|
On January 15 2013 13:49 Yergidy wrote:
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.
It's now called climate change because when we called it global warming, some people assumed every part of the world would warm uniformly, which won't be the case (obviously, it's a complex process). So we now call it climate change because it's more accurate.
Unfortunately for your viewpoint: Ice Age 1970s scientific concensus?. The key quote being: "The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."
When you assert calmly that you don't believe humans play a significant role in climate change, you disagree with 97% (ninety seven!!!) of experts in this specialised field. That is literally millenia (not centuries) of human years' worth of expertise in a scientific field.
|
On January 15 2013 10:23 nebffa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 09:57 Shival wrote: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:
[quote]
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 ; ))
Well, it's most probably not the only sharp rise on the levels we are experiencing right now. There's a couple more extinction events, albeit not as bad as the one I quoted but definately along the same lines.
Though, as you said, it's most likely caused by a major catastrophic event, such as an extraterrestial object colliding with the planet. (However, Wilkes Land Crater isn't confirmed as the cause).
As for the biodiversity loss, it's not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Sure, we're losing alot of species, but maybe these graphs will put things into perspective:
http://higheredbcs.wiley.com/legacy/college/levin/0471697435/chap_tut/images/nw0287-nn.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Extinction_intensity.svg
We're at an unprecedented high, with comparatively low extinction rate.
|
On January 15 2013 14:08 nebffa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 13:49 Yergidy wrote:
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. It's now called climate change because when we called it global warming, some people assumed every part of the world would warm uniformly, which won't be the case (obviously, it's a complex process). So we now call it climate change because it's more accurate. Unfortunately for your viewpoint: Ice Age 1970s scientific concensus?. The key quote being: "The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming." When you assert calmly that you don't believe humans play a significant role in climate change, you disagree with 97% (ninety seven!!!) of experts in this specialised field. That is literally millenia (not centuries) of human years' worth of expertise in a scientific field.
Science isn't an opinion is it? 97% agreement isn't that big of a deal. I think 99.9% was against Einstein in some of his theories. Only takes 1 to prove you wrong. Besides, I've heard (yes only heard) that science needs funding, and anything that could drag in global warming and how we are effecting it was having an easier time getting the funds then some other "crazy" project.
Im not trusting the work of science that much today. Seen too many stupid studies payed by asshole companies.
|
On January 16 2013 03:47 crappen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 14:08 nebffa wrote:On January 15 2013 13:49 Yergidy wrote:
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. It's now called climate change because when we called it global warming, some people assumed every part of the world would warm uniformly, which won't be the case (obviously, it's a complex process). So we now call it climate change because it's more accurate. Unfortunately for your viewpoint: Ice Age 1970s scientific concensus?. The key quote being: "The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming." When you assert calmly that you don't believe humans play a significant role in climate change, you disagree with 97% (ninety seven!!!) of experts in this specialised field. That is literally millenia (not centuries) of human years' worth of expertise in a scientific field. Science isn't an opinion is it? 97% agreement isn't that big of a deal. I think 99.9% was against Einstein in some of his theories. Only takes 1 to prove you wrong. Besides, I've heard (yes only heard) that science needs funding, and anything that could drag in global warming and how we are effecting it was having an easier time getting the funds then some other "crazy" project. Im not trusting the work of science that much today. Seen too many stupid studies payed by asshole companies.
Paid science is a problem, but when it comes to climate change it is not what is happening. As has been mentioned before you could be a millionaire if you had disprooven a significant part of the research. Heck, look at the media: Most of the stories I find on the subject today is "climate change not as bad as predicted". Some take it as a "nope we do nothing that can in any way have an effect on the climate", but that is not what it says. It says that earlier models are getting adjusted a little to show a lower impact, but it is not even close to a questioning of the existence!
Now the reason for the higher impact assessments earlier seems to have to do with the previous chief of IPCC wanting to open peoples eyes to the subject. Whether he interfered or not in the programs is unknown, but the slight exagerations from that time has been a lot of ammunition against climate change for especially certain conservative groups in USA (They are not someone anyone in the rest of the world want to be associated with) and scattered people around the rest of the world. I am proud that there is still some room for sceptical science in Denmark. That said, there are still nothing even resembling a good alternative theory to ACC. The ice core research is not truely exact science and their theories completely lack explanations of what happened the last 50 years (it is seen as an outlier in the data-grouping of the last 300 years!). While I appreciate scepticism above most else in science you gotta have an alternative theory with a sufficient explaination of the measurements before you dismiss the concensus.
