|
On January 14 2013 13:32 Abraxas514 wrote:
I would like to point out, "Loss of Biodiversity" could mean that out of 400,000 species of beetles, we may loose 350,000.
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.
That's just not how ecosystems work. You can't assume there will be an equal or greater replacement. You end up with replacements like the Emerald Ash Borer which is on track to successfully kill all the Ash trees in North America.
"Since its accidental introduction into the United States and Canada in the 1990s, and its subsequent detection in 2002,[3] it has spread to 14 states and adjacent parts of Canada. It has killed at least 50 to 100 million ash trees so far and threatens to kill most of the 7.5 billion ash trees throughout North America.[4] The emerald ash borer is now one of the most destructive non-native insects in the United States; it and other wood-boring pests cause an estimated $3.5 billion in annual damages in the U.S.[5]
The insect threatens the entire North American Fraxinus genus, unlike past invasive tree pests, which have only threatened a single species within a genus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_ash_borer
That is a bad replacement, its already killed a huge portion of the Ash trees in my state and while there are other trees to replace those, it makes the forests more susceptible to disease. We've already lost pretty much all the chestnut trees. How many species of trees can we lose before its a problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chestnut_blight
The loss of species in an ecosystem makes it easier to invasive species to move in and they have devastating consequences, you don't just end up with better beetles.
|
You are a german scientist, I believe you.
|
Amazing thread. Keep up the good work.
|
On January 14 2013 12:05 nebffa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 20:53 radiatoren wrote:On January 13 2013 19:20 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 18:44 slytown wrote:On January 13 2013 18:34 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 17:39 Rainling wrote: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. 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. 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? 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.
Sorry to say this, but you have absolutely no basis for assuming that we know it very well.
Let me make it clear what you need to answer before you can say what is the factual effects:
Causality between CO2 and temperature is relatively scientifically agreed upon (which is a point most climate change deniers do not sufficiently understand the consequences of), but is it a linear function or some other function predicting the extrapolation?
The sea covers 2/3rd of the world and it is undeniable that it will influence the consequences, but how and how much (I am specifically thinking Calcium binding of CO2, precipitation patterns, melting of ice and deep-water currents)?
Clouds and sun effects are to some degree taken into account, but they are not necessarily well understood on a meteorological short term basis. How will the short term meteorological effects be of the changes (more extreme weather patterns, is pretty certain, but how exactly will it be all over the world - Hint, it is a question of how the models look and are calibrated)?
How is the correlations in the equations and to what degree is it random or unexplained (how do you distinguish)?
As for "destroying tons of plant and animal life": From what I understand it is uncertain what effect we will see on amounts of plants and animal life. As for biodiversity I agree that it will be very bad, but how about deforestation in Amazonas and Phillipines? What about invasive species? It is not only because of climate change that we are seeing these effects (and arguably it is the least of those problems atm.) . That stopping deforestation of rain-forest is a win on both climate change and biodiversity is making it that much more important, but stopping deforestation is not even close to enough to stop climate change, ecosystem destruction or habitat invasion.
I thought I made it very clear that I do not deny climate change. I, however, know how science works and what statistics are. You should read what Rainling is writing, cause if I agreed more with him I would wear his undergarments!
