[kitkat]

Global warming is a natural cycle of this planet. The real problem is how can we expect to survive in the future with an expanding population of humans. We cannot solve any other problem without dealing with this one first.

[ParanoiA]

Uh...isn't global warming solving that problem?

Unless I'm mistaken, global warming isn't threatening the existence of human kind, but rather the existence of some kinds of humans.

[Mr Skeptic]

ParanoiA, on 27 July 2010 - 06:15 PM, said:

Unless I'm mistaken, global warming isn't threatening the existence of human kind, but rather the existence of some kinds of humans.

Some of the more doomsayer folks are suggesting that global warming could exterminate humans or collapse civilization. Personally I think that's ridiculous.

Anyhow, global warming is but one symptom. We humans are greedy and messy and don't care much for future consequences, especially uncertain consequences. We're doing our fair share of habitat destruction and pollution as well, and using up resources as fast as we can exploit them. Still, I think we survive any mess we're likely to make. Other species won't be so lucky, what with the ongoing mass extinction that we are causing.

[CharonY]

I would like have a discussion point proposed here. Otherwise it is just a rant, and we do not do rants here.

[ewmon]

kitkat, on 27 July 2010 - 05:40 PM, said:

how can we expect to survive in the future with an expanding population of humans.

Mr Skeptic, on 27 July 2010 - 06:56 PM, said:

global warming is but one symptom.

Such situations almost always involve various dimensions/variables. Here we have global warming, natural greenhouse gases, man-made greenhouse gases, a growing world population, countries that are developing or have yet to develop, etc. An adjustment to one or more variables could provide relief, but who wants to reduce emissions, have fewer kids than desired, halt/reverse development, etc? The cures involve some form of belt-tightening, and no one wants to be the only volunteer to do it. A global "keeping up with the Joneses" or "playing chicken".

For the most part, any relief must involve the entire world's cooperation, and on this, the various nations cannot agree, and individuals within a given nation cannot agree either.

So, how will we survive? By coming together and agreeing.

[swansont]

kitkat, on 27 July 2010 - 05:40 PM, said:

Global warming is a natural cycle of this planet. The real problem is how can we expect to survive in the future with an expanding population of humans. We cannot solve any other problem without dealing with this one first.

"Global warming is a natural cycle" is a flawed argument. Even it is natural, this does not somehow explain away the issue or shield it from scientific inquiry. We should still be able to investigate the nature and source of the energy imbalance that causes temperatures to increase (or decrease). If you want to make that argument, then have a pile of scientific papers which have done that, and identified the energy source(s). The problem is that scientists have done these studies, and natural variations do not account for the warming.

[kitkat]

swansont, on 31 July 2010 - 01:26 PM, said:

"Global warming is a natural cycle" is a flawed argument. Even it is natural, this does not somehow explain away the issue or shield it from scientific inquiry. We should still be able to investigate the nature and source of the energy imbalance that causes temperatures to increase (or decrease). If you want to make that argument, then have a pile of scientific papers which have done that, and identified the energy source(s). The problem is that scientists have done these studies, and natural variations do not account for the warming.

I am sorry but I didn't explain this correctly. Global warming in the past and in the present is caused from the biodiversity of life and its interactions with each other and the environment. It is natural in that no other species before us could be held responsible for its cause. Humans are aware of their interactions with the environment and are intelligent (hopefully) enough to take action before it is too late to fix it.

The problem is by the time every nation can agree to take responsibility and many measures simultaneously need to be in place globally including reducing population expansion at least until we can solve these problems it might be too late.

[iNow]

I thought this was a pretty great quote in context of the battle between the state of California and oil companies in Texas challenging their environmental regulations.


http://www.nytimes.c...06friedman.html

Quote

Quote

The real joke is thinking that if California suspends its climate laws that Mother Nature will also take a timeout. “We can wait to solve this problem as long as we want,” says Nate Lewis, an energy chemist at the California Institute of Technology: “But Nature is balancing its books every day. It was a record 113 degrees in Los Angeles the other day. There are laws of politics and laws of physics. Only the latter can’t be repealed.”