If you find a way to predict climate change in a good way that indicates a very small to non-existent antropogenic way, please post it so we can take a sceptical look at it. You can play around with the global data on the issue here. If you are good enough at it and there is a good alternative explaination, I am pretty sure that you can make quite a good deal from it. At least in the media if the scientific community is so corrupt!
|
Well I got a warning for speaking the truth so GG TL.
Believe what you will.
User was warned for this post
|
I hope we understand eventually but policy lies in the hands of the Politicians as our country is incredibly apathetic when comes to such matters.
The national drought footprint shrank slightly this week, as heavy rains fell across the South, Southeast, Midwest and parts of the Mid-Atlantic states, and major snowfall blanketed parts of the Rocky Mountains and Northern Cascades, bringing relief to those regions. However, the hardest-hit drought region — the Great Plains — continued to experience drier-than-average conditions, with the drought continuing to hold on.
A new federal drought outlook issued on Thursday projects that the drought conditions are likely to remain entrenched through April, and that the drought may even worsen from the Plains to the Rockies and into the Southwest, along with another area of persistent and expanding drought in the Southeast, including southern Georgia and the Florida Panhandle.
![[image loading]](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/948102/thumbs/o-DROUGHT-570.jpg?1)
![[image loading]](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/948113/thumbs/o-1_17_13_NEWS_ANDREW_DROUGHTOUTLOOKFMA-570.jpg?1)
The percentage of land area under severe drought or worse in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming and the Dakotas grew slightly this week, from 86.20 percent to 87.25 percent. A similar expansion was observed in Georgia, where the area of the state under moderate drought conditions or worse expanded from 87.21 percent to 91.24 percent.
A long period of below-average precipitation has led to exceptionally low water levels on the Mississippi River, which may force authorities to close the river to shipping traffic, something that would have major economic consequences. On Thursday morning, the water level on the river near St. Louis was 1.95 feet below average, and is forecasted to come within striking distance of the record low — 6.2 feet below average — set in 1940. The Army Corps of Engineers has been dredging sediment and removing large rocks from the riverbed to ensure that the commercial waterway stays open to barge traffic, but it’s not clear if that will succeed if precipitation remains below average in areas upstream.
Source
|
Is there a definite proof somewhere that there is really climate change? Even the scientists are not unanimous about it.
|
That the only article ever published in a peer-reviewed paper disputing it was so bad the editor resigned or was fired for publishing it after admitting he knew nothing about the field is good enough for me.
That Koch (big conservative money) funded study that came out and said basically "oh fuck, this is happening" is also pretty good proof.
To those who make that ridiculous "its for the funding!" claim: You realize that many (fewer and fewer as time goes on) energy companies and many conservative groups are willing to throw money at any scientist who will give up their integrity right? That's where the denials come from, groups who have vested interests in protecting the status quo and the cash to pay "scientists" who are willing to use their credentials for a nice paycheck.
Edit: Here are some news articles on what I was talking about.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
Editor resigning thing.
On the journal it was published in:
"Remote Sensing's core topic is methods for monitoring aspects of the Earth from space." So they had to go off-topic to get it published and then things went badly after they lucked out and found someone who wanted to make headlines with a controversial article. Shame their research was terrible and not worthy of being published.
Conservative funded study that found the opposite of what they set out to prove. (Good on them for admitting it too!)
"Over the weekend, UC-Berkeley professor Richard Muller outed himself as a "converted" climate "skeptic" in the New York Times after his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project found the earth's surface temperature had increased 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 250 years and one and a half degrees in the past 50 years, likely entirely because of human industrial activity
What makes this newsworthy, according to The Guardian, is that BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) had received $150,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, whose namesake also runs the climate skeptic research program The Heartland Institute."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7#ixzz2IgA11bml
|
On January 22 2013 14:00 neggro wrote:
Is there a definite proof somewhere that there is really climate change? Even the scientists are not unanimous about it.