|
On January 15 2013 03:03 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2013 12:05 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 20:53 radiatoren wrote:On January 13 2013 19:20 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 18:44 slytown wrote:On January 13 2013 18:34 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 17:39 Rainling wrote: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. 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. 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? 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. Sorry to say this, but you have absolutely no basis for assuming that we know it very well. Let me make it clear what you need to answer before you can say what is the factual effects: Causality between CO2 and temperature is relatively scientifically agreed upon (which is a point most climate change deniers do not sufficiently understand the consequences of), but is it a linear function or some other function predicting the extrapolation? The sea covers 2/3rd of the world and it is undeniable that it will influence the consequences, but how and how much (I am specifically thinking Calcium binding of CO2, precipitation patterns, melting of ice and deep-water currents)? Clouds and sun effects are to some degree taken into account, but they are not necessarily well understood on a meteorological short term basis. How will the short term meteorological effects be of the changes (more extreme weather patterns, is pretty certain, but how exactly will it be all over the world - Hint, it is a question of how the models look and are calibrated)? How is the correlations in the equations and to what degree is it random or unexplained (how do you distinguish)? As for "destroying tons of plant and animal life": From what I understand it is uncertain what effect we will see on amounts of plants and animal life. As for biodiversity I agree that it will be very bad, but how about deforestation in Amazonas and Phillipines? What about invasive species? It is not only because of climate change that we are seeing these effects (and arguably it is the least of those problems atm.) . That stopping deforestation of rain-forest is a win on both climate change and biodiversity is making it that much more important, but stopping deforestation is not even close to enough to stop climate change, ecosystem destruction or habitat invasion. I thought I made it very clear that I do not deny climate change. I, however, know how science works and what statistics are. You should read what Rainling is writing, cause if I agreed more with him I would wear his undergarments!
1. Causality been CO2 and temperature is not 'relatively scientifically agreed upon', it's 'totally scientifically agreed upon'. Historically an approximate one to one relationship: CO2 ppm Temperature
2. How much do you want to know about the sea? The two major things that we know are: the sea stores a lot of carbon but can't hold an infinite amount, and the ocean surface is dark and absorbs more heat than reflective ice.
3. Who cares about short term weather? Climate change is all about the long term, and everyone knows all major extreme weather events will get more extreme.
4. Correlations in what equations? Distinguish what?
You are correct in that climate change is not the prime problem right now. Invasive species, deforestation, at the moment are more of a problem. Climate change in the future will make these problems much much worse: Amazon Rainforest Deforestation. Currently the Amazon rainforest stands at ~80% of its 1970 size. What will climate change do to the Amazon rainforest?
It's not uncertain, as you say, the effects we will see on plant and animal life. It's uncertain in that it hasn't happened yet. But warming at this pace has never happened in the history of the Earth whilst life has been around. It's going to fuck with the other species on the planet so hard.
|
On January 15 2013 09:23 nebffa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 03:03 radiatoren wrote:On January 14 2013 12:05 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 20:53 radiatoren wrote:On January 13 2013 19:20 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 18:44 slytown wrote:On January 13 2013 18:34 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 17:39 Rainling wrote: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. 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. 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? 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. Sorry to say this, but you have absolutely no basis for assuming that we know it very well. Let me make it clear what you need to answer before you can say what is the factual effects: Causality between CO2 and temperature is relatively scientifically agreed upon (which is a point most climate change deniers do not sufficiently understand the consequences of), but is it a linear function or some other function predicting the extrapolation? The sea covers 2/3rd of the world and it is undeniable that it will influence the consequences, but how and how much (I am specifically thinking Calcium binding of CO2, precipitation patterns, melting of ice and deep-water currents)? Clouds and sun effects are to some degree taken into account, but they are not necessarily well understood on a meteorological short term basis. How will the short term meteorological effects be of the changes (more extreme weather patterns, is pretty certain, but how exactly will it be all over the world - Hint, it is a question of how the models look and are calibrated)? How is the correlations in the equations and to what degree is it random or unexplained (how do you distinguish)? As for "destroying tons of plant and animal life": From what I understand it is uncertain what effect we will see on amounts of plants and animal life. As for biodiversity I agree that it will be very bad, but how about deforestation in Amazonas and Phillipines? What about invasive species? It is not only because of climate change that we are seeing these effects (and arguably it is the least of those problems atm.) . That stopping deforestation of rain-forest is a win on both climate change and biodiversity is making it that much more important, but stopping deforestation is not even close to enough to stop climate change, ecosystem destruction or habitat invasion. I thought I made it very clear that I do not deny climate change. I, however, know how science works and what statistics are. You should read what Rainling is writing, cause if I agreed more with him I would wear his undergarments! 1. Causality been CO2 and temperature is not 'relatively scientifically agreed upon', it's 'totally scientifically agreed upon'. Historically an approximate one to one relationship: CO2 ppm Temperature2. How much do you want to know about the sea? The two major things that we know are: the sea stores a lot of carbon but can't hold an infinite amount, and the ocean surface is dark and absorbs more heat than reflective ice. 3. Who cares about short term weather? Climate change is all about the long term, and everyone knows all major extreme weather events will get more extreme. 4. Correlations in what equations? Distinguish what? You are correct in that climate change is not the prime problem right now. Invasive species, deforestation, at the moment are more of a problem. Climate change in the future will make these problems much much worse: Amazon Rainforest Deforestation. Currently the Amazon rainforest stands at ~80% of its 1970 size. What will climate change do to the Amazon rainforest?It's not uncertain, as you say, the effects we will see on plant and animal life. It's uncertain in that it hasn't happened yet. But warming at this pace has never happened in the history of the Earth whilst life has been around. It's going to fuck with the other species on the planet so hard.
