Climate Change - The Money Question

[Serotonin]

So we all know the globe is getting hotter (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi?variable=global_t&region=global&season=0112). This much isn't in doubt.

However, Al Gore and co. can show me all the correlations they like between human activity and this warming, but they don't realise that it is impossible to prove causation. We would need a "Control Earth" for that, one that is just like ours, but no humans.

*momentary daydream*

I might be wrong though. Any thoughts on proving causation in terms of climate change?

[Krill]

This is pretty much the bone I have to pick with it.

I think it's hard to know/prove humans are the cause, and I'm not even sure it's that reasonable (depending on the reasearch you look at). I've been through the specifics in another thread so I won't bother people with it again.

[imfrellinggay]

I might be wrong though. Any thoughts on proving causation in terms of climate change?

Terraform Mars, brainwash people into thinking that its Earth during the Industrial Revolution, have them live for another hundred years and see if the same thing happens.

Of course, part of this plan comes from Firefly.

Miranda

[CEOofRawness]

So we all know the globe is getting hotter (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi?variable=global_t&region=global&season=0112). This much isn't in doubt.

However, Al Gore and co. can show me all the correlations they like between human activity and this warming, but they don't realise that it is impossible to prove causation. We would need a "Control Earth" for that, one that is just like ours, but no humans.

*momentary daydream*

I might be wrong though. Any thoughts on proving causation in terms of climate change?

I heard the excess heat caused by friction when jerking off can, collectively, raise the planet's temperature. A strong correlation can be seen when a sharp increase in the Earth's temperature parallels the popularity of the internet.

[wildcat]

This is pretty much the bone I have to pick with it.

I think it's hard to know/prove humans are the cause, and I'm not even sure it's that reasonable (depending on the reasearch you look at). I've been through the specifics in another thread so I won't bother people with it again.
Hard to know humans are the cause? You sound like the grand maestro. Ever been very high up in the mountain? What do you perceive there? Not much anything. And why?

Drive your car. Do not study.
Write posts.

[NoahFence]

Hard to know humans are the cause? You sound like the grand maestro. Ever been very high up in the mountain? What do you perceive there? Not much anything. And why?

Drive your car. Do not study.
Write posts.

This is proof that we haven't built on that mountain, not proof that our building elsewhere has an impact on global warming. If you're going to high-horse someone, at least make some sense?

I'm actually torn on this topic. I think we -are- having an impact, but I strongly doubt that we are the -cause-.

[cafe]

Yeah, that's the thing. I'm sure we are impacting things, but I'm not convinced that we are the major cause. There have been dramatic changes in climate before that were not cause by cars, etc.

[SeierTapt]

Yeah, that's the thing. I'm sure we are impacting things, but I'm not convinced that we are the major cause. There have been dramatic changes in climate before that were not cause by cars, etc.

Agreed, though I doubt our impact is as pervasive and damaging as Al Gore would like us to believe.

[Ymir]

We don't know if the globe is getting hotter. What timescale do we use? We have satelite measurement covering a few years. Older local ground measurment are very inaccurate (urbanisation, changing local weather patterns, inaccurate instrumentation,etc..) , they don't cover the whole globe either.

I agree that proving causation between human co2 emmissions and global warming is even more difficult for many different reasons.

[Heleuiski]

True but not this much this fast.. ever.

I can really see the divide between European thinking and American thinking here. Americans are more likely to think that nothing at all is happening and it's all some underhanded ploy by a bunch of tree huggers to get rid of cars and possibly capitalism. Hah.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/warmer.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/global_temp_change_gra300.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/rising.gif

]http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/arctic.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/emissions.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/evidence/warmer.stm

[PenguinHunter]

For the sake of argument, assuming we are having an effect on global climate, should we care? We generally assume it's a given that Earth will warm up eventually (over several thousand years). If we speed this change up to 500 years (or even less), apart from time, what differences will there be between the two scenarios?

Many species will die out in both scenarios and there will be a significant loss of arable land globally either way. We may also sped up the time to global cooling. Does it matter if these processes are sped up?

(I don't mean to derail the thread. If you want to keep things strictly on causation, let me know and I'll delete this and start a different thread. I just figured there wouldn't be many responses to it because, well, I doubt you can prove much of anything around human effects on global warming.)

[CEOofRawness]

True but not this much this fast.. ever.

I can really see the divide between European thinking and American thinking here. Americans are more likely to think that nothing at all is happening and it's all some underhanded ploy by a bunch of tree huggers to get rid of cars and possibly capitalism. Hah.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/warmer.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/global_temp_change_gra300.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/rising.gif

]http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/arctic.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/emissions.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/evidence/warmer.stm


Eureka! I spot a pattern! :eek: :eek:

[SeierTapt]

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

[PenguinHunter]

helenski,

Your charts only go back 1000 years. To accurately compare we need hundreds of thousands of years of data.

There are charts like this but they are much less conclusive. No one has yet found a temperature increase as fast as we are experiencing now (to my knowledge) but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

[Heleuiski]

USA Fox News report on Global Warming...


It?s cooling. It?s warming. It?s disaster. It?s fantasy. Whatever ?it? is, it can?t be comforting to the Kyoto believers in Montreal who seem to think they know for certain whether and how human activity impacts global climate.

A more sober reality, though, is that whatever slight impact humans might have on the climate, it is too small to measure ? a point made in a study just published by Swiss researchers in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews (November 2005).

The study reviewed prior efforts to reconstruct global temperatures of the last 1,000 years. It concluded that natural temperature variations over the last millenium may have been so significant that they would ?result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in [causing] temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of [manmade] emissions and affecting future predicted [global climate] scenarios.?

?If that turns out to be the case,? the researchers stated, ?agreements such as the Kyoto protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought.?

So senior U.S. climate negotiator Harlan Watson was on very firm ground when he stated this week in Montreal that, ?I reject the premise that the Kyoto-like agreement is necessary to address the issue.?

The U.S. stance angered the Montreal revelers. ?When you walk around the conference hall here, delegates are saying there are lots of issues on the agenda, but there's only one real problem, and that?s the United States,? a Greenpeace International spokesman told the Associated Press.

But the U.S. isn?t the ?real problem? for global warmers ? reality is.

First, the available scientific data simply don?t add up to their desired conclusion that humans are harming global climate. Next, even if we were to forsake science and consider a position of ?erring on the side of caution,? the economic cost ? 2 percent or more of global economic productivity ? is a steep and certain price to pay for extremely uncertain, and potentially negative, consequences.

Finally, the Kyoto protocol itself has been a colossal flop. European signatories to the treaty aren?t meeting their current emissions reduction targets, aren?t likely to in the future, and are looking for ways out of their commitments.

Even Kyoto?s knight-in-shining armor, UK prime minister Tony Blair, in what has been dubbed the ?Blair Switch,? has embraced the latter two points. In September, Blair announced that he had given up on climate change treaties because, ?The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in light of a long-term environmental problem.?

Especially if that ?problem,? so far as we can tell after several decades and many billions of dollars of research, is entirely unproven.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177380,00.html


BBC News...


Top scientist's fears for climate
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst

Kangerdlussuaq Glacier, East Greenland (J.A. Dowdeswell)
Sea levels could rise by 4m over the coming century, he warns
One of America's top scientists has said that the world has already entered a state of dangerous climate change.

In his first broadcast interview as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, John Holdren told the BBC that the climate was changing much faster than predicted.

"We are not talking anymore about what climate models say might happen in the future.

"We are experiencing dangerous human disruption of the global climate and we're going to experience more," Professor Holdren said.

He emphasised the seriousness of the melting Greenland ice cap, saying that without drastic action the world would experience more heatwaves, wild fires and floods.

He added that if the current pace of change continued, a catastrophic sea level rise of 4m (13ft) this century was within the realm of possibility; much higher than previous forecasts.

To put this in perspective, Professor Holdren pointed out that the melting of the Greenland ice cap, alone, could increase world-wide sea levels by 7m (23ft), swamping many cities.

Safe limits

He blamed President Bush not only for refusing to cut emissions, but also for failing to live up to his rhetoric on harnessing technology to tackle climate change.

"We are not starting to address climate change with the technology we have in hand, and we are not accelerating our investment in energy technology research and development," Professor Holdren observed.

He said research undertaken by Harvard University revealed


Hmm I see a very different pattern to reporting climate change... Don't you?

[cafe]

True but not this much this fast.. ever.

