needs to be a happy balance, so caving into this notion of fear of the world ending is incredibly dangerous. And the squeakiest wheel gets the grease: there are a fuckload more problems a lot more pressing than global warming, yet somehow people act like someone is raping their child.

I didn't think much of Michael Crichton's book because I don't like being preached to and I just don't think it is good to only show one side of science. But the whole "state of fear" thing is real and, you, my friend, have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

The biggest negative feedback that comes to my attention is a backlash that'd dart us into another ice age of sorts. As ice melts, you get more and more water percentage on the surface area of the Earth. The evaporation rate would get unreal if things got as hot as folks are proposing. Water would evaporate and a hefty amount of Water Vapor would get into the atmosphere. Now... Water Vapor is a much larger potential troublemaker than CO2, theoretically. It'll insulate heat at first, but as it grows in massive quantities, it begins to mess with the Albedo Effect. It would block the sunlight and cool things down very quickly. Water vapor would continue to accumulate and floods would really shift into high gear on activity. Blocking of sunlight results in things cooling until the water vapor isn't blocking up the atmosphere quite as much.

For another keep-in-check mechanism, read up on CaCO3 production by Plankton (Foraminifera). I'd rather not copy and paste a lengthy glob on it =p

As for plants, they can adapt to temperature change quickly. If not, mankind can always step in and do a little genetic work. But that's an extreme. Warming and Cooling trends have wiped dozens of species off the map before. They can adapt to very severe spikes. As shown in my earlier diagram, some temperature booms were very sharp.

I could name a few more, but that's all I could toss out on the top of my head. There are many more, but that'd require a run on Google. And I'd rather not =I

And I believe you mean plants which release O2. But I'm sure that's just a typo =o

I weep for the owls ;_; I must go chain myself to an owl sanctuary. NOW.

Plants can aspire CO2, and their decay also releases carbon in various forms. I think that's what Unfortunate meant.

Vegetation sequestering is one of the largest sinks of carbon as are producers of carbonates. The effect and scale to which they can offset the increasing output of carbon in the atmosphere is still under investigation.

Still, people need to approach this issue with a clear head and not be swayed by those who wish to manipulate you emotionally, whether it is the doomsday prophets or the people who think it is inconsequential. If one is steered by either complacency or panic, nothing good will come out of it.

It would be interesting to see what GFF thinks of Peak Oil. I wonder if a thread should be made for that.

Well I don't suppose I need to ask what you think of Al Gore. I'm curious as to what statistics his book uses, though, and exactly how he makes his argument in this film.

I lean more towards the alarmis state of mind myself, but it is interesting to hear soem of these arguments people are making. What's frustrating is that everyone seems to be acknowledging the problem to one degree or another, but to the best of my knowledge no efforts are being made to research alternatives. Alternative fuels, yes, but not alternative combustion engines, for instance. Funding is being spent on reduction instead of on ideas for prevention/human accommodation.

Before the crash, I could've forwarded you to an old monstrous thread about Peak Oil. Whitecrab, an former(?) poster was a big fan of Peak Oil discussion, and I believe he made the thread originally.

Maybe we need a new thread on the topic. It was quite a good read =)

I dunno about Al Gore. I just read this month's article about him in Wired. I don't feel as dismissive of him as I do of Michael Crichton, maybe because Crichton is an author of fiction and Al Gore is pretty well respected on environmental issues. The article made me wish (again) he had won the presidency.

I know Al Gore is not a fearmonger. From what I read, he is on the mindset of for there to be any reliable and workable solutions to solving any environmental problems, there must be an economic reason for doing so, which is a point we're getting to. For example, enough research has been done by companies now that they know they can save money finding ways to create less waste, as disposing of waste is becoming increasingly expensive.

And that is kind of the problem. I wish technology was advancing faster, but how much money has GM poured into trying to get hydrogen fuel cells to work (maybe as much in advertising as in actual R&D, but still)? I heard on NPR Friday that most experts think we are still 20 years away from having reliable fuel cells on the road, and that is after a good solid 10 years of working at it.