While I'm not looking to go into this debate, which in my opinion is best left for those better qualified, I cannot ignore it when obviously wrong information is laid out.
During the Permian-Triassic extinction event the global temperature rose by aproximately 8 °C, furthermore an increase in CO2 levels by 2000 ppm has been measured. Which dominates our current level by more than a slim margin. This all happened in a very short period, hence the massive extinction event. Mother nature can do us more harm, in a shorter period of time, than we ourselves are doing right now. That, however, is not to say that we should continue harming the planet.
Also, any CO2 level or temperature level measured in the last 100 years is alot more accurate than those we glean from, for example ice cores. In the upper ice cores we can seperate layers by one year, but the further we go down the harder it becomes to seperate by years. So eventually we have to date by hundreds of years, instead of just one. So, if we were to date our current CO2 levels and average it over the last 300 years, nothing weird can be noted. Therefore we cannot say that such a sharp rise of CO2 levels hasn't happened before, instead it's much more likely it has happened before because of major vulcanic eruptions like the Siberian Traps.
|
Ok.
Say i am convinced climate change is mostly caused by human activity (i am not but just to avoid the endless yes/no discussion here), then what are we supposed to do about it?
Tell the people in china that they cant have the same living standards as us in the west? not to mention all the people in india and africa?
Cut our own energy use-age and with that living standards with 90%?
Reduce the world population with 90%?
Just wondering what sort of solution the environmentalists have in mind here.
|
On December 13 2011 07:11 Fruscainte wrote:
[. . .] However, to say it doesn't exist or that it's a all a fraud is just straight up ignorance[. . .].
i'm sorry, but i disagree. i have heard several claims about how the entire earth is warming up. from professionals to people who really have no idea what they're talking about. nobody has every actually shown me scientific evidence as proof, however. but even if somebody does, i will have no idea whether its faked or not, since frauds are almost always one step ahead of authority. so to say that saying it doesn't exist or that its all a fraud... you say i'm the ignorant one? i sincerely think you're too quick to judge. well... i think we all are, but my point stands.