I can really see the divide between European thinking and American thinking here. Americans are more likely to think that nothing at all is happening and it's all some underhanded ploy by a bunch of tree huggers to get rid of cars and possibly capitalism. Hah.
This is going to be a rather weird statement from a creationist-leaning person, but just over a thousand years is a pretty short portion of earth's history. I am going to have to do some looking into the cool paleo-climatology stuff I saw. I'm curious how fast ice ages and thaws have taken place in the past. When they say "abrupt climate change" just how abrupt are we talking and how does it compare to what we are seeing now? Also is there any astrological explanation for it?

[Heleuiski]

More Fox News..


Has the planet warmed over the last two centuries? Almost certainly it has. But we can say with equal certainty that, from a planetary perspective, it hasn?t warmed very much and, when viewed on a more appropriate scale, nowhere near the ?dangerous? levels claimed by alarmists. And no one knows with any certainty why the warming has occurred.

This is why the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?s (IPCC) estimate of average global temperature change ? 0.6 ? 0.2 degrees Centigrade during the 20th century ? is really a trivial matter when viewed in the proper historical context. Simply put, a change in absolute planetary mean temperature of 0.2 percent is unlikely to have caused catastrophic climate change.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211603,00.html

So no wonder we see such a difference of opinion when climate change is reported so differently in the media...

[Heleuiski]

helenski,

Your charts only go back 1000 years. To accurately compare we need hundreds of thousands of years of data.

There are charts like this but they are much less conclusive. No one has yet found a temperature increase as fast as we are experiencing now (to my knowledge) but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

True but look at the correlation between climate change, ocean levels, temperature rise and fossil fuel emissions. Are you saying it's pure coincidence?

[CEOofRawness]

I can tell you one thing. Here in Miami it's almost a deathwish to be under the midday sun for an hour or so. I remember when I was a little kid I'd be outside all day, no problem. Now it's just so draining. I might convert to vampirism just to avoid the sun alltogether.

[Heleuiski]

For the sake of argument, assuming we are having an effect on global climate, should we care? We generally assume it's a given that Earth will warm up eventually (over several thousand years). If we speed this change up to 500 years (or even less), apart from time, what differences will there be between the two scenarios?

Many species will die out in both scenarios and there will be a significant loss of arable land globally either way. We may also sped up the time to global cooling. Does it matter if these processes are sped up?

(I don't mean to derail the thread. If you want to keep things strictly on causation, let me know and I'll delete this and start a different thread. I just figured there wouldn't be many responses to it because, well, I doubt you can prove much of anything around human effects on global warming.)


What would happen if the climate warmed up?

Well we can see whats happening now can't we?

More devastating forest fires, catastrophic flooding, droughts, water shortages, extreme weather, more deserts, is that not enough to care?

Quote from a UK government website:-


What climate change means for us

For the UK, climate change means warmer temperatures, wetter winters and drier summers, less snow, and higher sea levels, leading to flooding of coastal areas.

Across the globe, there may be severe problems for regions where people are particularly vulnerable to changes in the weather. Flooding, droughts, food shortages and the spread of disease are commonly predicted. The social, environmental and economic costs of climate change could be huge.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/about/index.htm

[Ymir]

"So no wonder we see such a difference of opinion when climate change is reported so differently in the media..."

I'm not american. I don't even watch fox news. The kyoto treaty is a joke. Even by current climate models (that i don't trust at all), this agreement will not have an significant impact on temperatures. The treaty does have a significant cost for those who signed it.

[Heleuiski]

The Uk government even has a climate change website:-

http://www.climatechallenge.gov.uk/


Key climate facts

This section gives you just some of the evidence that can help you make your case more compelling when you are communicating about climate change. This list will grow, so check back regularly to find out more.
Big changes in the atmosphere

In just 200 years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ? the major gas that causes climate change ? has increased by 30 per cent.

Concentrations of greenhouse gases are now higher than at any point in the past 800,000 years.
Global temperature warming

Over the past century, average near-surface global temperatures have risen by 0.7?C.
Hot decade

The ten warmest years on record have all been since 1990. Six of the ten warmest years on record in the UK were between 1995 and 2004.

In Europe, the August 2003 heatwave was probably the hottest for at least 500 years.

During August 2003, the hottest temperature ever recorded in the UK was taken in Brogdale in Kent. It was 38.5?C.

Between 4 and 13 August 2003, over 2,000 people in the UK died as a result of the heat.
Big increase in flood victims

The autumn and winter floods in 2000 in the UK were the worst for 270 years in some areas. Flooding on farmland cost the farming industry nearly ?500 million.

[NoahFence]

True but look at the correlation between climate change, ocean levels, temperature rise and fossil fuel emissions. Are you saying it's pure coincidence?

My God...you're right...rising ocean levels cause greater fossil fuel emissions!! We have to stop the dumping of water into the ocean now, before we run out of fuel! :cheers:

[Heleuiski]

My God...you're right...rising ocean levels cause greater fossil fuel emissions!! We have to stop the dumping of water into the ocean now, before we run out of fuel! :cheers:

Yeah ha ha. You'll be laughing when you're water is rationed.

[Heleuiski]

"So no wonder we see such a difference of opinion when climate change is reported so differently in the media..."

I'm not american. I don't even watch fox news. The kyoto treaty is a joke. Even by current climate models (that i don't trust at all), this agreement will not have an significant impact on temperatures. The treaty does have a significant cost for those who signed it.

It's better to do something rather than stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is happening.. Are you saying you cannot see the climate changing around you?

Yeah it's so easy to play the big man and say yeah who gives a fuck nothing is happening! It's all lies. Well time will tell.

Who needs trees? They are ugly! I like deserts... yeah and climate change it's rubbish! I mean who cares if cities are polluted and little children are developing more cases of asthma. Who gives a fuck right?

[CEOofRawness]

My God...you're right...rising ocean levels cause greater fossil fuel emissions!! We have to stop the dumping of water into the ocean now, before we run out of fuel! :cheers:

dumping water in the ocean??? i thought we got rid of this pollution problem years ago...

[Heleuiski]

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

No the evidence isn't anecdotal.. No point in saying anything else you've all been thoroughly brainwashed by the Bush machine.

[Ymir]

It's better to do something rather than stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is happening.. Are you saying you cannot see the climate changing around you?
The climate is always changing. The energy sector is the heart of the economy it is not something to play around with. We cannot prove human caused climate change, the cost of the kyoto treaty is real.

[Heleuiski]

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/global_warming/graph-for-web.gif

Here is a better picture of co2 levels over time.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html#1

It goes back pretty far...

[PenguinHunter]

What would happen if the climate warmed up?

Well we can see whats happening now can't we?

More devastating forest fires, catastrophic flooding, droughts, water shortages, extreme weather, more deserts, is that not enough to care?

Quote from a UK government website:-



http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/about/index.htm

No no no. . .

You didn't read what I said.


It's not "why should we care at all?" It's "why should we care if we speed up the process given that the temperature of the planet WILL rise eventually causing all the catastrophic events mentioned?" My point was, if they happen soon rather than later does it matter? And, are there any other separte issues that may arise from a faster climate change?

[PenguinHunter]

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/global_warming/graph-for-web.gif

Here is a better picture of co2 levels over time.

It goes back pretty far...

But this chart has no temperatures on it. . .

[SeierTapt]

No the evidence isn't anecdotal.. No point in saying anything else you've all been thoroughly brainwashed by the Bush machine.

The fallacy I reffered to was that correlation is not causation. It was nice of you to point out how mixed the opinion is on the causes and proccess of global warming.

[CEOofRawness]

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/global_warming/graph-for-web.gif

Here is a better picture of co2 levels over time.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html#1

It goes back pretty far...

And the moral of the story kids: WE'RE FUCKED :banned:

[Heleuiski]

And the moral of the story kids: WE'RE FUCKED :banned:

I don't think we are, I think that we can develop technologies and genetic engineering that will allow us to survive.

[Hustler]

I might be wrong though. Any thoughts on proving causation in terms of climate change?

The science behind this isn't that complicated. As such, it's not very difficult to determine if humans are or even are capable of having an effect on the planet's climate. It's as easy as determining (a) what causes global warming and (b) whether we as a species are capable of doing this. I think the answer here is that greenhouse gasses lead to global warming and we can undoubtedly saturate the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses at a rate sufficient to cause global warming. Are we currently doing this? Probably so, but how likely is this to be the case?

