Yet another article on global warming

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by Smocca

Oh wait I just had an epiphany. Every single major scientific organization in the world, the majority of politicians (left and right) and most educated people in general are ALL part of a vast conspiracy to milk a few bucks from tax payers (even though the majority of these people won't see any of that money). Its all so clear now. I totally understand your side of the argument. Wow what a fool I have been.

Hahah you couldn't be more correct.

[Torrid]

Originally Posted by YourMom

More CO2 and as a result of that warmth means more trees and algae. Nature will protect us from the global warming. I find the mere thought that mankind somehow can control nature worldwide rather arrogant. Exception being nuking the world into oblivion.

Yes, brilliant logic there. Mankind is too insignificant to have any impact on nature! Except of course, for the fact that we've had the ability to kill off every life form larger than an insect for over half a century now.

Oh, but don't forget:

Half the world's rain forests have been cut down
The largest mass extinction in 65 million years is underway
The ozone hole
Even ancient man drove some species to extinction

Originally Posted by Chrisb3

Global Warming is bullshit purely because everyone is going crazy, absolutly nuts over reducing CO2. It is all they ever talk about. "Omg carbon levels, lets trade it lol!".

Methane is four times more warming than Carbon Dioxide. Why arn't we reducing Methane immisions instead? Isn't reducing the amount of cows (and their methane rich farts) much easier and less painful than reducing the amount of power plants we have?

Because the CO2's warming will unlock massive methane deposits under the permafrost and the oceans. Methane hasn't been ignored. I read articles all the time that tell me to eat less meat. And not for the reasons PETA wants me to.

Originally Posted by Chrisb3

It is just bullshit, there is no real soultion because there is no real problem. Lets just do what the Romans and Medieval people did when this happened last time: nothing.

The difference is that we didn't cause the previous warming periods. The previous periods were part of nature's cycle. This period isn't (or isn't entirely anyway) so expecting nature to simply solve the problem is foolish.

Global warming will snowball if left unaddressed. And not just because of the methane. Less polar ice means less sunlight reflected back into space, which means more warming which means less polar ice. It also means more ocean, which absorbs yet more sunlight.

Actually, there was a period of time about 56 million years ago when a lot of greenhouse gas was put into the atmosphere (either by volcanism, methane release, or both) and there was zero polar ice. Nature does have a way to put this carbon back into the ground. What happens is the deep oceans become anoxic, kills off all the deep sea life, and none of the dead sea life falling to the bottom gets removed. The dead sea life that collects on the ocean floor stores carbon. Over time it gets buried under rock and subjected to high pressures and temperatures and becomes oil.

[Aamina]

Originally Posted by Torrid

Actually, there was a period of time about 56 million years ago when a lot of greenhouse gas was put into the atmosphere (either by volcanism, methane release, or both) and there was zero polar ice. Nature does have a way to put this carbon back into the ground. What happens is the deep oceans become anoxic, kills off all the deep sea life, and none of the dead sea life falling to the bottom gets removed. The dead sea life that collects on the ocean floor stores carbon. Over time it gets buried under rock and subjected to high pressures and temperatures and becomes oil.

So what you're saying is, the more oil I use the more we'll get...seems like the problem will fix itself then!

[Kolle]

i don't see why this has to be argued. even if man isn't speeding up global warming, why not get away from fossil fuels anyways. we should still work hard and try to make it easier for everyone to get away from it.

seems like the only people who would disagree with that are the ones getting rich

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Aamina

So what you're saying is, the more oil I use the more we'll get...seems like the problem will fix itself then!

I really hope you're being facetious here. If not, you should know that the process of forming oil from carbon deposits takes billions of years, and new oil will not be produced by the planet within the lifespan of the human race.

[Burf]

Aamina was joking, Millie. I almost made the same one (but my browser locked up).


What Kolle wrote is what I keep telling the Global Warming alarmists I know; and I've said it before. Whether you think we're causing global warming or not shouldn't be your argument. There are too many people who will disagree and dismiss you. Your arguments should be: 1) Eventually, oil is going to run out. 2) Why not make things cleaner?

Being from LA (I'm talking to you, Millie), I know you've seen the smog. Anyone who has been in a place like that knows that it sucks. What's so wrong with wanting to clean up the earth?

[Millie]

I agree with the global warming "alarmists" (or, as I call them, "scientists" :P), but nevertheless, I tend to agree with you here. I think the environmental movement has made a few missteps over the years by choosing to focus on just one pet cause at a time. First it was the ozone layer, then it was the rainforests, then it was the whales, and now it's global warming.

No matter how sound your science, you're always going to get complacent people and/or head-in-the-sand deniers not buying into it if you focus on just one issue at a time. Make the ozone layer the issue, and there will be skeptics racing out to debate just that issue. Make global warming the issue, and the same thing happens.