Edit: I just watched the trailer for the Al Gore movie. It does seem to use fear as the major motivator, which I don't appreciate, but from what I hear of the film, that isn't the case at all.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that even if a person went to such lengths to "save the planet" it wouldn't matter. It would just mean more for the rest of us that do consume. In this case, it'd mean more for the Chinese or Indians. A larger trend in society will not take hold. Whether that be in the interests of the environment or economy. Each government motivated attempt has ended up in complete failure. The Kyoto Accords being an example for the environment. Or if you need an economic example look up Gorbachev's Perestroika(sp?) initiatives. Any attempt to slow a decline has only ended up speeding it up.

What I mean by 'organic' is the absence of derivative hydrocarbon based sustances that assist in the production of our food supply. Whether that be fertilzers, herbicides, pesticides, etc.

An acute observation. Not one I'm inclined to disagree with.

Heh. This question I'm not wholly prepared to answer. I know little to nothing about organic farming. Organic feritilizer is basically made up of compost. Compost could be anything that's of a decaying organic matter. I suspect my retired mother uses shit in her compost pile for her garden. It just smells like it.....

I think the debate is over. When the New York Times acknowledges it to the degree of calling it an "almost certainty", and it has congressional support there's not much to debate about. Except how far it has penetrated the public consciousness.

Just so you know, "derivative hydrocarbon based substances" ARE organic. Organic means anything made of carbon.

The only difference between "organic" fertilizer (shit) and "artificial" fertilizer is their effectiveness. Fertilizers are generally composed of 3 main elements (correct me if I'm wrong), and they include nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. None of these is organic (because they're not CARBON), but they are all definitely the same fertilizer.

Essentially, man-made fertilizers are the same as the manures used in chemical composition, only more effective (considering that farmers are able to feed a good portion of the world, this isn't a long-shot). Go Fritz Haber!

Next, some could argue that the main reason pesticides are "bad" is because insects can develop resistances. Silent Spring and all that is an argument for another day, though.

By the way, I speak of organic strictly from the chemist's point of view. The other definitions you might find are derived colloquialisms to me.

In terms of that...hey! You want something that's organic AND all-natural and low in fat? Potassium Cyanide!



So, remember, without fertilizer we'd pretty much be up a shit-creek. Manure is effective, but not on a grand scale (look how much more expensive organic food is, when all food is organic). Not all additives are out to kill you (and many many carcinogenic substances are only so in HUGE amounts), and Fritz Haber saved us all from Malthusian wastelands! Then he weaponized poison gas :(

In the context I was using the term "inorganic" was/is originating from a non-biological source.

You're right on the first two. I have no clue about potassium though. Again, it's not derived from a biological source, so it's considered inorganic from a non-chemist's point of view. You seem like someone who really enjoys organic chemistry. (I think I just lost an old bet...:()

This probably belongs in a Peak-Oil or a permaculture related discussion, but one glaring difference is how sustainable our current farming infrastructure is given the rising of energy prices. If it isn't sustainable in such an environment, it does not matter how much more effective it is. It will just be more expensive. If people cannot afford it, they'll just starve. They're better off growing their own food. So it's not necessarily the better option when speaking from that aspect eh? Since natural gas is a major component in the production of our fertilizers/herbicides/pesticides. Yet another nonrenewable hydrocarbon resource which we only have so much of.

You'd be debating yourself. Soooo not going to touch that one. Science as a whole was not a very good subject of mine.

That much is obvious. Our interpetations of the words organic and inorganic differ roughly on those lines.

I wasn't talking about "organic" stores selling organic food. Most of that stuff is sold at Safeway for much cheaper. It's just an excuse used to sell overpriced food to ignorant yuppies who aren't smart enough to know what they're buying. Nor, do I think that food additives are out to kill me. Just talking from a generalized individual "organic" food growing aspect.

I'm not the one that said that there would be a famine if we had to grow our food organically.... I just questioned the sustainability of our current food growing paradigm in the face of rising energy costs. Which is in no way related...... right?

Ahhh, yet another example of "progress" at work.

Well, his contribution to science far outweighs his contribution to human death

By the way...potassium is also inorganic. All fertilizer is basically inorganic since they're not really made of carbon. The fertilizer that is chemically manufactured is the exact same nitrate and phosphate (etc) that comes from biological sources

Last note on chemistry, if it's carbon-containing, it's organic. If it has no carbon, it's inorganic. Both are devastatingly important to life sustenance, and fertilizer, no matter where you get it, is inorganic.