That is the real question here. Proving causation for a situation such as this requires that you use statistical means to determine how implausible that the level of greenhouse gasses present in the atmosphere could have drifted so far out of the steady state (I believe Al Gore's study went back for 600,000 years) without our influence. I don't know the answer to that, but I think it is not impossible to analyze. You have to then select the confidence level at which you are prepared to move from mere correlation to causation. Perhaps if the global warming we've observed for the past 30 years will happen one time in 100 for a 30 year interval on account of natural causes, then we'd be jumping the gun on calling it causation. But what if the warming we've seen would only occur for a 30 year interval with a likelihood of one in a million or one in a billion? Sure, we haven't proven the causation, but a lack of causation becomes so implausible at that point, that it makes more sense, scientifically, to lean toward causation. I don't have the data, and I don't know the statistical variables at play, but that doesn't mean there isn't anyone out there who does. Seeing as how statistical verification of observation is basically how science is done, I assume some of the scientists working on this stuff must be gathering and using this data.

Now, this whole idea rests on one major assumption: that the earth has a steady state and that the last 600,000 years of data on climate garnered from ice core samples is sufficient to be indicative of said steady state. Maybe it's not, but intuitively, it just seems that 600,000 years of a clearly cyclical pattern of climate which is deviated from drastically with a compelling correlation to the greenhouse gasses expelled into the atmosphere by humans for a ~30 year period makes a strong case for there being a causation.

At the very least, we do know that there is a causation between greenhouse gasses and global warming. And, for this, we do have multiple "control Earths:" Venus and Mars. Both of these planets, at some point in time, have had surface conditions suitable for liquid water. Over time, the atmosphere of Venus accrued a tremendous excess of greenhouse gasses and the planet surface there has become boiling hot and wholly inhospitable. In the case of Mars, a depletion of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere led to a global cooling which has left the Red Planet as a frozen wasteland. So, lest we wish our planet to end up like our neighbors, it would probably be a good idea to maintain a level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere such that our global temperature doesn't move very much in either direction. Are we capable of this? Again, my answer is that we probably are. Sure, a supervolcano could pop off and overwhelm our puny human efforts, but these are rare events and, if we give ourselves a chance to grow in knowledge and capability as a species (by not fucking our planet or ourselves up first), by the time one of those events does happen, we'll probably be able to handle it.

I dislike how nebulous and mysterious the media and public opinion make this matter out to be. It's not. Anyone who knows a little about our celestial neighbors and their histories and even just a tiny amount of the science behind the greenhouse effect should be able to piece together the fairly obvious picture. Or at least any N. Greenhouse gasses, through their absorptive properties along certain segments of the EM spectrum warm the atmosphere. Too much means the temperature rises. Too little means the temperature drops.

[Heleuiski]

The science behind this isn't that complicated. As such, it's not very difficult to determine if humans are or even are capable of having an effect on the planet's climate. It's as easy as determining (a) what causes global warming and (b) whether we as a species are capable of doing this. I think the answer here is that greenhouse gasses lead to global warming and we can undoubtedly saturate the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses at a rate sufficient to cause global warming. Are we currently doing this? Probably so, but how likely is this to be the case?

That is the real question here. Proving causation for a situation such as this requires that you use statistical means to determine how implausible that the level of greenhouse gasses present in the atmosphere could have drifted so far out of the steady state (I believe Al Gore's study went back for 600,000 years) without our influence. I don't know the answer to that, but I think it is not impossible to analyze. You have to then select the confidence level at which you are prepared to move from mere correlation to causation. Perhaps if the global warming we've observed for the past 30 years will happen one time in 100 for a 30 year interval on account of natural causes, then we'd be jumping the gun on calling it causation. But what if the warming we've seen would only occur for a 30 year interval with a likelihood of one in a million or one in a billion? Sure, we haven't proven the causation, but a lack of causation becomes so implausible at that point, that it makes more sense, scientifically, to lean toward causation. I don't have the data, and I don't know the statistical variables at play, but that doesn't mean there isn't anyone out there who does. Seeing as how statistical verification of observation is basically how science is done, I assume some of the scientists working on this stuff must be gathering and using this data.

Now, this whole idea rests on one major assumption: that the earth has a steady state and that the last 600,000 years of data on climate garnered from ice core samples is sufficient to be indicative of said steady state. Maybe it's not, but intuitively, it just seems that 600,000 years of a clearly cyclical pattern of climate which is deviated from drastically with a compelling correlation to the greenhouse gasses expelled into the atmosphere by humans for a ~30 year period makes a strong case for there being a causation.

At the very least, we do know that there is a causation between greenhouse gasses and global warming. And, for this, we do have multiple "control Earths:" Venus and Mars. Both of these planets, at some point in time, have had surface conditions suitable for liquid water. Over time, the atmosphere of Venus accrued a tremendous excess of greenhouse gasses and the planet surface there has become boiling hot and wholly inhospitable. In the case of Mars, a depletion of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere led to a global cooling which has left the Red Planet as a frozen wasteland. So, lest we wish our planet to end up like our neighbors, it would probably be a good idea to maintain a level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere such that our global temperature doesn't move very much in either direction. Are we capable of this? Again, my answer is that we probably are. Sure, a supervolcano could pop off and overwhelm our puny human efforts, but these are rare events and, if we give ourselves a chance to grow in knowledge and capability as a species (by not fucking our planet or ourselves up first), by the time one of those events does happen, we'll probably be able to handle it.

I dislike how nebulous and mysterious the media and public opinion make this matter out to be. It's not. Anyone who knows a little about our celestial neighbors and their histories and even just a tiny amount of the science behind the greenhouse effect should be able to piece together the fairly obvious picture. Or at least any N. Greenhouse gasses, through their absorptive properties along certain segments of the EM spectrum warm the atmosphere. Too much means the temperature rises. Too little means the temperature drops.

Thank you Hustler.

[NoahFence]

I love how the fact that I see no proof means I believe it is false. That's not the case. I think it entirely likely that we are pushing on a pendulum. Just because it was already moving doesn't mean it isn't our fault when it swings wild.

I feel it is undeniable that we are having an impact. What's debatable is "How catastrophic or negligible".

But the Sahara was a rainforest 13000 years ago. And it's been a desert since before we figured out how valuable that sticky black shit in the sand was. So desertification, or whatever word is in use, cannot be exclusively attributed to industrialization.

My main goal in pointing out that industry is not the proven cause is not to support industry. It's to find the damn cause. With the population like it is today, climate change has the potential to kill more people than asteroids. We need to stop it from doing so.

[CEOofRawness]

I don't think we are, I think that we can develop technologies and genetic engineering that will allow us to survive.

That's a poetic notion. I mean I agree, I believe we're capable of such technologies, but people are too ignorant to do such a thing.

Funny how stuff like the seedless watermelon has been discovered through science as opposed to a cure for certain diseases.

Besides, I don't think people are willing to do anything that would comprimise their own lifestyle in order to better the lives of those in the future.

[CEOofRawness]

I love how the fact that I see no proof means I believe it is false. That's not the case. I think it entirely likely that we are pushing on a pendulum. Just because it was already moving doesn't mean it isn't our fault when it swings wild.

I feel it is undeniable that we are having an impact. What's debatable is "How catastrophic or negligible".

But the Sahara was a rainforest 13000 years ago. And it's been a desert since before we figured out how valuable that sticky black shit in the sand was. So desertification, or whatever word is in use, cannot be exclusively attributed to industrialization.

My main goal in pointing out that industry is not the proven cause is not to support industry. It's to find the damn cause. With the population like it is today, climate change has the potential to kill more people than asteroids. We need to stop it from doing so.

Amen my brotha. Focus on the solutions instead of the problem.

[Heleuiski]

That's a poetic notion. I mean I agree, I believe we're capable of such technologies, but people are too ignorant to do such a thing.

Funny how stuff like the seedless watermelon has been discovered through science as opposed to a cure for certain diseases.

Besides, I don't think people are willing to do anything that would comprimise their own lifestyle in order to better the lives of those in the future.

I disagree, people do this all the time by having little humans.

In my city we are recycling almost everything now. People can change and do, they just need a little kick up the backside.

[CEOofRawness]

I disagree, people do this all the time by having little humans.

In my city we are recycling almost everything now. People can change and do, they just need a little kick up the backside.

I agree with that too. It's just that human greed is a powerful thing. And you can't preach global warming to those who refuse to listen. The Bush Administration, for one. They're more concerned with their own agenda than anything else.

[Heleuiski]

It is true that the earth has temperature cycles, ice ages, warm ages, ice ages again.. but I don't particularly want to live in a huge desert or a frozen wasteland.