Yeah dude. Chemically speaking, there's a massive increase in CO2 emissions. We're upwards at 400 ppm this year. We've been at about 200-250 for the past two thousand years. (Actually past 300,000 years.) In addition, there's a decrease in oxygen. It's not enough to cause breathing problems [because it's in the parts per million, and 21% of the atmosphere is oxygen], but it says that the increase in CO2 emissions isn't natural, released from volcanoes, or from melting ice caps, but rather from man. (Since oxygen is being burned to create the CO2.) Atmospherically speaking climate change is the real deal.
You want other proof I'm sure. Rising sea levels. Ocean temperatures increasing. Stuff that would happen if climate change is happening, if greenhouse gases are working as they're supposed to and are warming the planet. That's easily found and convincingly credible (it's numbers--manipulate them if you want, but numbers are numbers). Here's a link: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence 
Truth is scientists are not unanimous about anything. No doubt you can find a crackpot scientist who rejects the theory of gravity. We'd call that scientist stupid. Scientists claiming hocus pocus (I think they number is actually less than 3% by the way) on climate change are in that same boat. Unfortunately the debate in scientific circles (and academic circles, like at MIT/Harvard, where I'm at) isn't whether climate change is a thing and is human-induced--because no legit guy disputes this--but what effect it exactly will have. Models are inaccurate and what exactly will happen is not yet well understood.
|
Post all you want guys, unless it's written in Mandarin and addressed to Chinese officials then it's meaningless.
USA emissions = dropped last year
EU emissions = dropped last year
China = Worlds number #1 emitter
China emissions rose another 8% last year
Chinas cement industry alone produces more CO2 than the entire country of Germany.
So if you believe in man made global warming (I do not) then you can see "developed" countries are "doing the right thing" by reducing emissions, meanwhile China is set to pump out over 50% of the worlds greenhouse emissions within 20 years at current growth rates and neither the worlds largest polluter (China) or the world largest per capita emitter (since 1992) (Qatar) have signed Kyoto protocol.Giving westerners a guilt trip here won't do jack, go to China if you want to enact change and protest there, see how far you get.
|
On January 22 2013 14:00 neggro wrote:
Is there a definite proof somewhere that there is really climate change? Even the scientists are not unanimous about it.
This is exactly what I see too. So much "up and down" about this stuff.
It is funny how scientists who graduated studying the same stuff can come up with so different conclusions. Some times it makes me think that there are other factors involved. (eg. money for publishing etc.)
Although. I really hated Al Gore's presentation. That was completely false.
|
On January 22 2013 21:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Post all you want guys, unless it's written in Mandarin and addressed to Chinese officials then it's meaningless.
USA emissions = dropped last year
EU emissions = dropped last year
China = Worlds number #1 emitter
China emissions rose another 8% last year
Chinas cement industry alone produces more CO2 than the entire country of Germany.
So if you believe in man made global warming (I do not) then you can see "developed" countries are "doing the right thing" by reducing emissions, meanwhile China is set to pump out over 50% of the worlds greenhouse emissions within 20 years at current growth rates and neither the worlds largest polluter (China) or the world largest per capita emitter (since 1992) (Qatar) have signed Kyoto protocol.Giving westerners a guilt trip here won't do jack, go to China if you want to enact change and protest there, see how far you get.
Well, for me it's more about being honest. Global warming is what will most likely happen, and it will have been caused by humans. There's no God saving the guys in the Sahel zone from their fate, for example. I do not really believe there can be a change in how fossil fuels will be used, because of what you mention about China (and India). I think every single drop of oil will be burned, all its carbon will be shot into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. There's nothing that can stop that. After that, there's natural gas for car fuel, so it could go on for another century or centuries (I don't know how much gas exists).
Basically, those are two separate questions and issues. Global warming is probably true, but that does not have to mean anything has to change about fossil fuels. Some radical consensus about what to do about the profiteers would be neat, basically robbing CO2 producers and putting their money into some kind of insurance fund for the future, but that will never happen.
|
On January 16 2013 03:47 crappen wrote:
Science isn't an opinion is it? 97% agreement isn't that big of a deal. I think 99.9% was against Einstein in some of his theories. Only takes 1 to prove you wrong. Besides, I've heard (yes only heard) that science needs funding, and anything that could drag in global warming and how we are effecting it was having an easier time getting the funds then some other "crazy" project.