Honestly, given your point about famine, it seems like a lose-lose situation if peak oil should strike us suddenly (which is somewhat absurd). We could no longer transport the industrial fertilizer and big farm-grown food to everybody. And people still would not have enough land to grow their own food. Famine would probably erupt either way...but it is nice to note that making nitrogen-based fertilizer, in my understanding, takes no hydrocarbon fuel aside from that it requires through heating. So we could find an alternate mode of transportation to get food and fertilizer to and fro.

Of course, that disregards the need for fuels for machinery and all that, but I'm a student of chemistry! I don't think on the grand scale!

Hope I enlightened!

Oh, I realize it is accepted. I know about Hubbert's Point and all that jazz. And I know that people know about peak oil. It's just that the thread had interesting discussions on alternate sources for petrol or other means of fuel.

But what I meant in that post was that Whitecrab had a real penchant for discussing the topic. Didn't mean it like "he's a fan of that theory" =p Hubbert's Point was for the US and predicted peak oil accurately. It was distributed to a worldwide scale and will possibly hold true. But there are always variables =d

In general, people are downplaying Global Warming waaaaay too much.
In the Alps, there are now resort type condos where 600 metre deep glaciers were in 1911.

If people want to dispute Global Warming, then they are idiots.
Not too far from now, we will will have ICE FREE summers in the Arctic Ocean. Something that until recently was not even considered.

I've found a nice little video about this topic.
Honestly, this is what i call brainwashing of the people.

http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/l...h.wmv/play.asx

Props for setting the record straight there. I love getting into arguments with naturalist granola types explaning that I love to eat organic food from Taco Bell or take organic aspirin. "I don't drink pure water as it is inorganic." ;)

Props also for this thread in general. I'm going to a discussion about global warming tomorrow and this thread has been pretty informative.

It seems as though alternative fuel sources have become a high priority among automobile manufacturers. As soon as a market puts a demand on a technology, R&D kicks it into high gear.

I'm curious as to the emissions laws in other countries outside of the United States. From what I know, it seems as though the US has very strict emissions laws comparative to other countries. I know for example, that Japanese cars that are imported (and I don't mean something like a Toyota that you'd buy at a dealership here) will not pass US emissions unless they undergo some modification. Granted the US does it's fair share of polluting through auto emissions... but then again, we are the 3rd largest nation in population, and the wealthiest.

Plus, bear in mind pollutant levels in Japan. In some regions, elderly folks have to have air-tanks with them to breathe through (supposedly). I recall reading an article or two in the past that mentioned this. The US has much higher level activity in some hotspots, like LA, New York, and Houston. Gotta keep emissions tightly constrained for such situations.

Goddamn! I've read that in Mexico City it's so bad that they actually have fresh air/oxygen booths that you can pay to sit in for a little while and breathe. This could just be speculation or hearsay though.

Mexico City's air is thin, hence booths and tanks for breathing. That's due to elevation. Pollution isn't a gigantic problem over there, I don't think...

Japan and Mexico City both have oxygen booths, which is more for an oxygen high than anything.

Uh, many people in the US have this and completely unrelated to air pollution; it is called "being ill". COPD, asthma, hypoxemia, etc.

I realize that many elderly folks require oxygen tanks. I didn't fall off the turnip truck last week. My point I was addressing is that there are lots of folks in Japan who require O2 tanks solely due to air pollution. The air is too dirty for their lungs to handle.

Asthma is a physical difficulty in breathing due to breathing passages closing up/narrowing and what-not. COPD is caused by smoking and also was caught by coal miners quite regularly. Hypoxemia is what is experienced in Mexico City due to high elevation.

Japan is much smaller than the US, but it growing tremendously in urban areas. There isn't much land, and there isn't much room for trash. As a result, they burn their trash. A LOT of their trash. Lots of what they burn aren't things you want to be breathing. This is a growing problem

A site on the topic:
http://web-japan.org/factsheet/pollution/other.html

For older generations, there were cases of arsenic poisoning.

That is a snippette from this site:
http://www.sg.emb-japan.go.jp/JapanAccess/pollute.htm

Another site on random air pollution topics:
http://www.riskworld.com/Profsoci/sr...2/Ps6ae203.htm

The US has its air pollution problems, but for starters, it has the EPA which is rather stringent on its regulations. Japan is a looser. Secondly, the population density in Japan is larger. People are packed closer together. As a result, one small region's difficulty spreads quite a ways.