Call me strange.

[Heleuiski]

I agree with that too. It's just that human greed is a powerful thing. And you can't preach global warming to those who refuse to listen. The Bush Administration, for one. They're more concerned with their own agenda than anything else.

Well the little bastard has only got one more term there hasn't he?

I have a feeling that global warming will be managed with new technologies, new fuels etc etc. Not right now though when we are all at the mercy of the huge oil corporations. Until the black stuff runs out I doubt that they will be rolling out new fuel technologies any time soon.

It's going to have to get pretty damn bad before the fat white guys in Washington admit there's a serious problem. They didn't give a fuck about the Katrina disaster... most of the victims were poor black folks... it got rid of a lot of them conveniently didn't it?

[Hustler]

But the Sahara was a rainforest 13000 years ago. And it's been a desert since before we figured out how valuable that sticky black shit in the sand was. So desertification, or whatever word is in use, cannot be exclusively attributed to industrialization.

No, in fact, it greatly predates industrialization. The agricultural revolution desertified the middle-east. Before the advent of agriculture, the middle-east was lush and, get this, fertile. Human agricultural practices turned that area into the piece of shit desert it is today. Just think if ancient man with his sickles and aurochs could turn that place from the Fertile Crescent to a sandy, lifeless expanse what must modern man with his supercomputers and rockets be able to do to the climate of much larger areas in much less time?

[Heleuiski]

No, in fact, it greatly predates industrialization. The agricultural revolution desertified the middle-east. Before the advent of agriculture, the middle-east was lush and, get this, fertile. Human agricultural practices turned that area into the piece of shit desert it is today. Just think if ancient man with his sickles and aurochs could turn that place from the Fertile Crescent to a sandy, lifeless expanse what must modern man with his supercomputers and rockets be able to do to the climate of much larger areas in much less time?

That is correct. I have seen the documentary evidence of this.

[CEOofRawness]

I still stick to my masterbation theory.

[Heleuiski]

I still stick to my masterbation theory.
=))

[Ymir]

I have a feeling that global warming will be managed with new technologies, new fuels etc etc. Not right now though when we are all at the mercy of the huge oil corporations. Until the black stuff runs out I doubt that they will be rolling out new fuel technologies any time soon.

It's going to have to get pretty damn bad before the fat white guys in Washington admit there's a serious problem. They didn't give a fuck about the Katrina disaster... most of the victims were poor black folks... it got rid of a lot of them conveniently didn't it?

We have just two realistic alternatives to oil. Coal and nuclear, all other sources would just be of symbolic value.

Where does this irrational hatered for Bush come from. He wasn't responsible for Katrina. Yes most of the victims were poor and black, but that is the population of New Orleans. Disaster management is the state responsibility not the US federal government.

[Heleuiski]

We have just two realistic alternatives to oil. Coal and nuclear, all other sources would just be of symbolic value.

Where does this irrational hatered for Bush come from. He wasn't responsible for Katrina. Yes most of the victims were poor and black, but that is the population of New Orleans. Disaster management is the state responsibility not the US federal government.

No.. we have other alternatives to power our cars...????

Irrational hatred... hmmmn because he is so damn stoopid.

[Krill]

No the evidence isn't anecdotal.. No point in saying anything else you've all been thoroughly brainwashed by the Bush machine.

No point you saying anything, you've been brainwashed by the Environmentalist machine.

<_<

Come on, there's no need to resort to this sort of attitude. No one here is brainwashed because they disagree with you.


But this chart has no temperatures on it. . .

If temperature levels aren't higher than the past 650,000 years than obviously the level of CO2 is not necessarily meaningful because the temeperature in the past has been higher without this much CO2.

I have no problem with alternative energy sources, technological improvements, carpooling, bike riding or whatever, but crap like the Kyoto Protocol is why I have something against this alarmism.

[Heleuiski]

Yeah sure it was hotter in teh past.


Climate Model Links Higher Temperatures to Prehistoric Extinction

August 24, 2005

BOULDER?Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) have created a computer simulation showing Earth's climate in unprecedented detail at the time of the greatest mass extinction in the planet's history. The work gives support to a theory that an abrupt and dramatic rise in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide triggered the massive die-off 251 million years ago. The research appears in the September issue of Geology.

Kiehl and coauthor Christine Shields focused on the dramatic events at the end of the Permian Era, when an estimated 90 to 95% of all marine species, as well as about 70% of all terrestrial species, became extinct. At the time of the event, higher-latitude temperatures were

18 to 54 degrees Fahrenheit (10 to 30 degrees Celsius) higher than today, and extensive volcanic activity had released large amounts of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere over a 700,000-year period.


http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/permian.shtml

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.16.jpg

Temperature info.

[PenguinHunter]

If temperature levels aren't higher than the past 650,000 years than obviously the level of CO2 is not necessarily meaningful because the temeperature in the past has been higher without this much CO2.

There is likely still a delayed effect. It's still only been about a hundred years since the levels started to climb. I don't think there is any doubt that CO2 levels affect the Earth's temperature but, as others say, it's quite difficult to say how much.

I remember watching a BBC show a couple of years ago and the CO2 level charts they came up with didn't correlate very convincingly with the 400 000 years of temperature data they had. Part of this was because it's pretty difficult to get accurate temperature data from so long ago. 400 000 years is a ton of time and it's basically impossibly to capture anything other than general trends. Even then, there are so many other factors to consider, it's still hard to say how much of an effect the CO2 levels have.

[Biff_Loman]

Just think if ancient man with his sickles and aurochs could turn that place from the Fertile Crescent to a sandy, lifeless expanse what must modern man with his supercomputers and rockets be able to do to the climate of much larger areas in much less time?

But Hustler, how can I possibly be altering the environment? The earth is so big, and I'm just a little bipedal ape without a lot of strength or speed compared to other animals.

All I do is consume the equivalent of my body weight in petroleum every week in the form of goods and services. The whole world only uses 1500 barrels of oil a second. And of course there's coal and stuff too, but still, can that possibly make a difference????? I'm only turning car keys and light switches!

[earwax]

So no wonder we see such a difference of opinion when climate change is reported so differently in the media...
Then again, some of us do realize that the American media is owned by rich men who have a vested interest in continuing the "business as usual".

[Serotonin]

We don't know if the globe is getting hotter. What timescale do we use? We have satelite measurement covering a few years. Older local ground measurment are very inaccurate (urbanisation, changing local weather patterns, inaccurate instrumentation,etc..) , they don't cover the whole globe either.

We use what we've got. The data we have isn't complete across regions or fully standardised.... but my opinion is that there is enough there to allow us the luxury of formulating a more global picture. But the question is how much data is convincing enough? There is enough posted in this thread now for my liking, but that's the thing, it's just my liking. Others surely won't be as satisfied.




Now, this whole idea rests on one major assumption: that the earth has a steady state and that the last 600,000 years of data on climate garnered from ice core samples is sufficient to be indicative of said steady state. Maybe it's not, but intuitively, it just seems that 600,000 years of a clearly cyclical pattern of climate which is deviated from drastically with a compelling correlation to the greenhouse gasses expelled into the atmosphere by humans for a ~30 year period makes a strong case for there being a causation.

Nice one.

[Heleuiski]

No no no. . .

You didn't read what I said.


It's not "why should we care at all?" It's "why should we care if we speed up the process given that the temperature of the planet WILL rise eventually causing all the catastrophic events mentioned?" My point was, if they happen soon rather than later does it matter? And, are there any other separte issues that may arise from a faster climate change?


Why should we care if we are speeding up climate change? Because it will impact on all our lives, and possibly create a planet in which we find it hard to survive, and we then don't have the luxury of thousands of years to deal with it.

[Neppy]

It is possible that our use of fossil fuels is accelerating an existing global climate change. I believe that is the case, at least. It isn't black & white as in "the temperature isn't rising" or "the temperature is rising SOLELY as a result of greenhouse gases".

Whatever the real cause is, we certainly aren't helping with our greenhouse gas emissions. Admittedly, I know little about the subject, but I can talk from personal experience.

When I was younger, summers here weren't that warm. If we were lucky, it'd hit 28C for a couple of days a year. I remember a time when I thought 28C was sweltering hot, and as a kid I'd jump up and down with glee and make my parents take me to the beach. But now in summer, 28C is a normality and "hot" is in the 35-40C range. It hasn't actually hit 40C (103F, I think) here, but I know it's going to happen in the next few years, and it'll become a normality. Over such a short period of time, that is a frightening increase in temperature, and we Brits just aren't equipped to handle it. Our houses do not come with AC. On contrare, our houses are designed to insulate heat.