|
On January 15 2013 09:57 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 09:23 nebffa wrote:On January 15 2013 03:03 radiatoren wrote:On January 14 2013 12:05 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 20:53 radiatoren wrote:On January 13 2013 19:20 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 18:44 slytown wrote:On January 13 2013 18:34 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 17:39 Rainling wrote: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. 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. 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? 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. Sorry to say this, but you have absolutely no basis for assuming that we know it very well. Let me make it clear what you need to answer before you can say what is the factual effects: Causality between CO2 and temperature is relatively scientifically agreed upon (which is a point most climate change deniers do not sufficiently understand the consequences of), but is it a linear function or some other function predicting the extrapolation? The sea covers 2/3rd of the world and it is undeniable that it will influence the consequences, but how and how much (I am specifically thinking Calcium binding of CO2, precipitation patterns, melting of ice and deep-water currents)? Clouds and sun effects are to some degree taken into account, but they are not necessarily well understood on a meteorological short term basis. How will the short term meteorological effects be of the changes (more extreme weather patterns, is pretty certain, but how exactly will it be all over the world - Hint, it is a question of how the models look and are calibrated)? How is the correlations in the equations and to what degree is it random or unexplained (how do you distinguish)? As for "destroying tons of plant and animal life": From what I understand it is uncertain what effect we will see on amounts of plants and animal life. As for biodiversity I agree that it will be very bad, but how about deforestation in Amazonas and Phillipines? What about invasive species? It is not only because of climate change that we are seeing these effects (and arguably it is the least of those problems atm.) . That stopping deforestation of rain-forest is a win on both climate change and biodiversity is making it that much more important, but stopping deforestation is not even close to enough to stop climate change, ecosystem destruction or habitat invasion. I thought I made it very clear that I do not deny climate change. I, however, know how science works and what statistics are. You should read what Rainling is writing, cause if I agreed more with him I would wear his undergarments! 1. Causality been CO2 and temperature is not 'relatively scientifically agreed upon', it's 'totally scientifically agreed upon'. Historically an approximate one to one relationship: CO2 ppm Temperature2. How much do you want to know about the sea? The two major things that we know are: the sea stores a lot of carbon but can't hold an infinite amount, and the ocean surface is dark and absorbs more heat than reflective ice. 3. Who cares about short term weather? Climate change is all about the long term, and everyone knows all major extreme weather events will get more extreme. 4. Correlations in what equations? Distinguish what? You are correct in that climate change is not the prime problem right now. Invasive species, deforestation, at the moment are more of a problem. Climate change in the future will make these problems much much worse: Amazon Rainforest Deforestation. Currently the Amazon rainforest stands at ~80% of its 1970 size. What will climate change do to the Amazon rainforest?It's not uncertain, as you say, the effects we will see on plant and animal life. It's uncertain in that it hasn't happened yet. But warming at this pace has never happened in the history of the Earth whilst life has been around. It's going to fuck with the other species on the planet so hard. While I'm not looking to go into this debate, which in my opinion is best left for those better qualified, I cannot ignore it when obviously wrong information is laid out. During the Permian-Triassic extinction event the global temperature rose by aproximately 8 °C, furthermore an increase in CO2 levels by 2000 ppm has been measured. Which dominates our current level by more than a slim margin. This all happened in a very short period, hence the massive extinction event. Mother nature can do us more harm, in a shorter period of time, than we ourselves are doing right now. That, however, is not to say that we should continue harming the planet. Also, any CO2 level or temperature level measured in the last 100 years is alot more accurate than those we glean from, for example ice cores. In the upper ice cores we can seperate layers by one year, but the further we go down the harder it becomes to seperate by years. So eventually we have to date by hundreds of years, instead of just one. So, if we were to date our current CO2 levels and average it over the last 300 years, nothing weird can be noted. Therefore we cannot say that such a sharp rise of CO2 levels hasn't happened before, instead it's much more likely it has happened before because of major vulcanic eruptions like the Siberian Traps.
Yes, the sharpest rise, save for this event. I thought someone might bring it up, however it's a bit different to climate change (a giant asteroid hitting the surface of our planet ; ))
On January 15 2013 09:59 Rassy wrote:
Ok.
Say i am convinced climate change is mostly caused by human activity (i am not but just to avoid the endless yes/no discussion here), then what are we supposed to do about it?
Tell the people in china that they cant have the same living standards as us in the west? not to mention all the people in india and africa?
Cut our own energy use-age and with that living standards with 90%?
Reduce the world population with 90%?
Just wondering what sort of solution the environmentalists have in mind here.
It's surprising for most people when they find out the technology exists today to provide the world with cheap energy at present-day consumption levels. I was really surprised myself.... everyone knows about wind power and solar. Solar cells don't work when the sun doesn't shine, but solar thermal (basically using lots of mirrors to heat up some stuff really fucking hot) works when the sun is there, but it stays hot for a long time after the sun is gone. No fancy chemicals are needed for this sort of stuff, and it is all 'cheap' to make (in the scheme of things). This is the likely way of the future.