Im not trusting the work of science that much today. Seen too many stupid studies payed by asshole companies.
No, as stated by the OP, science is a process. What do you trust? The problem these days are not that there's too many stupid studies (there always were), it's that they're all easily accessible and most of the people reporting on it have little to none abilities to distinguish a good from bad paper. They think if someone who obtained a PhD writes a paper, then it's automatically science. Which is silly when you think about it. There are experts on the matter though and it doesn't take a PhD to recognize an expert in its field of study (versus one who isn't, and versus one who has an agenda).
On January 22 2013 21:49 KAB00000000M wrote:
This is exactly what I see too. So much "up and down" about this stuff.
It is funny how scientists who graduated studying the same stuff can come up with so different conclusions. Some times it makes me think that there are other factors involved. (eg. money for publishing etc.)
Although. I really hated Al Gore's presentation. That was completely false.
One, the climate change is a complex problem. There's nothing you can read in books that will tell you all the variables. There's too many of them, hence why a consensus is extremely difficult to obtain. Also, I doubt money for publishing is actually a bad thing (especially if it is a completely independent study). Obviously, some studies are funded and even pushed by companies (read the OP about the Koch Brothers; lobbyist is a real problem).
The main problem I see with climate change was mentioned previously in the OP. We, as a society, have completely changed our habits. We are burning fuels much more intensively than ever before (see the previous post about the CO2 emissions). There's no study that can predict the exact outcome of what this will bring forth, but we do know that this isn't natural.
On December 13 2011 07:08 dabbeljuh wrote:
that is a complex topic and a justified way of thinking about it. the problem is, as some has mentioned, that the cost of strong climate change will most certainly not be linear (as in many people live close to coastlines, precipiation changes will influence agriculture on a global level). it is there not only a cost-benefit analysis but also a cost-benefit-risk analysis, that societies should do around the world.
As quoted, climate change will most certainly not be linear. A small variable can have a huge impact on the whole ecosystem. The general idea is that we mustn't wait until it is too late (who knows when it will be or if it's already too late) and try to reduce as much as possible man-made pollution of the Earth.
This isn't about reacting to the problem; it's about preventing it (if possible).
|
On January 22 2013 21:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Post all you want guys, unless it's written in Mandarin and addressed to Chinese officials then it's meaningless.
USA emissions = dropped last year
EU emissions = dropped last year
China = Worlds number #1 emitter
China emissions rose another 8% last year
Chinas cement industry alone produces more CO2 than the entire country of Germany.
So if you believe in man made global warming (I do not) then you can see "developed" countries are "doing the right thing" by reducing emissions, meanwhile China is set to pump out over 50% of the worlds greenhouse emissions within 20 years at current growth rates and neither the worlds largest polluter (China) or the world largest per capita emitter (since 1992) (Qatar) have signed Kyoto protocol.Giving westerners a guilt trip here won't do jack, go to China if you want to enact change and protest there, see how far you get.
Per capita emissions in China are still ways off from the US or EU average and Qatar is too small of a country to matter. Unless you have some innate belief that developed countries have the right to polute more per capita then developing countries, your argument holds no ground.
This above all is what makes me very pessimistic about finding a solution to global warming. A (theoretical) solution that would be fair to developing countries would be to calculate a global average of "allowed CO2 emissions per capita" (or something of the sort) and create a "carbon credit" market for those that polute less than the average to sell to those that polute more. This solution, though, would impose on the sovereignty of all countries and probably require a much, much larger commitment from developed countries.
|
On January 22 2013 21:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Post all you want guys, unless it's written in Mandarin and addressed to Chinese officials then it's meaningless.
USA emissions = dropped last year
EU emissions = dropped last year
China = Worlds number #1 emitter
China emissions rose another 8% last year
Chinas cement industry alone produces more CO2 than the entire country of Germany.