I never go out into the sun now. I'm not built to deal with that sort of climate, so in summer I'm forced into virtual hibernation. This year, I actually had heat exhaustion and I had to take a week off from work, and this was while I was drinking plenty of water and staying in the shade. Either I'm a feeble motherfucker, or the weather here really is just that brutal now. Not to mention my house is definitely designed to insulate heat.

There's been a tangible climate change here in the past few years. I don't need to see figures or facts to know that much. It's very, very noticeable just by experiencing it myself.

[Heleuiski]

If temperature levels aren't higher than the past 650,000 years than obviously the level of CO2 is not necessarily meaningful because the temeperature in the past has been higher without this much CO2.


That is in fact a false statement. When the temperature was higher in the past it was with a direct correlation to CO2 levels. These co2 levels did not rise because of human pollution but because of huge volcanic activity.

In fact large temperature increases in the past cause major species extinction.


Increase of greenhouse gases

Based on measurements from Antarctic ice cores, it is widely accepted that just before industrial emissions began, atmospheric CO2 levels were about 280 ?L/L (note the units ?L/L are identical to parts per million by volume). From the same ice cores it appears that CO2 concentrations have stayed between 260 and 280 ?L/L during the preceding 10,000 years. Some studies[7], using evidence from stomata of fossilized leaves, have found greater variability with CO2 levels above 300 ?L/L during the period 7-10 kyr ago, though others have argued that these findings more likely reflect calibration/contamination problems rather than actual CO2 variability[8][9].

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentrations of many of the greenhouse gases have increased. Most of the increase in carbon dioxide occurred after 1945.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

[Heleuiski]

Not only are we increasing carbon dioxide emmisions significantly, don't forget we are also eliminating our "carbon sinks"*

*A carbon dioxide sink or CO2 sink is a carbon reservoir that is increasing in size, and is the opposite of a carbon "source". The main natural sinks are the oceans and growing vegetation. The concept has become more widely known because of its role in the Kyoto Protocol.

Carbon sequestration is the term describing processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere. A variety of means of artificially capturing and storing carbon, as well as of enhancing natural sequestration processes, are being explored. This is intended to help mitigate global warming.

Natural sinks
[edit]

Forests

Enormous amounts of carbon are naturally stored in the forest by trees and other plants, as well as in the forest soil. As part of photosynthesis, plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, store the carbon as sugar, starch and cellulose, while oxygen is released back into the atmosphere. A young forest, composed of rapidly growing trees, absorbs carbon dioxide and acts as a sink. Mature forests, made up of a mix of various aged trees as well as dead and decaying matter, may be carbon neutral above ground. In the soil, however, the gradual buildup of slowly decaying organic material will continue to accumulate carbon, thereby acting as a sink.

Oceans

Oceans are natural carbon dioxide sinks, and are the largest active carbon sinks. As the level of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, the level in the oceans also increases, creating potentially disastrous acidic oceans. Ocean water can hold a variable amount of dissolved CO2 depending on temperature and pressure. Phytoplankton in the oceans, like trees, use photosynthesis to extract carbon from CO2. They are the starting point of the marine food chain. Plankton and other marine organisms extract CO2 from the ocean water and convert it to the mineral calcite, CaCO3, to build their skeletons and shells. This removes CO2 from the water, allowing more to dissolve in from the atmosphere. These calcite skeletons and shells, along with the organic carbon of the organisms, eventually fall to the bottom of the ocean when the organisms die. The carbon or plankton cells have to sink to the deep water in 2000 to 4000 meter to be sequestered for ca. 1000 years.

Forests are carbon dioxide stores, but the sink effect exists only when they grow in size: it is thus naturally limited. The rate at which forests can sequester carbon, given the available land, is far exceeded by the rate at which it is released by the combustion of fossilised forests (coal, oil and natural gas). It seems clear that the use of forests to curb climate change can only be a temporary measure. Even optimistic estimates come to the conclusion that the planting of new forests is not enough to counter-balance the current level of greenhouse gas emissions [2]. To reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 7%, as stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol, would require the planting of "an area the size of Texas every 30 years", according to William H. Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of the environment and earth sciences at Duke University, in Durham, N.C. [3].

[Heleuiski]

Kyoto Treaty...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png

Most countries have signed.

Note countries in red that signed but ratification declined, only a few.


According to a press release from the United Nations Environment Programme:

"The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialised countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland."

I fail to see how this could be a bad thing, or totally useless.

[Architectonic]

Note countries in red that signed but ratification declined, only a few.


I think the people in those red countries are extremely selfish and evil. :p


Seriously though, the reason why the USA has not ratified is due to economic reasons. It is in essence, a protest against the methods in determining the actual greenhouse gas targets, which in the treaty, basically forcing the United States to hand over money to less developed areas/those areas which faced severe economic decline such as in Eastern Europe. The other question is, whether the people of the United States wished to ratify or not and whether the government went against those wishes. Also, not ratifying the agreement doesn't actually preclude having a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. But whether that will happen is a different question.
The reason Australia hasn't ratified, is because John Howard is the lapdog of the US government. ;)

[Ymir]

"I fail to see how this could be a bad thing, or totally useless."

Only western europe, canada and japan will have to reduce emissions. This will lead to higher energy costs for businesses in these countries. What we will see is relocation of those businesses to countries where costs are lower. Russia only signed the treaty because the can sell co2 quotas for a nice profit, it is not possible for them to reach the pollution levels under the communist regime. China, India and other developing nations, has no limits on their co2 emissions. As economies in asia are growing so will the co2 emissions. The only result you achive with the treaty is making western nations poorer. Global co2 emissions will continue to rise as long as there is a good supply of fossil fuels.

In my country aluminium production is begin relocated to the the middle east because of rising energy costs. I don't think replacing hydro electric power with oil will reduce global co2 emissions.

[Krill]

That is in fact a false statement. When the temperature was higher in the past it was with a direct correlation to CO2 levels. These co2 levels did not rise because of human pollution but because of huge volcanic activity.

In fact large temperature increases in the past cause major species extinction.


Actually, unfortunately, your graph indicates that in the past 650,000 years CO2 has never been as high as our current levels.

This means that any temperature matching our current temperature or exceeding it would not correlate to a comparable level of CO2, since we appear to have a spike that has not been matched in the past 650,000 years.

[booyalab]

True but not this much this fast.. ever.

I can really see the divide between European thinking and American thinking here. Americans are more likely to think that nothing at all is happening and it's all some underhanded ploy by a bunch of tree huggers to get rid of cars and possibly capitalism. Hah.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/warmer.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/global_temp_change_gra300.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/rising.gif

]http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/arctic.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/emissions.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/evidence/warmer.stm


I think someone might have posted this on INTPc or Ncentral, but it bares repeating....http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/piratesarecool.jpg

[Melody]

I think someone might have posted this on INTPc or Ncentral, but it bares repeating....http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/piratesarecool.jpgu think that'll get through to her? shame on u, u should paraphrase for those w/ substantially less-gifted logical machinery than u :dont:

itty bittily more seriously, in case it hasnt been pointed out : california has been in the news for its passing [just needs arnold's signatëur, which is guaranteed] a rather bold anti-global warming law thing. the goal of the law is apparently to
[I]reach 1990 co2 lvls by 2020 lol, or a reduction of about 25% lol it follows a similar market construct as the kyoto thingie where there are emissions credits

http://news.google.com/news?q=california+emissions

[edit]the politicians may use this as a strategic debate point in the 2k8 elections eg 'unlike george bush, who is not going to save the environment and cannot be reelected, i WILL save the environment, and it is possible to elect me!!'

[joft]

i don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but i find it interesting that this thread title shows how successful US propaganda/media is at influencing the information climate. "climate change" sounds more official/sciency/intelligent than "global warming," but it's neutral and could imply global cooling or global humidifying or whatever. this was a conscious move in terminology recommended to Bush by some advisor guy i forget who he is but his job is to help the government sound like it's not raping the planet by suggesting such sensitive terminology shifts

[ApeTheDog]

It doesn't really matter whether we're the cause or not. We've caused enough other bad stuff that we needn't worry about whether or not we should add this particular blame to our record or not. Either way you look at it, we've unbalanced the ecosystem of earth. You need only look at how plants grow where we allow them to grow, and no other place - animals are confined (within fences) where we want them to be, and they eat what we want them to eat - and numerous other examples of how every single thing on earth obeys our will, to see that.