[lemur]

kitkat, on 31 July 2010 - 09:29 PM, said:

The problem is by the time every nation can agree to take responsibility and many measures simultaneously need to be in place globally including reducing population expansion at least until we can solve these problems it might be too late.

The problem with trying to control population on a per -nation or other per-group basis is that not everyone wants to submit to authoritarian control of their reproductive choices. The other problem is that when people do identify with a nation or other ethnic group, they often feel concern that their group will shrink while others grow. This causes people to reproduce in the interest of bolstering their group/national population vis-a-vis that of others. Then, they preach reproductive control to reduce population to try to get others to curtail their growth to maintain current demographic proportions. However, this benefits larger populations more than smaller ones. Anyway, it's all nonsense because it shouldn't matter whose ethnic group is bigger or smaller, but of course tell that to people who are getting systematically excluded from resources and wealth because they have the 'wrong' ethnic identity.

This post has been edited by lemur: 7 October 2010 - 08:15 PM

[Maximus Semprus Veridius]

Global warming (or more accurately called Climate Change) IS most certainly a man-induced problem. Look at the evidence. Also CC (climate change) is effecting more than just people, it could lead to far more indirect damage that could wipe out the massive populations of humans all over the globe. However that IS very unlikely (although not out of the equation), mainly due to population growth. Man's carrying capacity is very soon going to be exceeded (in fact it probably already has!) by a large enough margin to cause even the richest of countries to be drastically affected.

The indirect consequences are what people should be worried about though. CC leads to species destruction, and eventually food chain destruction. This COULD cause many many very consequencial problems (caused primarily by man). Although i've got to say all this is very circumstancial and I think man-kind, although stupid at times, does also have great and ingenious minds which can salvage the planet.

[pippo]

Maximus Semprus Veridius, on 8 October 2010 - 04:52 PM, said:

Global warming (or more accurately called Climate Change) IS most certainly a man-induced problem. Look at the evidence. Also CC (climate change) is effecting more than just people, it could lead to far more indirect damage that could wipe out the massive populations of humans all over the globe. However that IS very unlikely (although not out of the equation), mainly due to population growth. Man's carrying capacity is very soon going to be exceeded (in fact it probably already has!) by a large enough margin to cause even the richest of countries to be drastically affected.

The indirect consequences are what people should be worried about though. CC leads to species destruction, and eventually food chain destruction. This COULD cause many many very consequencial problems (caused primarily by man). Although i've got to say all this is very circumstancial and I think man-kind, although stupid at times, does also have great and ingenious minds which can salvage the planet.

Well, maybe, Max. Reminds me of Gore who won the peace prize. Probably the biggest champ of the GW (global warming) debate. One of his original arguments was that Kilamanjaro was getting less and less snow/precip (popularized in his movie for tha mass audience). But now, hes saying that this past winter's unusually high snowfall anmount does NOT mean GW is not real. Well, which is it? It was convenient to argue the Kilamanjaro stats but now its not convenient when snow's falling all over the US.

This is just one example of the hypocrisy. There are more. There still is no scientific evidence that proves GW (and calling it climate change- just arbitrary). For that, you need a control, as any scientist understands in doing experiments. The only "control" is another earth that would have been subjected to a climate without man;s influence. . There is no other earth, therefore, no control, therefore, no evidence based on the scientific method.

[SMF]

Pippo. Gore's information was vetted by climate scientists and he pretty much got it right. Why don't you find out what the science actually says before criticizing? SM

This post has been edited by SMF: 24 March 2011 - 12:16 AM

[pippo]

SMF, on 23 March 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

Pippo. Gore's information was vetted by climate scientists and he pretty much got it right. Why don't you find out what the science actually says before criticizing? SM

So, SM, this "right science" you refer to, does then the heavy snow indicate GW or not? My point was that Gore was /is still an influence, therefore, if its good for the GW argument (Kilamanjaro), then you cant use it against GW when the heavy/unusual snowfalls occur. Even though this may be irrelevant (more snow/less snow), the public gobbles it up, get it? Do YOU know the "right science" regarding Kilamanjaro's decline of precipitation? I have read and studied some scientific opinions on this.