Instead, we should be focusing on the total package -- the forest, rather than the threes (to use a cheesy, environmentally themed metaphor). It's too easy for skeptics to pick endlessly at the global warming science, but it's damned near impossible for them to deny that we're fucking up the planet overall. The planet is dirty and getting dirtier; animals are dying in record numbers; forests are being cleared; the ocean is filthy and has numerous "dead zones" popping up all over the world; major cities are bathed in smog, with asthma and allergy rates skyrocketing as a consequence; there are entire regions of the Pacific ocean, miles long, filled with rotating vortexes of plastic bottles; oil is eventually going to run out; etc.

Global warming is certainly an important issue on the overall environmental agenda, but it shouldn't be the sole issue. It's too easy to ignore one issue; it's much more difficult to avoid the hundreds of issues humanity has caused. We should remind people that, whether they want to "believe" in global warming or not, they will benefit tremendously from a cleaner and safer environment.

[Smocca]

I don't know if I agree with that. I think one of the big reasons there is so many people who deny global warming is because they have been fed this environmental crap forever. Save the whales. Save the rainforest. Smog is bad. etc. Global warming is a different threat than these in my mind because its basically going to cost us a ton of money in the future. Its the fiscally responsible thing for us to respond to climate change now instead of later. Its harder to make that argument about the whales, or the ozone layer or the rainforest (not that the argument can't be made in those cases).

I mean with global warming, it is easy to demonstrate that it is in our nations best interest to respond now. Not because we love mother earth but because we are selfish and not responding is going to cost us a lot later on.

[Torrid]

Originally Posted by Smocca

Its harder to make that argument about the whales, or the ozone layer

I'm not sure I agree, regarding the ozone layer. I would think the consequences of ignoring ozone depletion would be even more dire than global warming, considering that the ozone layer protects us from UV rays which literally destroy DNA. Without an ozone layer, bacteria would rule the world. Underground bacteria.

The fix to the ozone problem was easy though: stop using CFCs. The reason why you don't hear much about the ozone hole anymore is because most nations banned the use of CFCs, and the hole is expected to return to pre-1980 levels in 7 decades. I.e. the environmental laws worked.

[Smocca]

Okay I'll admit the ozone was a bad example. My general point was just that I think the very conservative type of people who tend to be global warming deniers are desensitized to environmental issues. Tying climate change to them is a bad move IMO because its easier for them to just dismiss it as a hippy/treehugger issue. Thats just a general feeling I get when talking to friends and family of mine to disregard global warming as bullshit.

[Burf]

Originally Posted by Smocca

My general point was just that I think the very conservative type of people who tend to be global warming deniers are desensitized to environmental issues.

I think that's probably a good way to put it.

[Angerz]

Environmentalists just need a better marketing machine. Enough of this doom and gloom nonsense. Until my Chicago is ocean front property, the icecaps haven't melted enough.

They need to find a way to tell me how going green will save me money, make my life better. Complacency keeps people from caring about how they can save the world. Fuck the world. Save me.

[Millie]

But isn't that placing an unfair burden upon the environmentalists? I mean, it's pretty much impossible to "market" environmentalism to the sort of people who will never care about the subject and/or actively despise the subject. Sadly, it'll take a genuine environmental disaster to get those sorts of people off their butts and into action -- and by then it'll be too late.

[Hachima]

Jupiter: Turbulent Storms May Be Sign Of Global Climate Change

I guess this proves there is intelligent life on Jupiter burning up fossil fuels? Because the only way global warming can happen is by burning up fossil fuels =/

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Hachima

Jupiter: Turbulent Storms May Be Sign Of Global Climate Change

I guess this proves there is intelligent life on Jupiter burning up fossil fuels? Because the only way global warming can happen is by burning up fossil fuels =/

a) What happens on Jupiter has nothing to do with what happens on Earth, and vice versa. Hell, they're not even remotely similar as planets go. Jupiter doesn't even have an atmosphere. The comparison is utterly ludicrous.

b) Nobody has ever said that the burning of fossil fuels is the only way to cause global warming, be it on Earth or anywhere else. On Earth, for instance, it's being caused by any number of man-made factors: fossil fuels, deforestation, widespread cattle ranching, heavy industry, etc.

c) A lot of planets go through cooling and warming cycles, as does Earth. The arguments being made by scientists today are that Earth's current warming trend is 1) above and beyond what we'd expect from a natural cycle, and 2) the result of human activity. We have an abundance of sound science supporting both of these assertions, and basically nothing of any credibility arguing the contrary. This doesn't mean that man-made global warming is a 100% certainty (because nothing ever is), but it means that we are reasonably sure man-made global warming is happening.