We're almost to the point where we won't need nature anymore to survive. I think we can tough it out a little bit longer. Once we can change the molecular structure of things using nanotechnology we'll be able to create nourishment out of stuff like, say, rock. Of course, by then we'll probably have cracked the DNA code and we'll be able to grow/clone animals in machines.

And then the only thing that will limit what we can and can't do will be the amount of resources available to us. Which is where spacetravel will come in handy. All things which are being actively worked on, and will be within our grasp soon.

There won't be any trees left, eventually. Just as right now, there aren't any steamtrains around anymore either. They won't be around anymore because we won't need them.

Sure, they're aesthetically pleasing - relaxing, and so on. It was a lot more relaxed when horses pulled our carriages too. But it didn't go as fast. And speed, efficiency, and economical viability will always dictate what happens.

The climate change is not going to be a big deal. Let nature be destroyed. Let it get colder. We'll just solve the problem and move past it. Unfortunately.

[CEOofRawness]

i don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but i find it interesting that this thread title shows how successful US propaganda/media is at influencing the information climate. "climate change" sounds more official/sciency/intelligent than "global warming," but it's neutral and could imply global cooling or global humidifying or whatever. this was a conscious move in terminology recommended to Bush by some advisor guy i forget who he is but his job is to help the government sound like it's not raping the planet by suggesting such sensitive terminology shifts

American euphamisms are nothing new. Americans and politicians play with words and terminology in order to enhance their arguement, or to hide the truth. Global warming as a term itself sounds almost pleasent. Now something more of the lines of Worldwide Inferno would have more people go :wtf:. Politicitians and their lies :rant:



It doesn't really matter whether we're the cause or not. We've caused enough other bad stuff that we needn't worry about whether or not we should add this particular blame to our record or not. Either way you look at it, we've unbalanced the ecosystem of earth. You need only look at how plants grow where we allow them to grow, and no other place - animals are confined (within fences) where we want them to be, and they eat what we want them to eat - and numerous other examples of how every single thing on earth obeys our will, to see that.

We're almost to the point where we won't need nature anymore to survive. I think we can tough it out a little bit longer. Once we can change the molecular structure of things using nanotechnology we'll be able to create nourishment out of stuff like, say, rock. Of course, by then we'll probably have cracked the DNA code and we'll be able to grow/clone animals in machines.

And then the only thing that will limit what we can and can't do will be the amount of resources available to us. Which is where spacetravel will come in handy. All things which are being actively worked on, and will be within our grasp soon.

There won't be any trees left, eventually. Just as right now, there aren't any steamtrains around anymore either. They won't be around anymore because we won't need them.

Sure, they're aesthetically pleasing - relaxing, and so on. It was a lot more relaxed when horses pulled our carriages too. But it didn't go as fast. And speed, efficiency, and economical viability will always dictate what happens.

The climate change is not going to be a big deal. Let nature be destroyed. Let it get colder. We'll just solve the problem and move past it. Unfortunately.


Funny how you describe the human race almost as like a virus. Once we use all the resources available of our host (Earth) we'll travel across the galaxy and spread our plague of destruction.

Course we're not harming the planet. Even if we destroyed all living life forms, some hundred thousand years from now everything will be rebalanced for us to destroy again. That is, of course, if the human race is still around.

The planet's not going anywhere. WE'RE fucked.

[SeierTapt]

The planet's not going anywhere. WE'RE fucked.

The sun will eventually, though.

[PenguinHunter]

It is true that the earth has temperature cycles, ice ages, warm ages, ice ages again.. but I don't particularly want to live in a huge desert or a frozen wasteland.

Call me strange.


Why should we care if we are speeding up climate change? Because it will impact on all our lives, and possibly create a planet in which we find it hard to survive, and we then don't have the luxury of thousands of years to deal with it.

You're talking like this is going to happen over night. It's not. There may be small changes but no matter what, it's not going to significantly affect your life. Global desertification or a large ice ages would still take thousands of years. So suppose we feel bad for future generations. . . they will still have thousands of years to adapt. Just not tens of thousands.

"Little ice ages" (a drop in 5-8 degrees fahrenheit) and warmings can occur quite quickly but their effects to someone like yourself would be minimal. And again here, it's possible that CO2 emissions can make a little ice age more likely to occur, but they would still happen anyway. There was one from 1350-1800 but it was caused by melting ice caps from the natural warming of the Earth, not an increase in CO2 levels. A small ice age would likely cause a downswing in most Western economies but as far as living in a "frozen wasteland"? Don't worry, you'll just need a jacket that's a little warmer.

[Heleuiski]

We'll see. I think we will see some changes in the environment in our lifetime. We are already.

Anyway I'm off my high horse now.

[macr0]

We'll see. I think we will see some changes in the environment in our lifetime. We are already.

Anyway I'm off my high horse now.

Come on helenski. Holy crap! Up until now I thought it was Helsinki, as in Finland!

Anyway, how much doom and gloom can we handle? It's just...too...numbing...

[Heleuiski]

Come on helenski. Holy crap! Up until now I thought it was Helsinki, as in Finland!

Anyway, how much doom and gloom can we handle? It's just...too...numbing...

Exactly.

[SeierTapt]

Come on helenski. Holy crap! Up until now I thought it was Helsinki, as in Finland!

Anyway, how much doom and gloom can we handle? It's just...too...numbing...

I thought the same thing about her name for the longest time too.:mellow:

[macr0]

I thought the same thing about her name for the longest time too.:mellow:

LOL, which part?

[SeierTapt]

LOL, which part?

Part?

[macr0]

Part?

I thought it was Helsinki, as in Finland!

OR

How much doom and gloom can we handle? It's just...too...numbing...

[SeierTapt]

I thought it was Helsinki, as in Finland!

OR

How much doom and gloom can we handle? It's just...too...numbing...

Oh, the first one.

[Ferrus]

I think we -are- having an impact, but I strongly doubt that we are the -cause-.
Er, isn't having an impact tantamount to being the cause?

[Serotonin]

i don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but i find it interesting that this thread title shows how successful US propaganda/media is at influencing the information climate. "climate change" sounds more official/sciency/intelligent than "global warming," but it's neutral and could imply global cooling or global humidifying or whatever. this was a conscious move in terminology recommended to Bush by some advisor guy i forget who he is but his job is to help the government sound like it's not raping the planet by suggesting such sensitive terminology shifts

I think "climate change" is legit, because most models predict Europe is eventually going to get cooler.

[ApeTheDog]

The sun will eventually, though.

By then, we'll no doubt be able to just make a new one.

[SeierTapt]

Er, isn't having an impact tantamount to being the cause?

Having an impact on something and being the cause of it are different things. One implies that you are a part of a larger cause involving other impacts, and the other implies that you are the only impact.

[Ferrus]

Having an impact on something and being the cause of it are different things. One implies that you are a part of a larger cause involving other impacts, and the other implies that you are the only impact.
I see, and the other causes are what? The earth suddenly moving towards the sun for no know reason?

[Krill]

I see, and the other causes are what? The earth suddenly moving towards the sun for no know reason?

No, for a known reason.

Such as Milankovitch cycles. Also: increased sun activity, fluctuations in atmospheric conditions and greenhouse output from other sources.

[Ferrus]

No, for a known reason.

Such as Milankovitch cycles. Also: increased sun activity, fluctuations in atmospheric conditions and greenhouse output from other sources.
All of which seem rather dubious. There has been a consistent rise in global tempratures: far beyond what would normally be expected in the normal Ice Age cycle. Using Ockham's razor - is not the process as seen simply displayed by a green house not more plausible?

[Krill]

All of which seem rather dubious. There has been a consistent rise in global tempratures: far beyond what would normally be expected in the normal Ice Age cycle. Using Ockham's razor - is not the process as seen simply displayed by a green house not more plausible?

Not necessarily. As far as I'm aware, the effect CO2 has on the atmosphere and exactly how much we've been contributing varies study to study. I've seen really low and really big amounts.

[SeierTapt]

I see, and the other causes are what? The earth suddenly moving towards the sun for no know reason?

<_<

[Heleuiski]

Come on helenski. Holy crap! Up until now I thought it was Helsinki, as in Finland!

Anyway, how much doom and gloom can we handle? It's just...too...numbing...

Who is that guy in the picture? He looks like an extra from Dallas.

