Global Warming

Quote:

"The evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now and is a growing threat to society," the AAAS said at its annual meeting.

"Scientists are observing the rapid melting of glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, rising sea levels, shifts in species ranges and increased frequency of weather extremes," said John P. Holdren, director of the Woods Hole Research Center and AAAS president.

Concern focuses on carbon dioxide and other gases produced by burning fossil fuels and other processes. As these gases accumulate in the atmosphere they trap heat from the sun, much like a greenhouse, warming the climate.

"The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be," the group said.

Holdren noted that some of the most dramatic changes are occurring in the far North where warming has occurred more rapidly than in other areas. Retreating sea ice and rising sea level are driving some natives from their villages, the group said.

On Feb. 2 the Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Change reported that global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries," leading to a far different planet in 100 years.

The panel, established by the United Nations, concluded that global warming is "very likely" caused by man, meaning more than 90 percent certain.

If nothing is done to change current emissions patterns of greenhouse gases, global temperature could increase as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, the report said.

Yeah, i know, it's not really new news, but this subject is slowly turning in to more and more of a serious issue, so I thought i'd raise the question(s):

What would you do in an effort to help prevent global warming? Or do you think we're screwed anyways and it wouldn't do a thing if you didin't drive your truck with a 30 litre hemi in it every day?

Personally, I hardly drive myself to school. I take transit instead. It cuts down on the number of cars on the road, and it saves me the gas money.

I'm interested to hear your opinions.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Global warming has been going on for a while and it is only now that scientists are saying that it is happening because of human activity. We already knew that!

Either way, human greed is going to make global warming very hard to slow down, one way to make a drastic change is if alternative fuels come into play, but the oil companies won't want that to happen because it would mean that no one is buying their oil anymore.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I do what I can for the environment. I can't say that especially go out of my way, but I try not to use too much plastic and styraphome. I don't drive much, but I could take the bus more often...

How ya doing, buddy?

It is true that there is great uncertainty about the extent and cause of global warming. It is true that the propaganda about global warming simplifies, politicizes and often distorts the science in order to present a clear, but wrong, message about impending catastrophe. It is true that anybody who questions the orthodoxy on global warming risks being labeled a denier, a dangerous pariah.

I fall under the latter. We only have a little over 100 years'-worth of scientific measurements on temperatures globally. Bear in mind that other nations aren't as fervent in keeping accurate readings like the US, nor bothers reading them as many multiple times a day.

To add to this, we are still in a global warming phase since the Ice Age "just ended", as far as geology and meteorology is concerned. Folks are just fear-mongering on the phenomenon now. Remember the talk around Katrina? "This was caused by global warming. Expect this to be the new norm."

Hows about that horrible hurricane season this year, hmm?

I don't think I'll be throwing out any charts or graphs in this thread, because someone will respond with something that shows the exact opposite. Given the internet and its resources, it's possible to find a graph showing the evolutionary stages of wings onto pigs.

Bottom line is that we have trouble estimating the weather in weeks or even days to come. How the hell do you think we can accurately estimate long-term effects? In the 70s, people were politicizing "global cooling". A year or so back, there was a rumbling about "global dimming" (I'm sure some folks here will remember mention of it).

Personally, I find myself chuckling at the mass populace and their panic-attacks over this. Should we do something to reduce emissions? God yes. There's haze over LA and Houston because of it. This stuff eventually causes acid rain increases to boot. I'm a fan of nature preservation, but this is just trying to control folks with fear. Global warming is still far from science fact. I'm a fan of the scatter-plot, personally.

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

Gechmir - completely false. Between Ice Core Samples, Tree Rings, Packrat Middens, Spores in Bogs, and any other number of indicators, we have a very accurate and fairly complete portrayl of the Earth's Climate for the last forty or fifty thousand years. Also, long-term and short-term trends are very different. It's simple to see and analyze long-term predictions, but day-to-day (and even year-to-year) stuff is more volatile.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Long-term predictions which take place over the course of thousands of years. Like Gechmir said, we only really have records of temperatures from a hundred years ago, not too long after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. You're saying that despite this very short distance in the breadth of time that we can make accurate predictions based on geological records to conclude that human influence is an overwhelming cause of global warming?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

People who don't understand science shouldn't discuss it. We can observe the makeup of the atmosphere and average global temperatures very accurately for thousands of years back. Since the end of the last Ice Age, temperatures have been very steady until a sharp increase began at nearly EXACTLY the same time as the Industrial Revolution. That's a hell of a coincidence.

FELIPE NO

I suppose this is the part where I'm supposed to let Gechmir make the same points he's made several times in the past in regards to intellectual dishonesty and the lack of real scientific evidence, but I suppose he doesn't really understand science either.

Lordy lordy, what wass I to be thinkin' a talkin bout sciency talks which ah doesn't cain't unnerstanz.

You're right, though, it is one Hell of a coincidence that the Industrial Revolution kicked in just as the planet was coming out of the "Little Ice Age."

