Earth's climate changing a.k.a. Global Warming

12346

Comments

  • SaintMark wrote: »
    Let me just clarify one thing before I go on here. St. Mark, if you have a problem with people like me who do believe in Jesus, that's certainly your prerogative, but please leave that discussion for another day. I don't know what a person's belief in religion has to do with the climate change debate.

    I recently heard the a number that really surprised namely the percentage of Americans that believe that they will in their lifetime will experience the end of times. This group has some vested intrest that some apocalypse will happen so deny any warnings and let it happen because their God will rescue them.
    O:-)

    Amazing how the faithful believe in somebody whose existence cannot be proven but when they see actually evidence the deny it, look the other way or do their best to make up stories of why scientific evidence is incorrect.

    As I said before, I am a Christian, and therefore I believe in Jesus Christ and believe there is an afterlife. That being said, I also do believe in evolution, and the scientific mechanisms that formed the universe, and hence our solar system. So I now understand at least where you are coming from in regards to the religious implications of climate change. That being said though, I don't believe in climate change because I'm a Christian. I just don't believe the numbers and the science in regards to what had been concluded so far. But I'm not one of those types that refuses to comply with caring for this planet just because I Believe in Christianity. I agree with you that those types of people can hurt the well-being of the planet if they don't take care of it.

    Now, believe it or not, and you may be surprised considering what I've said so far, I do care about our planet and would probably be considered an environmentalist when it comes to cleaning this planet up. While I don't believe that human activity affects climate temperature and CO2 levels that much, I do believe in cleaning up the planet for the sake of improving quality of life. I want a cleaner planet for the benefits of breathing cleaner air and not risking cancer and other diseases. So I take a common sense approach when it comes to environmental issues. It just so happens I don't think we affect the temperature of the climate as much as some people think we do. But I do keep religion out of the equation when it comes to this and other scientific issues. I do believe God has a hand in what makes the universe and the planets run, but it's still the scientific mechanisms that have contributed to evolution the way they have, if that makes sense.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    I don't know what a person's belief in religion has to do with the climate change debate.

    Unfortunately, @A_Kristatos, it does have something to do with it. Religious people often cling to dogma and superstition, and it happens a lot that they reserve the intellectual right to refute scientific evidence in favor of what complies with the Bible, a book written by peasants and sheep herders two thousand years ago who thought the Earth to be flat. I'll forbear from saying that you are one of those people who can't think for themselves since that would constitute an obvious untruth given your degree, but religious stubbornness is one thing I'd like to erase from this planet sooner rather than later.

    No, as I said above I do keep religion and science separate. While I do believe in the Bible, I also think humans would be totally irresponsible not to care for the planet. But again as I stated above, it's not my belief in religion that's leads me to my conclusions about climate change.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 110
    JamesStock wrote: »
    Here's my take on the issue. I'll admit to being a right-winged American, however I'll be the first to recognize that climate change is real and a portion of it is undoubtedly human-influenced. One thing that has always impressed me is that you can go to Google Maps and you can literally pick just about any spot on Earth and you'll be able to see some imprint from man. Just on that alone, it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to translate that very tangible observation to influences on weather.

    The problem I have with climate change is the economics against it. In order to make any real impact you need to get all of the major players on the world stage to jump in on the bandwagon...which is not something that seems likely, at least in my lifetime. Human nature is always to take the path of least resistance. There's always going to be external forces (as in economic pressure) pushing against climate change incentives.

    Say for example, the US goes through with implementing some regulations. Now say China, which for this example, stays status quo. It inevitably makes doing business in the US more cumbersome and more expensive, giving China the upper hand, economically. So what incentive does the US have other than "for the good of mankind" to purposefully put itself at that disadvantage? Only until public at large in both countries feels the pressures/effects of climate change or until eco-friendly alternative methods become economically superior (not just feasible), will any real action take place. I just don't think we're anywhere near there yet.

    Speaking of which, if anyone is willing to donate $50,000 for a green cause, I would gladly take that money to buy a used Tesla. Just sayin'...

    James, I'm a right-winged American as well, but not all conservatives believe in man made climate change. I'm just curious as to what you believe is the proof that we are causing climate change. And not just some correlation between the number of people on the planet and an increase in CO2 levels. I'm just looking for you to prove to me that it's not some other force that can be causing this increase.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    This discussion reminds me a lot of the one on cigarette smoking. I think common sense should have suggested (even in the 50's) that putting carcinogens into one's body could eventually have negative and harmful effects. Yet for years, prior to concrete evidence proving as much, there was a vocal minority who denied that such a link was possible. Coincidentally, they were egged on by big business who benefited from continued smoking.

    Similarly, in the case of climate change, common sense should suggest that we are harming our environment, yet many say otherwise, or downplay the possible effects, and again big business benefits. Whether it be industrialization (especially of countries like China, India, Brazil and the like with lots of people), population growth in general, or harmful waste products, eventually there has to be consequences. Such consequences may not even be fully decipherable at this stage. As an example, industrialization could be impacting the smallest organisms in the sea and on land in ways that we don't know about, but any cellular mutations there could have magnified spill on effects on other living things.

