| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On January 13 2013 15:23 Zeon0 wrote: weather != climate a single year is completly irrelevant, u have to look at the big picture. A single year is not climate, true. But a single year does nicely deal with those idiots who claim global warming stopped in 1998 because that year just so happened to be the hottest year on record. So it's not "completly irrelevant". One year is still a data point. | ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On January 13 2013 13:44 Alex1Sun wrote: I am genuinely interested why of all the ecological problems is there so much focus of climate change alone? Soil erosion, deforestation, vanishing aquifers, pollution, depleting fishing stocks, failing nitrogen and potassium cycles as well as overall increasing difficulty of finding affordable oil and rare earth metals, all of it combined with growing population is of less concern than climate change? Media seems to say so... and that's confusing... Actually, many of the problems you mentioned is a cause or result of global warming. Some of them just got bundle into global warming issue. Deforestation is quite an obvious one. You cut down more trees, less vegetation to absorb CO2 during spring-summer, more accumulation of CO2. So this is one of the causes of global warming that many organizations aim to reduce or prevent now. But it is very difficult to do so in developing country. Depleting fising stocks is one of the result of global warming couple with over-fishing. The change in ocean temperature can affect aquatic lives and ecosystem significantly and could lead to extinction of many aquatic species. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On January 13 2013 13:44 Alex1Sun wrote: I am genuinely interested why of all the ecological problems is there so much focus of climate change alone? Soil erosion, deforestation, vanishing aquifers, pollution, depleting fishing stocks, failing nitrogen and potassium cycles as well as overall increasing difficulty of finding affordable oil and rare earth metals, all of it combined with growing population is of less concern than climate change? Media seems to say so... and that's confusing... Because, of all of those problems (ignoring the ones that are caused by or are contributing to climate change): 1: Climate change is the one that a lot of people are saying isn't real or isn't our doing. So idiocy, profit-protecting, and politics are getting in the way much more strongly than any other issue. 2: Solving climate change requires significant action and commitment, of a level beyond any of the other environmental problems. 3: Failing to solve climate change will lead to... unpleasant outcomes. 4: Some of the unpleasant outcomes of failing to deal with climate change are simply unknown. So it will be hard to preemptively prepare for some of these possibilities, since we won't know what they are until they happen. 5: The worst-case scenario for climate change, touching off a positive feedback loop of carbon release that raises temperatures beyond all modern estimates, would lead to the eventual extinction or near-extinction of the entire human race. | ||
|
Rainling
United States456 Posts
On January 13 2013 13:44 Alex1Sun wrote: I am genuinely interested why of all the ecological problems is there so much focus of climate change alone? Soil erosion, deforestation, vanishing aquifers, pollution, depleting fishing stocks, failing nitrogen and potassium cycles as well as overall increasing difficulty of finding affordable oil and rare earth metals, all of it combined with growing population is of less concern than climate change? Media seems to say so... and that's confusing... Many argue that the potential of factors such as population growth, decreasing biodiversity, etc. to harm our environment and ourselves is comparable to or greater than global warming. For example, Carsten Rahbek, the director of the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate at the University of Copenhagen, said that "the biodiversity crisis is probably a greater threat than global climate change to the stability and prosperous future of mankind on Earth." (http://www.kcet.org/news/the_back_forty/wildlife/is-there-a-bigger-issue-than-climate-change-scientists-say-yes.html) One reason for this focus on climate change could be that, for many people, climate change isn't a scientific issue. Climate change, at least in the US, has recently become a very political issue. A belief in climate change is currently a core part of the Democratic platform (they "affirm the science of climate change"), and the 2012 Republican Platform does not suggest that climate change is a problem, opposing further greenhouse gas regulations. In the US, the percentage of Republicans believing that the effects of global warming have begun already has decreased from about 50% to 30% from 2001 to 2010, and the percentage of Democrats believing in this statement has increased from about 60% to 70% over the same time period. (http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/climate_science_as_culture_war) Although it's arguable that the increase in belief among Democrats has resulted from increased evidence for climate change, the significant drop in the proportion of Republicans believing in the phenomena suggests that many individuals' belief in climate change isn't significantly influenced by evidence. I think climate change, just like other controversial issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and stem cell research, is important to people because it is part of their identity - i.e. how they distinguish themselves from others and affiliate themselves with particular groups. For whatever reason, belief in climate change has become a way for people to identify with liberals, and disbelief a way for people to identify with conservatives. My opinion is that issues like the ones you mentioned are also important issues, but they don't currently have the same significance in forming cultural identity as climate change. Because of this, people care less about other ecological problems than they do about global warming. | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