On January 15 2013 10:08 lumencryster wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 07:11 Fruscainte wrote:
[. . .] However, to say it doesn't exist or that it's a all a fraud is just straight up ignorance[. . .]. i'm sorry, but i disagree. i have heard several claims about how the entire earth is warming up. from professionals to people who really have no idea what they're talking about. nobody has every actually shown me scientific evidence as proof, however. but even if somebody does, i will have no idea whether its faked or not, since frauds are almost always one step ahead of authority. so to say that saying it doesn't exist or that its all a fraud... you say i'm the ignorant one? i sincerely think you're too quick to judge. well... i think we all are, but my point stands.
No... not really... not when you disagree with the overwhelming majority of experts in a field. "I don't believe cigarettes lead to lung cancer... well who can say? My point still stands....."
|
The answer to the question how do we revert climate change is pretty simple. The hard part however is who is going to do it and why. No one is to profit from it if we start going trough with it. Its gonna cost so much money and I can count on one hand, the ammout of people who would actually start it. A start would be to regenerate ozone layer.
To the denialists, I just can´t take them seriously nor do I feel the need to change their minds. It's far beyond the point of agreeing/disagreeing but rather how to we slow it down/stop it and how.
|
On January 15 2013 09:59 Rassy wrote:
Ok.
Say i am convinced climate change is mostly caused by human activity (i am not but just to avoid the endless yes/no discussion here), then what are we supposed to do about it?
Tell the people in china that they cant have the same living standards as us in the west? not to mention all the people in india and africa?
Cut our own energy use-age and with that living standards with 90%?
Reduce the world population with 90%?
Just wondering what sort of solution the environmentalists have in mind here.
You know just as well as I do that those numbers are absolutely outrageous. I live in a city with hardly any carbon emissions today. By 2030 they expect to be completly done with the fossile fuels including vehicles. I pay no extra taxes, I have no obligations to do any hippie stuff and most importantly I sit in a fully lit room with a computer, cellphone and internet whenever I want.
Granted, I don't own a car, and hence do not need to pay the devil with blood of virgins in order to get gas for it, but at the same time the reason I don't have a car is because I don't need one. My uncle works for an energy company and he runs his company car on biogas, something that is actually cheaper than gas where he lives I believe, so that problem is not really relevant either.
You would have to change your life around a bit to facillitate change, but that does not mean the change is intrinsically bad.
My city had economical growth due to their environmental projects as they got people and companies employed. In twenty years time you wouldn't even notice that it has taken place. That is not 90% of the living standards given up, nor did we kill off 90% of the people here. A lot of people tend to paint an image of this process as something hard and expensive when it clearly does not have to be.
|
On January 15 2013 09:59 Rassy wrote:
Ok.
Say i am convinced climate change is mostly caused by human activity (i am not but just to avoid the endless yes/no discussion here), then what are we supposed to do about it?
Tell the people in china that they cant have the same living standards as us in the west? not to mention all the people in india and africa?
Cut our own energy use-age and with that living standards with 90%?
Reduce the world population with 90%?
Just wondering what sort of solution the environmentalists have in mind here.
A lot of good stuff is on the 30 year horizon: Cars using fuel cells and running on alcohol (the alcohol producing methods are already there, it is just too cheap at the moment to produce it from corn and other foodcompetitive products. Forests and aquatic environments are pretty fine to produce it from but it is more expensive!)
Batteries are getting better, and with them, the potential for periodic energy production is increase infinitely, meaning windmills, sun cells, wave enegy and several other technologies can make up a larger part of the total enegy-production. Waste can be burned and organic waste used for biogas and thereby provide a non-periodic energy production. Atomic plants are another source but the pollution and dangers are still very problematic before the next generation is ready in ~50 years time.
Most of all it is important to increase the cost of using fossil fuels to give the alternatives a competitive advantage. No matter what fossil fuels are a somewhat limited resource that will get more expensive to harvest as the easy sources dry up. The faster we reduce our dependency on them, the easier it will be to afford the necessary transition!
All of that is anti-fossil fuel as it is the most important part.