You have folks from the previous two generations and people of this generation developing respiratory difficulties due to various pollutants. The pollution isn't reducing swiftly even though Japan is pushing for hybrid technology and what-not for fuel conservation and cleaner burning. Air is still rather dirty to breathe and a good junk of elderly cannot handle it.

"From what I know, it seems as though the US has very strict emissions laws comparative to other countries."

How can you argue against strict polution control when it only brings you back to an example of why strict controls are good?

I hear that emission laws vary quite a bit from region to region in the US as well, such as California and Florida having considerably more strict regulations. I'd be most interested to hear what you learn about how it stacks up to other similar nations. I've always been given the impression that they lag behind places like Britain, France, Canada, Germany, etc. But if this is exageration or propaganda, that'd sure be interesting.

We all know that global warming is now happening, it is obvious with the warming temperatures in Nunavut.

I personally believe that it is too late, there is no way that billions of people are going to stop their current energy consumption within a few years.

Within a few years? I don't understand the reasoning behind the arbirary time frames people come up with for changes. It doesn't have to happen by date X or all is lost. Where does this point of no return come from? Unfortunately efforts to make changes are often attacked on the basis of being 'too much too soon' etc. And since no one wants to make drastic changes right away, they instead drop the entire premise based on a flaw in the proposed timeline instead of a flaw in the goal or acheivability of the goal.

See the disdain for Kyoto for one. Sure it's got some good ideas, but since it called for big changes relatively quickly, the entire notion of polution control is attacked and undermined to the point that we've reached today with advertisements like the one posted by Schandmaul.

Gotta go with Chibi on this one. I hear some parts of New Jersey got HAIL last night. It's friggin' late May!

However, did anyone mention that the earth naturally goes through these cycles of warming and ice ages? It was bound to happen anyway, regardless if we emitted more green house gasses or not.

Uhm... Sorry to burst your bubble, but hail doesn't occur when things are at their coldest.

Hail typically happens in early summers. Surface temperatures are warm enough to cause thunderstorms, but the upper atmosphere is still cool enough to support ice.

Sure, things can be hot enough to melt the ice on its fall, but New Jersey isn't in the tropics. It's in the midlattitudes. And if I'm not mistaken, those are rather ideal spots for hail, particularly in summers.

Yeah, you're right. I was under the impression that hail only happens during cold weather.

I don't think there's a flaw in the time-table. Kyoto still allowed for a modest increase in emissions through the trading of the emissions that took place on the emissions market. Think of it as a "pollution tax" that increases with the amount of emissions released. It still didn't stop Kyoto's goals from failure. From what I've heard the emission trading market has collapsed as well.

Overall, there's nothing wrong with having a noble goal. The problem is when there's absolutely no chance that this noble goal has a chance in hell of succeeding. Since apparently nobody really wanted to curb their emissions in the first place. It just make's you look good if you signed it, and bad if you don't.

Or perhaps you would like this noble goal to be enforced by authority? A "green" authoritarian who would break down the doors of companies and individuals that did not comply. Imprisoning the wrong-doers. Which is everybody that is not French. Ahhh... the dream scenario?

My point was that these things can only work if they are given a chance. And that is not what has happened, and I don't see that changing anytime soon either.

An authority couldn't work and it isn't needed. It all comes down to what people really prioritize, and that is why 'nothing' is done. If it cuts into margins, it, and any possible permutation of it is blackballed.

Unless you mean to say that nothing could have been accomplished if those who did, and did not sign up for such things had done so, and followed through. In which case, that doesn't make much sense. The only argument against it that I've heard, and seems rather fair, is that it would be too little return for too much sacrifice.

The only reason pollution control has no chance is because it is given no chance. A self fullfilling profecy if I've ever seen one. "This can't work because I won't do it!" "Um.. You could do it y'know?" "Yep, but won't. Haha showed you. Stupid hippies with their environment and shit." "Ok, you win."

As far as pollution control is concerned, we call know what needs to be done, the problem is that there are less people changing their resource consumption habbits then the ones that are not.

There is also the factor with large companys, most care about making money more than the environment. Much of the rain forest is cut down for not only the cattle ranches, but also soy farms. Today it doesn't matter if you are a vegetarian or not for environmental reasons because most of the products come from the amazon anyway. And oil companys don't like the idea of alternative fuel and electric cars because it will mean that no one will buy their oil any more.