On January 13 2013 17:39 Rainling wrote: Many argue that the potential of factors such as population growth, decreasing biodiversity, etc. to harm our environment and ourselves is comparable to or greater than global warming. For example, Carsten Rahbek, the director of the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate at the University of Copenhagen, said that "the biodiversity crisis is probably a greater threat than global climate change to the stability and prosperous future of mankind on Earth." (http://www.kcet.org/news/the_back_forty/wildlife/is-there-a-bigger-issue-than-climate-change-scientists-say-yes.html) One reason for this focus on climate change could be that, for many people, climate change isn't a scientific issue. Climate change, at least in the US, has recently become a very political issue. A belief in climate change is currently a core part of the Democratic platform (they "affirm the science of climate change"), and the 2012 Republican Platform does not suggest that climate change is a problem, opposing further greenhouse gas regulations. In the US, the percentage of Republicans believing that the effects of global warming have begun already has decreased from about 50% to 30% from 2001 to 2010, and the percentage of Democrats believing in this statement has increased from about 60% to 70% over the same time period. (http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/climate_science_as_culture_war) Although it's arguable that the increase in belief among Democrats has resulted from increased evidence for climate change, the significant drop in the proportion of Republicans believing in the phenomena suggests that many individuals' belief in climate change isn't significantly influenced by evidence. I think climate change, just like other controversial issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and stem cell research, is important to people because it is part of their identity - i.e. how they distinguish themselves from others and affiliate themselves with particular groups. For whatever reason, belief in climate change has become a way for people to identify with liberals, and disbelief a way for people to identify with conservatives. My opinion is that issues like the ones you mentioned are also important issues, but they don't currently have the same significance in forming cultural identity as climate change. Because of this, people care less about other ecological problems than they do about global warming. What the fuck? The focus on climate change is because it's the biggest problem the human race has ever encountered. No other issue, save nuclear proliferation, comes close to threatening the lives of billions of people. | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On January 13 2013 18:34 nebffa wrote: What the fuck? The focus on climate change is because it's the biggest problem the human race has ever encountered. No other issue, save nuclear proliferation, comes close to threatening the lives of billions of people. You mean global COOLING. Prosperity in human history has coincided nearly every time with a general warming period. And you think it's a coincidence nuclear proliferation and global warming are the most important issues to you? Actually, poverty, AIDS, and malnutriton are the largest issues in terms of demographic numbers. Not only is global warming a non-issue, but nuclear proliferation is merely powerful figures arguing who's genitalia is bigger as they live in this Cold War mindset. | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
On January 13 2013 18:44 slytown wrote: You mean global COOLING. Prosperity in human history has coincided nearly every time with a general warming period. And you think it's a coincidence nuclear proliferation and global warming are the most important issues to you? Actually, poverty, AIDS, and malnutriton are the largest issues in terms of demographic numbers. Not only is global warming a non-issue, but nuclear proliferation is merely powerful figures arguing who's genitalia is bigger as they live in this Cold War mindset. Actually I mean climate change. But it's good for everyone in this thread to know though, that your opinions disagree with the overwhelming (> 99%) consensus of scientists that are highly educated in these matters. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On January 13 2013 19:20 nebffa wrote: Actually I mean climate change. But it's good for everyone in this thread to know though, that your opinions disagree with the overwhelming (> 99%) consensus of scientists that are highly educated in these matters. Slytown is wrong about nomenclature and seems to lack understanding of the historical triggering mechanisms behind ice ages. However he is right that poverty, AIDS and malnutrition are huge issues (and politically they are bigger issues because they are acute). The thing climate change has going is the uncertainty involved. Nobody knows exactly what will happen as greenhouse gasses clog up the athmosphere. That is what the far left is using to futher their agenda of sustainable selfsufficient life. By making it a doom-issue they are trying to force a strong reaction (and probably an over-reaction).However, it is certain that it will take a long time before the effects will set in and that very heavy lag in cause-effect is what is making the problem something that Kock Brothers and other like-minded entities can abuse to create fear of economic losses, uncetainty about the science behind it and doubt about its actual existence (That is FUD). The scientist are constantly improving predictions on the effects, but since it has become a religious cult topic in politics, science is brushed aside to make room for political bubbleheads. That be, the far left where the world is expected to go under because of climate change if not today, then tomorrow and the far right where evidence is manufactored by a conspiracy and climate change doesn't exist since god would never allow it! Both stances are completely void of scientific merit, but why let facts come in the way of a good political headbudding match? | ||
|
Rainling
United States456 Posts
On January 13 2013 18:34 nebffa wrote: What the fuck? The focus on climate change is because it's the biggest problem the human race has ever encountered. No other issue, save nuclear proliferation, comes close to threatening the lives of billions of people. I think there are other issues that come close to threatening the lives of billions of people. I'm not trying to get nitpicky here, but some scenarios that could kill billions of people are a asteroid impact, supervolcano eruption, global pandemic, overpopulation leading to global famine, crop shortages due to environmental or disease issues, and biological weapons. One study from the University of Copenhagen estimates that at least 50% of terrestrial species will be wiped out by 2250 assuming current trends continue, a result that would obviously have terrible consequences for humanity. (http://www.kcet.org/news/the_back_forty/wildlife/is-there-a-bigger-issue-than-climate-change-scientists-say-yes.html) Another issue that could potentially cause the death of billions of people is running out of fossil fuel energy sources before we have sufficient renewable sources to replace them. Soil degradation could cause widespread famine. Ocean acidification is also an environmental issue that could have enormous repercussions for human life. Anyway, I agree with you, global warming is a major threat to humanity. I think, if anything, climate change deserves more attention than it currently gets. But I also think we don't discuss other environmental issues enough. For example, the US Democratic National Platform mentions climate change 18 times, but it does not mention biodiversity (it does mention habitat preservation), soil degradation, overpopulation, or a possible fossil fuel shortage once. These other issues also pose great threat to people, but they aren't mentioned. | ||
|
bOneSeven
Romania685 Posts
It's something huge, I have no real scientific knowledge on anything really, but I think it's fairly right and logical to say that this problem is way to complex to be understood even if you know all the science on it. | ||
|
peacenl
550 Posts
One thing is for sure: companies, governments starting to tax each other for their CO2 emission or companies can pay off their CO2 emission to build new forests etc.. Everyone's happy? Well not really, it complete misses the goal of stimulating CO2 reduction once people can buy off their polluting and feel good about it. | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On January 14 2013 05:23 peacenl wrote: My climate change knowledge is very low. However, seeing how we are still unable to way predict the worlds weather for the next few days, I can not say anything else but that this subject is still way too unclear to go rampant on their implications. The OP has a noble cause, but convincing someone shouldn't take persuasive words, but evidence from actual scientists. Especially, since history can show us that we shouldn't overreact on these things. Quite some doom scenarios for natural disaster have crossed the globe, which have made a few people very rich (coincidentally the investors in that research branch) but never really turned out to be an immediately danger. One thing is for sure: companies, governments starting to tax each other for their CO2 emission or companies can pay off their CO2 emission to build new forests etc.. Everyone's happy? Well not really, it complete misses the goal of stimulating CO2 reduction once people can buy off their polluting and feel good about it. ^^^this. If I can say one good thing about the Bush administration (and boy is it hard) it's the he declined to institute a national carbon tax or join the circle jerk that is the Kyoto Protocol. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On January 14 2013 05:23 peacenl wrote: [...] However, seeing how we are still unable to way predict the worlds weather for the next few days, I can not say anything else but that this subject is still way too unclear to go rampant on their implications. [...] I don't see what's so hard to believe about this. The guys build their computer models and can test them, guessing how good they are. For example, they could feed the models with data up to 1970, and let it predict the climate in 2010, and then see how good the various models do. Then they can feed it with the complete data up to 2010, and let it predict the climate for the next one hundred years. It's actual, real, full-time work over decades for some of those people. They did not get rich, it's just a normal job with normal pay. There's no profit in this, unlike with some billionaire oil magnate. Criticism is always coming from politicians, lawyers, businessmen, etc., never from people with actual natural sciences background, so there's never critique through actual science work, only through talk and twisting words. You should not put the same worth into that, it's not real arguments, no physics, no math, no building new super computers, no programming those computers, no building and launching satellites, no expeditions and digging in the arctic, nothing. | ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
On January 14 2013 05:23 peacenl wrote: My climate change knowledge is very low. However, seeing how we are still unable to way predict the worlds weather for the next few days, I can not say anything else but that this subject is still way too unclear to go rampant on their implications. The OP has a noble cause, but convincing someone shouldn't take persuasive words, but evidence from actual scientists. Especially, since history can show us that we shouldn't overreact on these things. Quite some doom scenarios for natural disaster have crossed the globe, which have made a few people very rich (coincidentally the investors in that research branch) but never really turned out to be an immediately danger. One thing is for sure: companies, governments starting to tax each other for their CO2 emission or companies can pay off their CO2 emission to build new forests etc.. Everyone's happy? Well not really, it complete misses the goal of stimulating CO2 reduction once people can buy off their polluting and feel good about it. Maybe if you had read the OP a bit better you would have stumbled over this link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy You even have the sources for the published articles there, if you find the answers too "persuasive" for you. The biggest problem with the climate debate are people who know actully very little about the scientific background, but believe they have great knowlegde about it (this is not directed towards your post, just general annoyance of people who speak strongly about stuff they don't have much knowlegde about). It's sad how little people trusts scientists and published articles these days. | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
On January 13 2013 20:53 radiatoren wrote: Slytown is wrong about nomenclature and seems to lack understanding of the historical triggering mechanisms behind ice ages. However he is right that poverty, AIDS and malnutrition are huge issues (and politically they are bigger issues because they are acute). The thing climate change has going is the uncertainty involved. Nobody knows exactly what will happen as greenhouse gasses clog up the athmosphere. That is what the far left is using to futher their agenda of sustainable selfsufficient life. By making it a doom-issue they are trying to force a strong reaction (and probably an over-reaction).However, it is certain that it will take a long time before the effects will set in and that very heavy lag in cause-effect is what is making the problem something that Kock Brothers and other like-minded entities can abuse to create fear of economic losses, uncetainty about the science behind it and doubt about its actual existence (That is FUD). The scientist are constantly improving predictions on the effects, but since it has become a religious cult topic in politics, science is brushed aside to make room for political bubbleheads. That be, the far left where the world is expected to go under because of climate change if not today, then tomorrow and the far right where evidence is manufactored by a conspiracy and climate change doesn't exist since god would never allow it! Both stances are completely void of scientific merit, but why let facts come in the way of a good political headbudding match? What a joke. "Nobody knows exactly what will happen as greenhouse gasses clog up the atmosphere". In fact we know very well what is happening and what will happen - global temperatures are changing at a faster rate than they have ever changed in Earth's history. This is going to destroy tons of plant and animal life that have no time to move to higher/lower latitudes to maintain the same temperature. Normally these plants and animals can survive if they have THOUSANDS OF YEARS to move around. Sorry buddy but to say that the impacts of climate change are not well understood is wrong. We know exactly why climate change is such a big problem for the future. | ||
|
arcHoniC
United States141 Posts
I dont really know much about the consensus but with any subject that involves probably billions in funding there is going to be other interests. | ||
|
Abraxas514
Canada475 Posts