Other initiatives are reduced deforestation of especially rainforests where the amount of bound carbon is high. Fertilisation of dessert is another extremely valuable technology. Binding of carbon in long term storage (1000 years+) is a priority too but the existing technologies like pumping CO2 down into an isolated layer of soil, have limited potentials and are extremely expensive.
There are some sympton treatment like painting mountains white to reflect a larger part of the incoming light, reduce the energy usage (Since it is often cheaper it is a good idea anyway) and pumping water into the athmosphere, but symptom treatment is exactly lack of a solution and not something to aspire to!
|
Is there any reason other than lack of funds that keeps us from adressing all of these issues at once? Because one of the arguments people seem to propose is that because we don't care about problem A, we should also not care about problem B.
We don't need to have problems competing with each other in problemness before we decide what to do. Hell, I don't even understand why we must be so damn sure there even is a problem. If a large part of the scientific world suspects with good reason there is global warming, then that alone gives us incentive to invest in measures to prevent it. Worst case scenario is that we waste lots of money needlessly. Best case scenario we prevent the largest disaster to ever occur to mankind. Seems like a decent alternative cost.
|
On January 15 2013 11:18 Fenris420 wrote:Is there any reason other than lack of funds that keeps us from adressing all of these issues at once? Because one of the arguments people seem to propose is that because we don't care about problem A, we should also not care about problem B. We don't need to have problems competing with each other in problemness before we decide what to do. Hell, I don't even understand why we must be so damn sure there even is a problem. If a large part of the scientific world suspects with good reason there is global warming, then that alone gives us incentive to invest in measures to prevent it. Worst case scenario is that we waste lots of money needlessly. Best case scenario we prevent the largest disaster to ever occur to mankind. Seems like a decent alternative cost.
I agree with you - I think it's just a lack of funds. I think it is just all the funding from fossil fuel companies of the climate change denial machine that has slammed the brakes on doing something for so long. In a world full of cheap, renewable energy we will have enough energy to go round and we will have the opportunity to address all the world's problems, whereas now there is a limited amount of oil/gas/coal to go around for everyone.
|
Sigh... here we go again.
The reason the climate is changing, and the planet is warming up is due to the increase in vibration occurring throughout our galaxy. It has been shown that not only earth but the other planets in our system are also heating up.
But those in power would have you believe it is caused by man and that something must be done about it, only to further their own agendas.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 15 2013 11:46 Khul Sadukar wrote:
Sigh... here we go again.
The reason the climate is changing, and the planet is warming up is due to the increase in vibration occurring throughout our galaxy. It has been shown that not only earth but the other planets in our system are also heating up.
But those in power would have you believe it is caused by man and that something must be done about it, only to further their own agendas.
What in the...
|
On January 15 2013 09:23 nebffa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 03:03 radiatoren wrote:On January 14 2013 12:05 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 20:53 radiatoren wrote:On January 13 2013 19:20 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 18:44 slytown wrote:On January 13 2013 18:34 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 17:39 Rainling wrote: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. 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. 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? 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. Sorry to say this, but you have absolutely no basis for assuming that we know it very well. Let me make it clear what you need to answer before you can say what is the factual effects: Causality between CO2 and temperature is relatively scientifically agreed upon (which is a point most climate change deniers do not sufficiently understand the consequences of), but is it a linear function or some other function predicting the extrapolation? The sea covers 2/3rd of the world and it is undeniable that it will influence the consequences, but how and how much (I am specifically thinking Calcium binding of CO2, precipitation patterns, melting of ice and deep-water currents)? Clouds and sun effects are to some degree taken into account, but they are not necessarily well understood on a meteorological short term basis. How will the short term meteorological effects be of the changes (more extreme weather patterns, is pretty certain, but how exactly will it be all over the world - Hint, it is a question of how the models look and are calibrated)? How is the correlations in the equations and to what degree is it random or unexplained (how do you distinguish)? As for "destroying tons of