You are assuming I am not an informed scientist, based on your accusation. You should choose your words more carefully before making accusations, SM, and not do such while hiding in the halls of anonimity in cyberspace. I dont believe (dont recall) I have done this to you.

This post has been edited by pippo: 28 March 2011 - 11:38 PM

[SMF]

Pippo, my estimation of your knowledge is based on the fact that you are repeating a denialist meme that has no basis in science. I recommend that you spend some time with the IPCC report, especially Working Group 1. This is an extensive literature review and, typical of this style of science writing, gives summaries and conclusions based on many studies and provides the references to the studies reviewed. This is unlike many lousy internet pop science sites that don't provide references so you can check the veracity of the review.

Gore's use of the Kilimanjaro glacier for his talk was a dramatic example of what science says is happening world wide to mountain galciers. Not all, but without a doubt, most. This fact is consistent with global warming. As for the other part, when the ocean warms this causes increased evaporation and the water has to go somewhere. Where it goes is greater precipitation in the form of rain and snow.

As I said, Gore ran his book and presentation by practicing climate scientists before he put it out, and the final version has been critiqued by practicing climate scientists. The conclusion is that it is pretty good, and the portions that are not exact are the result of the simplifications and compromises a teacher has to make to accommodate the scientific literacy of the audience one has. As a science teacher I am very familiar with this. SM

[jorge1907]

SMF - you infer that Gores book was a scientific text. It was and is not nd I'd like to see the proof that his work was vetted among climate scientists beyond a few who shared his immediate level of concern or those of Univ of East Anglia. i will note that one of the his fellow Nobel recipients noted that he did not agree with Gore's dire predictions, noting that he (the scientist) had often been wrong in predicting conditions that far in the future and thought it was unwise for Gore to do so.

Global warming/climate change - to the extent that it is and will continue to occur leave us as little more than observers. There has not been a reasonable stoichiometrically-relevant solution proposed short of, as Lee Thomas of EPA said once of remedying LA pollution in compliance with the 1st Clean Air Act provisions, "tearing the social fabric." In a global warming remedial sense, Prius', green buildings, new light bulbs, wind mills, etc, etc are little more than environmental fetishes.

And please don't think me unimpressed that you are a science teacher!! wow!

This post has been edited by jorge1907: 6 April 2011 - 10:46 PM

[SMF]

Jorge1907, I did not say or imply that Gore’s presentation was a scientific text. It is a presentation for the general public. Taking my caution about the problems of presenting complicated science at a non-expert level, the presentation is pretty much in agreement with the IPCC report which is the only scientific review of all current climate change/global warming research and it is performed by a large group of practicing (an important distinction) climate scientists. The only solution that is suggested by climate scientists is to reduce carbon emissions, how this is done is a political decision. Gore has taken a policy stand on these issues, but this is separate from the scientific evidence. If you wish to discuss the contentious policies being discussed for the solution to this problem, I suggest you bring it up in the climate change section of this forum for a rousing argument. I would like to discuss the importance of the various technological suggestions for making a sustainable human society that you suggest are fetishes. For example, I have a lot of personal real world experience with solar PV electricity.

If you wish to discuss the actual science presented by Gore you should stick to specific scientific claims because I, for one, can’t deal with “tearing the social fabric” because I think there is going to be a lot of ripping and tearing no matter what we all decide to do. What we should do is to understand what the actual science says and then decide on a course of action, not the reverse. SM

[JorgeLobo]

i love the pedantry of a science teacher - tell us and give mass balance - how "solar PV electricity" and your other fetishes will stop or even reverse global warming.. Let's not pretend that Gore is a scientist bringing science to the unwashed, his was a ;policy document.