I find it hard to care about loosing insects, seeing as they are highly adaptable and other insects can fill the roles just as well or even better than dead species. | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On January 14 2013 12:11 arcHoniC wrote: Scientist here, I just wanted to put out there that there is a TONNNNNN of money in climate change as far as research grants go. Because of this people will go all out doing their best to show the world climate change exists. I think that there is a lot of good science going on with climate change but there is also a lot of bad science out there. Just because it was published probably doesnt mean anything because the publisher wants there to be problems so that the journal still has a purpose. I dont really know much about the consensus but with any subject that involves probably billions in funding there is going to be other interests. As a scientist you should know that "published" is not the determiner of success but rather peer review. That there is a ton of money in the field means there is a ton of competition. If you are taking a portion of that money to do bad science then good scientists are going to pick you and your benefactor apart in the realm of public opinion in an attempt to take your resources. When the field is as big as climate science is the absolute amount of bad science goes up but the percentage of bad science relative to good goes down. This makes academic consensus really powerful barring some NWO level of conspiracy theory. | ||
|
Fenris420
Sweden213 Posts
On January 14 2013 12:11 arcHoniC wrote: Scientist here, I just wanted to put out there that there is a TONNNNNN of money in climate change as far as research grants go. Because of this people will go all out doing their best to show the world climate change exists. I think that there is a lot of good science going on with climate change but there is also a lot of bad science out there. Just because it was published probably doesnt mean anything because the publisher wants there to be problems so that the journal still has a purpose. I dont really know much about the consensus but with any subject that involves probably billions in funding there is going to be other interests. I can't deny that you are correct, however it is an argument you can use on any field of science and any question in particular. You also cannot deny that there should be considerable money in the game for people who want to disprove of the human efefct on climate. Most notably from the fossile fuel industries and other stakeholders that stand to lose greatly on stricter regulations or prohibitions. Just the fact that there is enough reason to build a hypothesis around the question makes me think we should not take chances in hoping they are wrong. Yeah it is gonna cost money but quite frankly the opportunity cost is trivial in comparison to the potential damage we might sustain. As with any of the global crises. People are just not willing to look more than a few years into the future when they make plans. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
 just to hop in: @peacendl: I am not on a noble cause and I am a real scientist, just to clarify these two assumptions of yours @ alex1sun: I believe, that other ecological and social problems are potentially as disastrous as climate change and should be adressed first / in parallel / urgently. This goes for urgent direct things as hunger but also holds for complex threads as loss of bio diversity. Many studies have linked many of the problems and it can usually be put under one number: the stress that the environment acts on a specific habitat. This stress can be climatological (if it gets warmer / colder / drier / wetter), it can be human (if we put up concrete verywhere), it can be biological (new pests arrive). I believe for example that the climate problem is more discussed in the public is just a question of time, the bio diversity discussion has only started in the last decades as a follow/up of the climate discussion. the main point is, we should face one reality: Earth is in the Anthroposcene, humanity is massively influencing many parts of the Earth System. If we will understand the system soon enough to prevent it from breaking apart is questionable to me. I believe, though, that none of the effects will be really life threatening in _our_ lives (our = western europe, US) and _timespan_. Problems will come later and in other regions first. @archonic: the "there is so much money" argument. this is plainly ridiculous (and I do not have the time to check, but I believe I put up replies to that into the OP years ago ~): the point is simple: think of a science that attracts many new young scientist because of political relevance and positions. most if not all positions in science are public service positions are not incredibly well paid. so more money into a specific science means more scientists, not richer scientists). (as climate change does, I am a physicist by training and I moved into Earth System REsearch because of both). now, you have more scientists then before. to get to better positions in science you have to find something that nobody has before. the easiest point to become famous would be to prove that climate change is a hoax. so many many thousands of young phd students hit their head against the wall and try to come up with a better explanation. one day someone might succeed, so far nobody has. (its btw NOT the sun. the sun irradiation is not increasing. the only measurable change is in magnetic fluxes and there is not proof whatsoever that this is connected to direct global temperature changes). so more money means more people testing the hypothesis. not the same people just getting richer (I would like that over and out, best regards to everyone, happy new year 2013 W | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
WardiTV European League
BSL: ProLeague
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
The PondCast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