[macr0]

Who is that guy in the picture? He looks like an extra from Dallas.

The man I hate the most in this world right now :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kuft59qngsU

[Heleuiski]

The man I hate the most in this world right now :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kuft59qngsU


Holy Bejeezus.. that's not a joke is it? They really believe that shit?

[macr0]

Holy Bejeezus.. that's not a joke is it? They really believe that shit?

Uhhhuh. If you youtube search for "Fred Phelps" you can find commercials they've put together and all kinds of pure sick garbage. For example, they like to go to the funerals' of soldiers who died in War like Iraq and have signs that say, "God killed your kids" or something.

They also had some day counter thing on their website saying "Matthew Shepard has been in hell for XXX days." They also protested at that funeral.

Their website is godhatesfags.com

[NoahFence]

I'm starting to think that the destruction of the world's forests is more to blame. Trees are a great carbon scrub, much better at it than a field of wheat or grazing cows. They account for tons upon tons of CO2 conversion. There's not a continent out there whose forests haven't been either paved or converted to farmland to some degree. That we're producing more CO2 is just adding to the problem at the other end, but I bet it would have been a problem anyway.

It just seemed to me that if the carbon levels were a certain range before, then that included the amount of carbon pulled out by the forests. If both the amount of forest cover and the carbon cycle has been the same until now, how could it fail to rise now?

[earwax]

Uhhhuh. If you youtube search for "Fred Phelps" you can find commercials they've put together and all kinds of pure sick garbage. For example, they like to go to the funerals' of soldiers who died in War like Iraq and have signs that say, "God killed your kids" or something.

They also had some day counter thing on their website saying "Matthew Shepard has been in hell for XXX days." They also protested at that funeral.

Their website is godhatesfags.com
Ahhh, the Westboro Baptist Church. Those are some scarey people.

[darlets]

I'm starting to think that the destruction of the world's forests is more to blame. Trees are a great carbon scrub, much better at it than a field of wheat or grazing cows. They account for tons upon tons of CO2 conversion. There's not a continent out there whose forests haven't been either paved or converted to farmland to some degree. That we're producing more CO2 is just adding to the problem at the other end, but I bet it would have been a problem anyway.

It just seemed to me that if the carbon levels were a certain range before, then that included the amount of carbon pulled out by the forests. If both the amount of forest cover and the carbon cycle has been the same until now, how could it fail to rise now?

I posted this in another thread
Trees act as a Carbon dioxide store.
"Clearing and burning rainforests releases vast amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. Each year, deforestation contributes 23-30 percent of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is believed to be responsible for approximately half of global warming."

Eventually we'll have to start thinking of trees as waste sponges, soaking up the crap we produce. Instead of viewing them as a resouce to cut down, we'll have to start seeing them as a resource to plant and maintain. As filters for the planet.

"
Victoria
In 2002, the Victorian Government signed a three year contract with Greenfleet to plant 250,000 trees to offset emissions from VicFleet vehicles. We are working closely with the Australian Greenhouse Office and the Victorian Greenhouse Policy Unit to establish clear measurement of the carbon uptake of these trees. Across Victoria, Greenfleet bio-diversity forests are growing with over 1,115,000 trees planted on behalf of Victorian motorists and fleets."
Greenfleet (http://www.greenfleet.com.au/planting/projects.asp)

There's an effort by government to punish companies via a carbon tax. One of the state governments here, N.S.W, has taken, in my opinion a more realistic/positive approach, they have introduce "Carbon Credits", positive reinforcement. The company get credits for providing certain services to the public, education programs, replanting projects.

Carbon Credits (http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/credits.php)

To branch off the point raised in the OP, the need for a control.
Biologists have often lamented the lack of a comparision for how life developed on earth. They think, if we can find life elsewhere we'll now a lot more because we'll have a comparison.

The most likely place currently is one of the moons of Jupiter, Europa, which is covered in ice and may contain liquid water below the ice cap. It's believe to have alot of volcanic activity driven by the gravity of jupiter. Life based around geothermal energy has been found on earth and was a major step away from the traditional solar energy based life viewed by many scientist as the only way life can form.

Physicists may also lament that we only have "one universe" and have no control to compare with. But if String theory and its offshot theory about Membranes or "Branes" is true this may not be the case. Currently they're trying to conduct experiments to try and prove the existance of extra dimensions. This is to do with smashing accelerated particles together to see if a "Gravitron" is seen escaping to another dimension from ours.

[darlets]

A blog on the issue (http://www.carbonplanet.com/blog/)

[Heleuiski]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm?ls

Mancroft posted this on another thread.


Some of the increases in carbon dioxide will be alleviated by natural "sinks" on the land and in the oceans, such as the countless planktonic organisms that effectively pull carbon out of the atmosphere as they build skeletons and shell coverings.

But Dr Corinne Le Qu?r?, of the University of East Anglia and BAS, warned the festival that these sinks may become less efficient over time.

We could not rely on them to keep on buffering our emissions, she said.

"For example, we don't know what the effect will be of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems. There is potential for deterioration," she explained.

More CO2 absorbed by the oceans will raise their acidity, and a number of recent studies have concluded that this will eventually disrupt the ability of marine micro-organisms to use the calcium carbonate in the water to produce their hard parts.

This is basically reiterating what I said before about the carbon sinks not being enough.

[Heleuiski]

Come on! Tell me this is a load of hogwash and teh world isn't going to heat up.. come on I'm bored with fighting about Islam.

[Heleuiski]

Is anyone going to see, has seen the Al Gore film..An Inconvenient Truth?

[Dom]

We are totaly fucked.....

Methane (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5321046.stm)

[Heleuiski]

We are totaly fucked.....

Methane (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5321046.stm)

Oh God, what have we done?

Moridin stop farting the methane problem is obviously your fault.

[Dom]

Oh God, what have we done?

Moridin stop farting the methane problem is obviously your fault.

I wasn't here 40000 years ago love!!!

[Heleuiski]

I wasn't here 40000 years ago love!!!

How do you KNOW that?

:D

[Dom]

How do you KNOW that?

:D


WEll i guess if i was 40000 years old my memory would be shit...

This does all concern me it's the way it is happening faster than predicted.

I don't give a damn about argueing about whether it was caused by humans or not.. that is rather irrelevant. Humans do have the technology availble to effect it and so we can do something about it regardless of why it is happening...

[Heleuiski]

WEll i guess if i was 40000 years old my memory would be shit...

This does all concern me it's the way it is happening faster than predicted.

I don't give a damn about argueing about whether it was caused by humans or not.. that is rather irrelevant. Humans do have the technology availble to effect it and so we can do something about it regardless of why it is happening...

I agree, we have the technology and the resources to vastly improve our quality of life and the qualiy of our animals lives on this planet.

[Krill]

We are totaly fucked.....

Methane (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5321046.stm)

That link has it all wrong. (http://foshata.com/?fsh=GUC)


I agree, we have the technology and the resources to vastly improve our quality of life and the quality of our animal's food products.

Fixed.

[Dom]

That link has it all wrong. (http://foshata.com/?fsh=GUC)



Fixed.

:rofl:

[Melody]

just thought i would drop this link here. not saying i endorse it as what i believe, but i like the talking guy's no-bullshit tone

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=penn+teller

[Heleuiski]

Yeah I love right wing no bullshit. Makes me hawt.

[Heleuiski]

Arguments used to dismiss action on climate change
From SourceWatch

A poster on Slashdot [1] (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131998&cid=11025658) suggested that there is need to provide detailed refutation to most common attempts to dismiss the climate change hypothesis with proper references, facts checked and stuff.