Sorry the concept was too complicated for you, for one. Allow me to explain - Thomas meant that means to establish compliance may exist but were so draconian that they would disrupt society. Understand?

[SMF]

I thought this was a science forum. I am surrounded by silly Jorges. WTF? SM

[Marat]

I don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but just looking at the debate from the outside, it seems as though one of the major problems with any inferences regarding the cause and significant of current climate changes is that global warming on a much larger scale occurred in the past with absolutely no contribution from greenhouse gas production. I refer here to the fact that Greenland ca. 1000 was warm enough to support a large Viking farming population, as archeaological evidence shows. So if the world was clearly warmer then than now, what made it so warm in the early Middle Ages? Methane from cow burps? There were certainly many fewer cows then than now, just as there was no industrialization to generate greenhouse gases.

It seems to me that if there can be such large global temperature changes in the past independent of any contribution from industrial processes, then how do we know how significant those processes are amidst the much larger variations produced by non-industrial, spontaneous changes in global temperatures?

The evidence I have seen establishes that the world warms and cools on 30-year cycles, at least insofar as we can trace temperature records from the 1880s until today. So from 1880 to 1910 the world was cooling; then warming from 1910 to 1940, then cooling again from 1940 to 1970, and finally warming once more from 1970 to 2000, which is what sparked the current concerns with global warming. In the 1960s, however, the world's worry was that another Ice Age was due soon and there were evidences of global cooling.

I'm also concerned that the University of Wisconsin environmental sciences professor who first coined the term 'global warming' doesn't believe it is a serious issue, and that an environmental sciences professor at M.I.T. doesn't believe it is a problem either. If 80% of greenhouse gas emissions cling to the Earth's surface and remain in the bottom of the atmosphere, they can't be having that much of an impact on atmospheric greenhouse effects.

Given that reconstructing the largely carbon-based industrial and economic world we now have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be massively expensive and will no doubt impose serious economic hardships on vulnerable people already victimized for other reasons by the Neo-Liberal agenda, shouldn't we be absolutely certain that this huge self-inflicted economic wound to correct global warming influences is truly necessary before we act? I am particularly worried in this regard when I hear the British Green Party economist merrily chirping that this gigantic and wilful destruction of the world's economic base won't really matter because we can get used to valuing things other than traditional economic values, such as just rejoicing in clean air and fresh streams, rather than having enough technological capacity ever to cure cancer or enough productive power to provide adequate housing for the poor.

[Edtharan]

Marat, on 7 April 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

I don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but just looking at the debate from the outside, it seems as though one of the major problems with any inferences regarding the cause and significant of current climate changes is that global warming on a much larger scale occurred in the past with absolutely no contribution from greenhouse gas production. I refer here to the fact that Greenland ca. 1000 was warm enough to support a large Viking farming population, as archeaological evidence shows. So if the world was clearly warmer then than now, what made it so warm in the early Middle Ages? Methane from cow burps? There were certainly many fewer cows then than now, just as there was no industrialization to generate greenhouse gases.

Yes, there are natural cycles and variations, both long term and short term, of the Earth's climate. However, certain cycles are fairly regular, such as the interglacial/glacial cycles. According to these cycles, we should be entering into a glacial period at the moment. The Earth should be cooling (this is due to solar output, Earth's tilt and various other factors).

But we are not. Why? The natural cycles that climate change deniers use actually say we should be cooling, not warming. What is different now than in the last cycle (or the many before that?).

As for cause and effect, we know that climate change is occuring because of CO² and other green house gasses because of the conservation of energy.

Simply put: If you have a constant source of energy falling onto the Earth (and for the last 150 years we can consider it to be fairly constant), and the only way the Earth can loose this energy is by radiating it out into space (as we are in a vacuum), then the Earth will reach an equilibrium where the amount or energy radiated away will match the amount coming in.