(note: eat a dick)

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

Air Concentrations in Ice Cores, Spores in Bogs and stuff in Pack-Rat Midden indicating what kind of plants grew where in the past, Tree rings showing climate patterns....what more do you WANT, an alien weather probe to be uncovered that's been recording for the last million years?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I don't think you're getting it, Arainach. When the Industrial Age kicked in (in fact when it started), the planet was already in "The Little Ice Age," a minor cooling period. (relatively) Well into the mid-1800s the planet began shifting back into a warming trend, coming out of the Little Ice Age. Did the planet begin warming because of the relatively minor emissions comparable to today being put into the atmosphere? It's impossible to say. The warming period following the Little Ice Age coinciding with the Industrial Revolution is exactly that, a coincidence.

There's no amount of real science that can establish emissions as the most influential factor in global warming, only hearsay, guesswork, and "scientific consensus."

Even assuming that the popular opinion is correct and that human emissions really are causing a tremendous amount of warming, the scientific community is still nonetheless lying to everybody. The evidence has never clearly shown that human influence is to blame, it's only ever shown that we're in a warming period.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

If you haven't seen such evidence you haven't looked. The scientific community's been testing the global warming hypothesis for more than 30 years now and the results are quite conclusive. The few vocal deniers are nearly exclusively Americans and with only rare exceptions all have strong ties to big business.

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

I'll just let it be known again that my claims to expertise are along Gechmir's lines, in that I am also a geocience major, although I am not as well read in the literature as he is, but I'd rather take extremely broad viewpoints.

Personally, I've accepted the idea that Earth experiences shifts in climate because that is a natural assumption in the general state of things. The Earth is a dynamic system prone to changes from multiple sources. I'm also open to the idea that humanity can harbor and effect on the Earth. Since there is plain proof of how we can effect things in a small scale, it shouldn't be too hard to envision that we can effect change in a large scale.

However, where I depart from the mainstream in terms of the issue of global warming is the manner in which the issue is carried out. Frankly, the way it is treated in media and governmental policy is highly unscientific and I have seen evidence (can't procure it immediately yet) that some in the science community have deliberately wanted to exaggerate the threat that global warming presents.

I've already said this in the last incarnation of this topic on PP, but I can still say it again since I've been talking with a friend every other day about this subject. The way I see it, our vision is misguided. Global warming is the least of our problems. The reason why it was chosen is because it has the most emotional impact amongst a susceptible audience. And I am no fan of employing pathos in the name of science, which should not have any underlying sentiment at its core. Global warming and environmentalism in general have this underlying sentiment that I find distasteful and smug.

To be honest, I don't think humanity has that great an impact on the climate in terms of temperature change. I'm of the belief that Earth and the very essence of nature is a cruel tyrant and we, the humans as well as other living things, are at its mercy. Those of the sort who think the environment is a gentle and motherly kind are deluded and not worth existing.

The Sun has far more influence of our weather system. The Maunder Minimum were responsible for what we call the "Little Ice Age" and this was well before humanity had the capacity to put so much into the air, so we can see to what degree the Sun is capable of doing.

In my opinion, I would prefer that our problem be stated in a more economic and human-centric manner. Instead of looking at some unsure predictions on global temperature, why not set our eyes on measurable levels of emissions and usage of fossil fuels? I think those are far better reasons to free ourselves from carbon energy than guessing how high the oceans will rise by the end of the century. I would think people would be more convinced if they are presented that the alternative would mean cleaner air and more energy independence. Instead we get slapped with scare-mongering propaganda that proclaims the support of (a very warped) science.

I could go on in various tangents on the sort of things that are tied in with this issue, but I would rather not get carried away with myself. I think I set up a useful idea to dwell on.

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

Originally Posted by Bradylama

we only really have records of temperatures from a hundred years ago

Ice drilling on the poles.
Yes, we do have temperature levels and atmosphere make up (including CO2 levels) for the last 650 thousand years.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I was talking about instrumental data, which is the only accurate method of declaring the temperatures for a certain date.

Other methods can only ever provide guess work based on relative factors. Multiple studies attempting to determine the temperatures for the same date won't corroborate exactly, but over the course of tens to hundreds to thousands of years they become indicative of trends.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

If you really think direct observation is the only way to get accurate data then all of your science teachers ever should be fired.

FELIPE NO

Well this is an interesting debate. But to respond to the original question posted in the thread. As to what you are doing to help reduce your impact on the enviroment. Appart from the mandatory garbage sorting and recycling I have changed from Oil heat over to Natural gas, even though it is still poluting source of heat, it is by far less poluting than Oil. I have also converted from standard incandecent light bulbs to the florencent bulbs these have cut my power bill by around $20.00 / month. I have also been considering Solar & Wind power to help reduce my power bill as well. So its not a lot but it all counts. Even if the human race isn't the cause of global warming, it never hurts to help lower the emitions you create directly or inderectly.

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

Seemed fitting.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Right.
Because our determination of the earth's curvature is dependent upon indirect observation through data which could have a variety of different causes.