* We only have temperature records for the last few hundred years. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years)
* The sun is getting hotter. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation)
* Climate change == global warming - great! It's too cold where I am!
* Climate change is pseudo-science
* Climate change is just a theory - we should wait until it's proven before taking action
* Climate scientists deliberately falsify and/or manufacture fake data to support the theory, because otherwise they wouldn't get grants for further research.
* Climate science is skewed by unconcious assumptions that climate change is anthropogenic
* Climate change is a conspiracy by the UN or the French or Europeans or Chinese to hurt the USA
* Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans (several variants on this one - eg more than all humans ever, this year, etc)
* For every scientist who predicts global warming doom and gloom, you will find as many who say that it isn't happening, or that human activity isn't a significant factor. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
* we are barely 10,000 years out of our last one, and may still be warming FROM it? 10,000 years are mere seconds in geologic time.
* the Earth has sustained worse temperature fluxations. (variants: in human history / last 10,000 years / lifetime of the planet) [5] (http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2004/12/why-do-people-say-climate-change-is.html)
* Cows produce methane
* Climate change is a logical fallacy - post hoc ergo prompter hoc - ???
* we don't know enough about the climate to accurately predict the week's weather, let alone next century -
* "Al Gore gave a speech about the dangers of global warming on the coldest day on record in New York. " - confuses weather/climate
* Global warming and cooling has been happening for millions of years. [6] (http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2004/12/why-do-people-say-climate-change-is.html) (same as above)
* We honestly don't have the data to say that human activity is causing more trouble than dinosaurs passing gas. [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change)
* "Anyone who wants to do climate prediction should be instantly suspect as some tree hugging radical whose agenda is to push some bullshit greenpeace agenda."
* "...the claim that all Climate Scientists agree with the Global Warming ideas is just not so. There are a lot who think otherwise" [8] (http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2004/12/consensus.html)
* "...remember the "Acid Rain" threat a few years ago that has disappeared from discussion." (also conflating climate change with CFC Ozone hole issue)
* "If the ice on the continent's melts off won't those land masses lift up do to the loss of all of that weight? It is my understanding that they "float" on the surface anyway, thus the whole pan-Gaea(ps?) thing."
* "This research has some serious flaws. It is essentially based on information for a single summer,.."
* "Speaking as a (doctor/programmer/lawyer/...) I know that..." (false authority syndrome)
* "the long term climatological charts [...] show ... long periods of warm alternated by long periods of ice age, where long is measured in thousands of years. We're actually at the end of a typical warm peak."
* "The US led the world in creating true, workable, enforceable environmental legislation and regulation at every governmental level. Ya think someone would ask us how to figure out what is doable and what isn't?"
* "The Kyoto accords don't account for every man made emission. Without that, it doesn't allow for a clear count of total emissions dumped into the atmosphere. For example, what about cooking/heating fires widely used throughout the world? As pointed out elsewhere in this thread what about sloppy mining practices that cause fires? What about garbage plants? etc."
* Manmade carbon dioxide is responsible for about 0.08% of the greenhouse

effect (by effect rather than by volume, and including water vapour in the equation). Will the reduction of this by 1/3 as required by Kyoto make any appreciable difference to anything?

* "I read somewhere that the last time we had global warming the ancient civilizations were formed - Egypt, Babylonia, etc... These civilizations formed in what should've been the hottest places on the planet. Which means one of two things: Either we humans live best in 120-150 degree whether (doubtful) or global warming will increase rainfall and fertility in those regions (likely)."
* "a CO2 sink that most global warming papers I've read tend to neglect; Plankton."
* "800 years ago they were growing grapes for wine in northern England. So it used to be hotter than this before the heavy industrial pollutants."
* addressing climate change will lead to American job losses

[Krill]

Points that have yet to be criticized or are straw-men whose real arguments have yet to be refuted:


* Climate scientists deliberately falsify and/or manufacture fake data to support the theory, because otherwise they wouldn't get grants for further research. Straw-man: The argument is that certain climate scientists have just as much bias as scientists that might do studies that disagree with theirs.
* we are barely 10,000 years out of our last one, and may still be warming FROM it? 10,000 years are mere seconds in geologic time.
* the Earth has sustained worse temperature fluxations. (variants: in human history / last 10,000 years / lifetime of the planet) [5] (http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2004/12/why-do-people-say-climate-change-is.html) A blog? Please.
* Climate change is a logical fallacy - post hoc ergo prompter hoc - ??? Well, it's true that conclusions on climate change are logically fallacious. That doesn't mean that they're wrong.
* we don't know enough about the climate to accurately predict the week's weather, let alone next century - Sounds reasonable.
* Global warming and cooling has been happening for millions of years. [6] (http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2004/12/why-do-people-say-climate-change-is.html) (same as above) Once again, a blog?
* We honestly don't have the data to say that human activity is causing more trouble than dinosaurs passing gas. [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change) Since there are this many scientists that oppose that conclusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus) this isn't that radical of a claim. We don't have the data, and I have yet to see any (although I see people claiming we do, or claiming correlation implies causation)
* "...the claim that all Climate Scientists agree with the Global Warming ideas is just not so. There are a lot who think otherwise" [8] (http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2004/12/consensus.html) Once again, a blog? See the above link. I don't know if this is "a lot". Furthermore this is a fallacy ad populum.
* "This research has some serious flaws. It is essentially based on information for a single summer,.." This is an innappropriate criticism?
* "Speaking as a (doctor/programmer/lawyer/...) I know that..." (false authority syndrome) Lawl, all those smart scientisty folks agree (well most of them) therefore I know that... (ad populum and appeal to authority)
* "the long term climatological charts [...] show ... long periods of warm alternated by long periods of ice age, where long is measured in thousands of years. We're actually at the end of a typical warm peak." I've seen graphs like this. Now, the rate at which the changes should be according based on these is not something I've calculated. However, it is not a ridiculous point to make.
* Manmade carbon dioxide is responsible for about 0.08% of the greenhouse
effect (by effect rather than by volume, and including water vapour in the equation). Will the reduction of this by 1/3 as required by Kyoto make any appreciable difference to anything? I've actually done the calculations based on statistics I've researched myself and reached this conclusion. Of course, you'd have to use your own info to refute this claim. I suggest you do so.
* "a CO2 sink that most global warming papers I've read tend to neglect; Plankton." I've seen this pointed out, but never refuted.

I am of course, being very generous in that I'm not criticizing your use of wikipedia as a source :)

[booyalab]

just thought i would drop this link here. not saying i endorse it as what i believe, but i like the talking guy's no-bullshit tone

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=penn+teller

thanks for posting that link.

I dont think that representative they featured was a moron, although she acted that way, I just think that's what happens when you never allow your beliefs to be challenged. She probably wouldn't even associate with someone who didn't believe what she did, much less befriend them or engage them in an actual conversation.
She was too busy being startled at the concept that there might be an alternative to her viewpoint held by someone other than demonic corporate executives she never sees to formulate any rational explanations to the questions.

and it probably doesn't need to be said, but i agreed with pretty much all of their main points. i remember being sent to a horrible new age camp for kids with my brother when we were young where they taught us that trees cry when you peel their bark off. and not metaphorical crying. they ACTUALLY cry, in their special tree language. (my parents didn't know it was new age, they wouldn't have sent us if they did)
when we washed our hands, we had to share the run off so we wouldn't waste any precious drops.

[Melody]

and not metaphorical crying. they ACTUALLY cry, in their special tree language. (my parents didn't know it was new age, they wouldn't have sent us if they did)
when we washed our hands, we had to share the run off so we wouldn't waste any precious drops. O_o

wham right in the eye. stupidity is strong

[wildcat]

Climate change has nothing to do with money.

[Krill]

This is an interesting take on it. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4216)


Climate change has nothing to do with money.

I'm not sure, check out this correlation:
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/damage/fig2.gif
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Angell-Balloon.jpg

ZOMG CURRENCY IS THE CAUSE. QUICK, BURN THE PRINTING PRESSES!

[wildcat]

So we all know the globe is getting hotter (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi?variable=global_t&region=global&season=0112). This much isn't in doubt.

However, Al Gore and co. can show me all the correlations they like between human activity and this warming, but they don't realise that it is impossible to prove causation. We would need a "Control Earth" for that, one that is just like ours, but no humans.

*momentary daydream*

I might be wrong though. Any thoughts on proving causation in terms of climate change?
To produce about a change does not cost money.
Nor it is something that takes place at the top of the hierarchy.

What is needed is a change of a custom/everyday mode of living at the root level.
=where the pollution takes place.

The pollution does not take place in a conference room.

[kuranes]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/12/man_made_factors_fuel_hurricanes_study_finds/

[wildcat]

This is proof that we haven't built on that mountain, not proof that our building elsewhere has an impact on global warming. If you're going to high-horse someone, at least make some sense?

I'm actually torn on this topic. I think we -are- having an impact, but I strongly doubt that we are the -cause-.
We are the cause of the cause. Air is a limited commodity. So is water.
Of course you can dream. Never mind the facts.

[earwax]

This is an interesting take on it. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4216)
Actually that is an interesting take.. It in no way disputes that we are having an effect, it just says that we will run out of gas before we do too much damage. This may in fact be a good thing....

Still sounds like developing alternative power sources would be a good idea. Might as well check out cleaner and easily renewable sources while we're at it.