So if you believe in man made global warming (I do not) then you can see "developed" countries are "doing the right thing" by reducing emissions, meanwhile China is set to pump out over 50% of the worlds greenhouse emissions within 20 years at current growth rates and neither the worlds largest polluter (China) or the world largest per capita emitter (since 1992) (Qatar) have signed Kyoto protocol.Giving westerners a guilt trip here won't do jack, go to China if you want to enact change and protest there, see how far you get.
Fully agree with this post.
There are also to manny financial motives behind climate change and the science behind it (climate gate)
Producing with less polution is the only advantage we have over china,lots has been invested in clean technologys and thoose investments have to pay off.
If we can just convince china to go along we could keep our lead for an extra 20 years.
But ya, whatever we do here is futile in the large sceme of things, a symbolic measure.
|
There is only a lot of money going to climate science because it has become obvious how pressing of an issue it is. The funding keeps increasing year after year because the predictions are being validated. I can't remember hearing this argument in any other field of scientific study.
Evolution!?! It's all a fraud for biologists to get their funding! Astronomy?!?!? A fraud for big telescope to get their grant money!
The people who argue against climate change do have some money from a variety of funding sources. So why can't they get published in peer-reviewed journals? Is there some vast conspiracy here?
Climate gate was not an important thing. If you actually look into it using reliable sources, you'll find it didn't undermine the overwhelming evidence in favor of climate change, mostly just pulled a few quotes out of context from a few emails and then pretended that was enough to destroy the validity of decades of research across many institutions.
Producing with less pollution is only an advantage if China institutes environmental controls and their industries have to adopt the expensive mitigation we already have done. Otherwise their industries just pollute and put the burden on everyone else as an externality. (Hello, smog!) Our advantage is automated production, polluting less isn't a real competitive advantage, I wish it was, but it's not, pollution is the most obvious externality of all. You could make an argument abut pollution affecting society on the national level but that's getting kind of fuzzy and hard to prove. Plus nature is bad at respecting the borders we set up.
|
|
|
Saying that it isn't natural. I don't think you can call anything natural in that sense. That would be to compare our existence to something else in the universe.
Everything we do might be a "natural" thing. What if we are observed by a far superior superpower. And that we are just an experiment to see how we develop under our circumstances? :D
|
On January 23 2013 01:51 KAB00000000M wrote:
Saying that it isn't natural. I don't think you can call anything natural in that sense. That would be to compare our existence to something else in the universe.
Everything we do might be a "natural" thing. What if we are observed by a far superior superpower. And that we are just an experiment to see how we develop under our circumstances? :D
CO2 in the atmosphere is the natural thing, oxygen is only present because life has terraformed our planet.
Don't forget that increased CO2 means that plants grow faster = less famine. This is to be looked at in comparison with droughts which do the opposite.
The problem with climate change is it's hard to compare the good results against the bad. Here in Montreal we've recently had much milder winters (with only a few weeks below -20C) which means our dairy coops and growing season do much better.
Much larger problems are garbage, overpopulation of underdeveloped countries and violent deaths.
|
On January 23 2013 02:09 Abraxas514 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 01:51 KAB00000000M wrote:
Saying that it isn't natural. I don't think you can call anything natural in that sense. That would be to compare our existence to something else in the universe.
Everything we do might be a "natural" thing. What if we are observed by a far superior superpower. And that we are just an experiment to see how we develop under our circumstances? :D CO2 in the atmosphere is the natural thing, oxygen is only present because life has terraformed our planet. Don't forget that increased CO2 means that plants grow faster = less famine. This is to be looked at in comparison with droughts which do the opposite. The problem with climate change is it's hard to compare the good results against the bad. Here in Montreal we've recently had much milder winters (with only a few weeks below -20C) which means our dairy coops and growing season do much better. Much larger problems are garbage, overpopulation of underdeveloped countries and violent deaths.
Seeing just the local state of things in time and space is very very short sighted. Having a milder winter might be nice for you but the US just had a hurricane followed by a Noreaster. Earlier there was a long drought (farmers aren't overjoyed about CO2 btw when there's no water). Asia had typhoons as well. Your mild winter might be the calm before a storm and not looking further into the distance is foolish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