Using waht is called Black Body theory, we can calulate the average temperature the Earth should have if there are no other effects involved. This is around -16^oc. However, the average temperature of the Earth is around +16^oc. SO we know that something is changing the simple effect.

Using conservation of energy, we know that if you slow down the rate that an object looses energy, then the amount of energy in that object has to go up. The restriction acts to store the energy in the object.

Greenhouse gasses restrict the amount of energy that the Earth can radiate because the Earth's surface radiates in the infra-red wavelength and the greenhouse gasses absorb and then re-radiate infra-red light. However, when it does this it does so in a random direction, and that means around 50% of the radiation that is absorbed (just a bit less actually, but close enough that for this discussion we can assume it is 50%) is re-radiated back down towards the Earth.

With the current levels of greenhouse gasses, this is enough to warm the earth by around 32^oc (to take it form -16 to +16).

However, if we increase the concentration of greenhouse gasses, then more of the radiation is blocked which leads to more infra-red light re-radiated back to the Earth, warming it up. This restriction means that a new equilibrium is reached, but one where more energy (and hence warming) is stored in the Earth's climate.

This is what global warming is. It is an application of conservation of energy.

What is uncertain is what the consequences of increasing the amount of energy in the climate systems of Earth will do. We do know two things that will occurs though, increasing the energy of something will either increase its temperature, or increase its velocity (ie make it more "energetic"). So increasing the energy in the atmosphere will either increase its velocities (more powerful storms) or increase its temperature (hotter weather melting icecaps, etc), or both.

Marat, on 7 April 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

It seems to me that if there can be such large global temperature changes in the past independent of any contribution from industrial processes, then how do we know how significant those processes are amidst the much larger variations produced by non-industrial, spontaneous changes in global temperatures?

Humans are more than capable of changing various aspects of the Earth. For example, we have actually caused the Earth to speed up its rotation simply by the number ans size of the dams we have built (and their locations). The locations of these dams have been in temperate latitudes, and the extra water stored there has come from elsewhere on the planet. This has caused a net shift in water away from the equator, and towards the poles. due to conservation of angular momentum, this has cause the Earth to speed up its spin. Although this is a very small amount, it is still detectable with accurate timing systems.

Now, this is not just the thin smear on the surface that is the atmosphere and oceans, but the whole planet that has speeded up. We most certainly do have the power to change the Earth, and have done so already. As for the climate, with the recent Icelandic volcano, the amount of CO² put out by the volcano was compared to the amount of CO² that would have been put out by the planes that were grounded because of the volcano. The amount CO² put out by the volcano was less than would have been put out by the planes. So in effect, the volcano was carbon negative (and volcanoes are generally though of as massive CO² contributors).

Not only that, the planes that were grounded were only a fraction of the planes that flew at that time, and planes are flying 24/7/356, where as the volcano lasted only a few weeks. This also doesn't take into account the CO² put out by cars and other transport which is greater than that of planes.

So, the amount of CO² put out by humans is certainly more than eneough to have a significant effect.

Marat, on 7 April 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

The evidence I have seen establishes that the world warms and cools on 30-year cycles, at least insofar as we can trace temperature records from the 1880s until today. So from 1880 to 1910 the world was cooling; then warming from 1910 to 1940, then cooling again from 1940 to 1970, and finally warming once more from 1970 to 2000, which is what sparked the current concerns with global warming. In the 1960s, however, the world's worry was that another Ice Age was due soon and there were evidences of global cooling.

The last ice age (specifically the end of our interglacial period and the start of the next glacial period) should have started around 7,000 years ago. That's if the cycles continued as they should have (according to palaeoecological records).

Now, although there is a regular warming/cooling cycle that does occur, what has also been occurring is that each cycle is a little warmer than the one before. Think of it like this: When winter is turning into spring, you still get regular warming and cooling as day turns into night, but you know the weather is warming up and spring is coming because as this goes on the days and nights, even though there is a warming and cooling cycle going on, get warmer.