Sarcasm aside, these data samples which you delight in referring to are still sparser than the wealth of measuring devices we have planted throughout the world today. When you compare the average temperature for an entire planet using two different sample sets of vastly different size and origin, the reliability of these compared averages is dubious at best.

Also

Originally Posted by Arainach

If you really think direct observation is the only way to get accurate data then all of your science teachers ever should be fired.

Science is rooted in the idea of direct observation as the most reliable and most accurate method of obtaining data. This is, of course, not to say that indirect observation is entirely unreliable. However, errors and complications compound the uncertainty of the conclusions. Thus, direct observation is preferred, and is more accurate and precise.
The conveyance of scientific data secondhand is not to be likened to making observations through extrapolations. This is just a weak analogy.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Now this is the problem in the first place. Arainach and Bradylama are fighting so much over their opinions that the real problems are coming out. Humans may be causing this global threat but when you think and see what scientist and sceptics are all arguing about is who's right and who's wrong. Therein lies the problem.

Your opinion may be important to you, but how important is it to someone in oh lets say, Norway. Someone there probably doesn't care what you think and that your a crack pot. Everyone has differing opinions, like me for example. I don't really know what is the cause of this trend. It could be us or it could be normal, I don't know.

Though there is one thing I do know and it's that STOP BICKERING AND GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

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

You can't stop climate change. The climate is always changing. Thats life here on planet earth, and its life on Mars as well, where, guess what, the planet is warming.

You have slight variations in planet orbits, you have variations in solar output. Run your SUV all night while you sleep if you want to, it will make no difference at all, there is nothing you can do that will offset variations in solar output.

I suggest you learn not to go into panic mode every time the Demwit press does. When they tell you that all the smart people in the world think they should run the government, and all the smart people in the world think they should be in charge of every aspect of your life because, well, they're smarter than you... put your hand on your wallet and move quickly away.

Consider the source. Gore is as dumb as a stick. The press think he is an intellectual giant, which tells you they are even dumber than he is. When they tell you that all the scientific experts agree that the government should run the economy, that should tell you what the real agenda is. Notice that the scientists who agree with them are not climatologists.

The people panicing about climate change are not the climatologists. The climatologists will tell you the same thing I'm telling you. The climate varies over time. Deal with it. Get a bigger air conditioner.

In ancient america, somehow they got the idea that you had to slay someone on the altar to make sure the sun would come up in the morning. They would slay people constantly, and sure enough, the sun always came up in the morning. The people didn't dare rebel because, gee, who knew what might happen if the sun didn't come up.

I count Gore in that camp. The world will end very soon if you don't put him in charge of everything. You can't blame a guy for trying it. You can blame the people dumb enough to fall for it.

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

Like what? You think we're accomplishing something here? I'm already inclined to believe that human impact on global warming is negligible. On the other hand, I limit the amount of power I use because one of my primary concerns is energy sustainability, not some shit ugly frogs in the rainforest or the Dutch.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Windsong

You can't stop climate change. The climate is always changing. Thats life here on planet earth, and its life on Mars as well, where, guess what, the planet is warming.

Kind of a bad example to throw in there, if you ask me. If you're trying to calm people down and reassure them that everything will be okay, comparing Earth to Mars is kind of a no-go.

Also, I don't particularly believe the hype myself, but I don't have much evidence to back that up. It's just sort of one of those impulse feelings you don't have much reason for. I guess that was pretty much trash, eh?

Either way, I'd say just relax at this point. We're not Mars quite yet.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Arainach

The scientific community's been testing the global warming hypothesis for more than 30 years now and the results are quite conclusive.

You mean ever since Global Cooling ceased?

I actually read a pretty lol study a while back about how this one town always seemed to have higher temperature readings than all the surrounding areas. It was causing a bit of problems for modeling and stuff, so the censor itself was investigated. Turns out it was located right next to a bus depot, so it had hot exhaust being blown into it all day every day (as you can imagine, this was also causing fun times with their CO2 sensors).

Edit: Also, are people allowed to believe in climate change without thinking it's caused by humans, or are those two always grouped together by people like abiogenesis and evolution?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Also, are people allowed to believe in climate change without thinking it's caused by humans, or are those two always grouped together by people like abiogenesis and evolution?

Without a doubt. There were some theories about a "solar max". A few years ago, it was believed that the sun was more unstable than usual, causing it to spew more surface flares, therefore heating the earth more. However, I can hardly believe that a few extra flare activities on the sun could cause such drastic changes on the Earth.

It was also thought that the methane emissions from cows was a major contributor to global warming, but that may be pushing it a bit. I'm sure the greenhouse gases from vehicles are far more prominent that cow flatulance.

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

Originally Posted by Fiddlegoof

I'm sure the greenhouse gases from vehicles are far more prominent...

Vehicles are not the number 1 offender. That is held by manufacturing plants. Thats why it is more damaging to throw out an old fridge for an energy efficient one. The pollution not caused by the saving of energy is greatly outweighed by the pollution caused to make a new fridge. In fact you have to keep a refrigerator for at least 10 years for it to be environmentally more efficient than you previous one.

Jam it back in, in the dark.