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!

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by deadally

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?"

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!

Most amazing jew boots

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

"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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

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

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

bible thumper

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

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!

Most amazing jew boots

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.



Most amazing jew boots

*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*

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

Originally Posted by Wesker

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Wesker

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!

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.

Originally Posted by NYRSkate

The thing is, the majority of people (these days) aren't brushing it aside. The government is.

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.

Originally Posted by NYRSkate

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.

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."

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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....

Quote:

Fortunately I have found a solution to our present predicament, which involves lots of privation, requires no legislation and doesn't give anybody a way out: crippling petrol prices. Four times - no, 10 times - what we're paying now. All we need is a little reckless military intervention in the Middle East, say, something guarantied to backfire spectacularly and secure global instability. Why hasn't anybody thought of this? No one will be able to afford air travel, the roads will be empty, the economy will collapse, the government will run out of money and the planet will be saved. And I will be able to say that I did my little bit.

Source: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conse...765565,00.html

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!

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

Originally Posted by Watts

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

By the way

Quote:

stopped eating organic food they haven't grown themselves

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.