This is the same as what is occurring with the Earth's climate. There are many such cycles of warming and cooling, but the evidence shows that each one is getting a little bit warmer than the ones before it.

Although there is still variation where one can become slightly cooler, the over all long term trend is that they are getting warmer. This is a bit like how one week might have a cold snap, but the over all trend is still to warming as spring and summer approaches.

Not only that, if you take into consideration that we should be cooling, then what we are experiencing is autumn (fall) should be turning into winter and getting a longer term cooling trend, but it is instead getting warmer and seems to be turning into summer again.

If you had a year where autumn should have been turning into winter, but instead started getting hotter and hotter, you would start to worry. However, the position of the climate change deniers is like someone coming along to you and saying that we know in the past summer has been hotter than it is now, so we should be worried if it is getting hotter, as that occurs when summer comes along. But, the thing is it is not summer that should be arriving at this time, something must be wrong.

And this is the position of climate change supporters. That we should not be going into summer now, that the warming is not supposed to be happening. They are looking for the reason, and the one they found that agrees with all the evidence (ie conservation of energy, etc) is that the greenhouse gasses that Humans have put into the atmosphere is causing the warming (because all the other cycles say it should be cooling and this is the only force strong enough to cause the warming we are seeing).

Marat, on 7 April 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

I'm also concerned that the University of Wisconsin environmental sciences professor who first coined the term 'global warming' doesn't believe it is a serious issue, and that an environmental sciences professor at M.I.T. doesn't believe it is a problem either. If 80% of greenhouse gas emissions cling to the Earth's surface and remain in the bottom of the atmosphere, they can't be having that much of an impact on atmospheric greenhouse effects.

The term "Global Warming" was actually used in an attempt to ridicule climate change. So I'm not surprised that the person who coined the term doesn't take it seriously.

As it is the surface of the Earth that emits the infra-red radiation, then anything above that that can intercept it and re-radiate it back is enough to cause the warming effect. So even if 80% is in the lower atmosphere it is still going to cause an effect.

Marat, on 7 April 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

Given that reconstructing the largely carbon-based industrial and economic world we now have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be massively expensive and will no doubt impose serious economic hardships on vulnerable people already victimized for other reasons by the Neo-Liberal agenda, shouldn't we be absolutely certain that this huge self-inflicted economic wound to correct global warming influences is truly necessary before we act? I am particularly worried in this regard when I hear the British Green Party economist merrily chirping that this gigantic and wilful destruction of the world's economic base won't really matter because we can get used to valuing things other than traditional economic values, such as just rejoicing in clean air and fresh streams, rather than having enough technological capacity ever to cure cancer or enough productive power to provide adequate housing for the poor.

It was the construction of that carbon based industry that gave us the economy. So constructing a non-carbon industry can give us a better economy.

What it will mean, though, is the industries that don't change to the new economy and remain dependent on the old one will fail. Yes, this means that there will be businesses that will no longer exist (or not be as profitable).

As an example: Horse breeders faced a similar "crisis" when the car was invented. As people started using cars to get around, they needed less and less horses. Thus, for the Horse stables, this was an economic crisis that could cause the collapse of their economy.

So, yes. Petrol companies and fossil fuelled power stations are going to suffer. But, if these industries change their strategy to include the new markets and resources, then they will be able to continue.

The whole "economic problem" is caused by a sunk cost fallacy. History proves that this isn't the case. With the loss of horse stables due to the car, the loss of woodcut engravers with the invention of the printing press, and so on throughout history. Each time the people dependent on old was of doing things and who can't (or won't) change predict that the introduction of the new way will cause the collapse of the economy, and each time the economy has boomed after the change as the change created new markets and new industry.

Even if there was no climate change, developing the renewable sources of energy and low carbon technologies would be worth doing because it will create new stimulus for the economies of the world.