plant and animal life": From what I understand it is uncertain what effect we will see on amounts of plants and animal life. As for biodiversity I agree that it will be very bad, but how about deforestation in Amazonas and Phillipines? What about invasive species? It is not only because of climate change that we are seeing these effects (and arguably it is the least of those problems atm.) . That stopping deforestation of rain-forest is a win on both climate change and biodiversity is making it that much more important, but stopping deforestation is not even close to enough to stop climate change, ecosystem destruction or habitat invasion. I thought I made it very clear that I do not deny climate change. I, however, know how science works and what statistics are. You should read what Rainling is writing, cause if I agreed more with him I would wear his undergarments! 1. Causality been CO2 and temperature is not 'relatively scientifically agreed upon', it's 'totally scientifically agreed upon'. Historically an approximate one to one relationship: CO2 ppm Temperature2. How much do you want to know about the sea? The two major things that we know are: the sea stores a lot of carbon but can't hold an infinite amount, and the ocean surface is dark and absorbs more heat than reflective ice. 3. Who cares about short term weather? Climate change is all about the long term, and everyone knows all major extreme weather events will get more extreme. 4. Correlations in what equations? Distinguish what? You are correct in that climate change is not the prime problem right now. Invasive species, deforestation, at the moment are more of a problem. Climate change in the future will make these problems much much worse: Amazon Rainforest Deforestation. Currently the Amazon rainforest stands at ~80% of its 1970 size. What will climate change do to the Amazon rainforest?It's not uncertain, as you say, the effects we will see on plant and animal life. It's uncertain in that it hasn't happened yet. But warming at this pace has never happened in the history of the Earth whilst life has been around. It's going to fuck with the other species on the planet so hard.
1. Well I do not want to give the crappy scientifically suspicious links to the ice-core fundamentalists insisting that the increase in temperature caused the increase in athmospheric CO2. Just saying that they exist and ice-core is at least fringing climate science.
2. I would argue that changes to the sea is more worrying than the biodiversity in longer terms. If the deep sea currents were weakened the local temparature would fall significantly in areas effected. Say Europe and the Gulf Stream. 4-5 degrees temperature here and there +- is also worth noting, am I right? I am surprised you do not see the value of sea-living biodiversity and how they are affected. At the moment coral reefs are getting dissolved by CO2 and they cannot be saved, but the loss of biodiversity there is very significant since coral reefs are such good hiding spots for several rare species of fish among other creatures.
3. Short term weather is what we can observe and if Sandys are likely to become the norm I would care at least a little if I was an eastcost american.
4. Is a question of: How do you assure the validity of the models used. The answer is that the amount of models with the same trends make for a good idea about trends, but you argued that we know "exactly" what will happen. That the numbers from different scenarios from different equations are different is enough to doubt "exactly". Be aware that I do not doubt their methods but rather the knowledge base on causations!
|
This is amazing. Best post I've probably ever seem. Besides NesTea winning GSL. Otherwise,
What new technologies can we use to produce clean energy?
|
On January 15 2013 12:17 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 09:23 nebffa wrote:On January 15 2013 03:03 radiatoren wrote:On January 14 2013 12:05 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 20:53 radiatoren wrote:On January 13 2013 19:20 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 18:44 slytown wrote:On January 13 2013 18:34 nebffa wrote:On January 13 2013 17:39 Rainling wrote: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. 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. 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? 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. Sorry to say this, but you have absolutely no basis for assuming that we know it very well. Let me make it clear what you need to answer before you can say what is the factual effects: Causality between CO2 and temperature is relatively scientifically agreed upon (which is a point most climate change deniers do not sufficiently understand the consequences of), but is it a linear function or some other function predicting the extrapolation? The sea covers 2/3rd of the world and it is undeniable that it will influence the consequences, but how and how much (I am specifically thinking Calcium binding of CO2, precipitation patterns, melting of ice and deep-water currents)? Clouds and sun effects are to some degree taken into account, but they are not necessarily well understood on a meteorological short term basis. How will the short term meteorological effects be of the changes (more extreme weather patterns, is pretty certain, but how exactly will it be all over the world - Hint, it is a question of how the models look and are calibrated)? How is the correlations in the equations and to what degree is it random or unexplained (how do you distinguish)? As for "destroying tons of plant and animal life": From what I understand it is uncertain what effect we will see on amounts of plants and animal life. As for biodiversity I agree that it will be very bad, but how about deforestation in Amazonas and Phillipines? What about invasive species? It is not only because of climate change that we are seeing these effects (and arguably it is the least of those problems atm.) . That stopping deforestation of rain-forest is a win on both climate change and biodiversity is making it that much more important, but stopping deforestation is not even close to enough to stop climate change, ecosystem destruction or habitat invasion. I thought I made it very clear that I do not deny climate change. I, however, know how science works and what statistics are. You should read what Rainling is writing, cause if I agreed more with him I would wear his undergarments! 1. Causality been CO2 and temperature is not 'relatively scientifically agreed upon', it's 'totally scientifically agreed upon'. Historically an approximate one to one relationship: CO2 ppm Temperature2. How much do you want to know about the sea? The two major things that we know are: the sea stores a lot of carbon but can't hold an infinite amount, and the ocean surface is dark and absorbs more heat than reflective ice. 3. Who cares about short term weather? Climate change is all about the long term, and everyone knows all major extreme weather events will get more extreme. 4. Correlations in what equations? Distinguish what? You are correct in that climate change is not the prime problem right now. Invasive species, deforestation, at the moment are more of a problem. Climate change in the future will make these problems much much worse: Amazon Rainforest Deforestation. Currently the Amazon rainforest stands at ~80% of its 1970 size. What will climate change do to the Amazon rainforest?It's not uncertain, as you say, the effects we will see on plant and animal life. It's uncertain in that it hasn't happened yet. But warming at this pace has never happened in the history of the Earth whilst life has been around. It's going to fuck with the other species on the planet so hard. 1. Well I do not want to give the crappy scientifically suspicious links to the ice-core fundamentalists insisting that the increase in temperature caused the increase in athmospheric CO2. Just saying that they exist and ice-core is at least fringing climate science. 2. I would argue that changes to the sea is more worrying than the biodiversity in longer terms. If the deep sea currents were weakened the local temparature would fall significantly in areas effected. Say Europe and the Gulf Stream. 4-5 degrees temperature here and there +- is also worth noting, am I right? I am surprised you do not see the value of sea-living biodiversity and how they are affected. At the moment coral reefs are getting dissolved by CO2 and they cannot be saved, but the loss of biodiversity there is very significant since coral reefs are such good hiding spots for several rare species of fish among other creatures. 3. Short term weather is what we can observe and if Sandys are likely to become the norm I would care at least a little if I was an eastcost american. 4. Is a question of: How do you assure the validity of the models used. The answer is that the amount of models with the same trends make for a good idea about trends, but you argued that we know "exactly" what will happen. That the numbers from different scenarios from different equations are different is enough to doubt "exactly". Be aware that I do not doubt their methods but rather the knowledge base on causations!
1. Then what do you want? I just googled temperature vs CO2 and read stuff before I posted it. Maybe you should do the same???
2, What you described about coral reefs is biodiversity.
3. Short term weather is not the full realisation of climate change. But yes it puts it on peoples' radar.
4. Think about this in terms of models. Models for climate change typically say that with 95% likelihood, warming or ice loss or whatever will be WITHIN THIS RANGE. The alarming (and I really mean alarming, it scares the shit out of me) thing about the widely and trusted models is that they are wrong. For example, arctic sea ice melting faster than the standard models: Arctic Ice
|
There is a difference between "global warming" and "climate change". Of course the climate is changing, it's natural for the earth to go through heating and cooling cycles. Global warming, on the other hand, is the idea that man has some part in the changing of the climate. Everyone used to say global warming, but over the course of a few years no one is saying global warming anymore for some reason, everyone is saying climate change. Why this is I have no idea.
I for one do not believe that humans are taking a significant role in the change of the climate, global warming. I do believe that the climate is changing. It goes through heating and cooling cycles, during the 70's everyone was flipping their shit saying we were heading for a new ice age because of global cooling, but we aren't all living in igloos now. Now it's global warming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