    In this case, as with cigarettes smoking/cancer, or with autism/vaccinations, I prefer to err on the side of caution. In other words, despite no conclusive evidence to suggest a strong link, I prefer to act on the basis that a link could be more influential than currently perceived, based on correlation & anecdotal observations, and go on from there until the evidence catches up. It's just a preference, but I can understand how others may prefer to wait for hard conclusive evidence. Hopefully by that point, the cancer either hasn't already set in, or is at least still curable.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    chrisisall wrote: »
    the fact that we've had pretty much steady global temperatures over the past 19 years says quite a lot to me that we may not fully know yet what's really going on with global climate.
    Pretty steady as opposed to what? Venus? Your anus?
    :))

    I'm assuming that's supposed to be real funny. Again though, don't get mad at people when they call you out when all they are trying to do is have an intelligent discussion on a serious subject.
    There are quite a few people here I can have an intelligent discussion concerning this topic with, but since you are not one of them I abandon all attempts since all it will get me is convoluted pseudo-scientific poppycock. ~:>
  • bondjames wrote: »
    This discussion reminds me a lot of the one on cigarette smoking. I think common sense should have suggested (even in the 50's) that putting carcinogens into one's body could eventually have negative and harmful effects. Yet for years, prior to concrete evidence proving as much, there was a vocal minority who denied that such a link was possible. Coincidentally, they were egged on by big business who benefited from continued smoking.

    Similarly, in the case of climate change, common sense should suggest that we are harming our environment, yet many say otherwise, or downplay the possible effects, and again big business benefits. Whether it be industrialization (especially of countries like China, India, Brazil and the like with lots of people), population growth in general, or harmful waste products, eventually there has to be consequences. Such consequences may not even be fully decipherable at this stage. As an example, industrialization could be impacting the smallest organisms in the sea and on land in ways that we don't know about, but any cellular mutations there could have magnified spill on effects on other living things.

    In this case, as with cigarettes smoking/cancer, or with autism/vaccinations, I prefer to err on the side of caution. In other words, despite no conclusive evidence to suggest a strong link, I prefer to act on the basis that a link could be more influential than currently perceived, based on correlation & anecdotal observations, and go on from there until the evidence catches up. It's just a preference, but I can understand how others may prefer to wait for hard conclusive evidence. Hopefully by that point, the cancer either hasn't already set in, or is at least still curable.

    I wholeheartedly agree that humans can effect the environment in other ways (more cities, pollution, food production, etc.). But when it comes to climate, I just think humans, as many as there are on this planet, are just too small a variable to effect the temperature of the planet.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    the fact that we've had pretty much steady global temperatures over the past 19 years says quite a lot to me that we may not fully know yet what's really going on with global climate.
    Pretty steady as opposed to what? Venus? Your anus?
    :))

    I'm assuming that's supposed to be real funny. Again though, don't get mad at people when they call you out when all they are trying to do is have an intelligent discussion on a serious subject.
    There are quite a few people here I can have an intelligent discussion concerning this topic with, but since you are not one of them I abandon all attempts since all it will get me is convoluted pseudo-scientific poppycock. ~:>

    And why am I not one of the intelligent people? Because I disagree with you?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Humans pour so much filth over this planet, it s disgusting. But CO2? Please! What s wrong with that?
  • Humans pour so much filth over this planet, it s disgusting. But CO2? Please! What s wrong with that?

    I totally agree! I'm far more concerned with the filth that needs to be cleaned up on this planet than a supposed spike in CO2 and global temperatures. And what a lot of people fail to realize is more CO2 is a good thing. Plants need CO2 to survive, and more CO2 brings on more plant life and greenery, and helps replenish the forests. And that is a good thing considering how much deforestation has taken place to accommodate more people on this planet.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Deserts have grown for millennia, and that has been a huge threat to the whole planet, not just humans. Now, with a growth in CO2 levels, that looks like it is reversing.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    Regarding your response, I am glad you are willing to understand that there are multiple forces at work when it comes to CO2 levels on this planet. That being said, even if I were to agree that man is contributing to the increasing levels of CO2, the fact that you acknowledge other forces at work here show me that it is not so cut and dry to conclude that man is drastically raising the CO2 levels on earth. It's possible, but other sources need to be researched since we don't fully understand all the mechanisms which drive this planet. There are so many contributors to the fluctuating levels of CO2 in addition to those you listed above. Perhaps even sun spot activity influences global temperature more than CO2.

    I certainly won't claim that Earth was the epitome of stability before man and his industrialisation came. A runaway greenhouse effect most likely happened on Venus too, without a flourishing industry to be its direct cause. Chaos theory predicts that there's always a chance, however small, that the flimsiest, silliest ripple in the water could set in motion a whole series of events which might have effects of cosmic proportions. The big bang itself might have originated from one virtual particle jumping into existence according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for all we know. Hence, we can't be absolutely sure that man is the cause of climate change.

    However, we can't be sure that he isn't either. In fact, there's good reason to assume a direct link exists. An alarming demographic growth, combined with an alarming increase in fuel consumption, combined with an alarming increase in deforestation... all these things neatly correlate to the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But of course, if there's a cut open body in the room, did the guy with the bloody knife in his hand do it? I can never be sure. If a heavy smoker dies of lung cancer, did the smoking cause the cancer? I can never be sure. If a biker is hit by a car and instantly dies, did the drunk driver really cause the accident or did the biker perform a dangerous manoeuvre? We can never be sure. So you see, @A_Kristatos, I have those thoughts too. We pollute, we cut away the rainforest, we consume... but climate change may be induced by a gazillion of factors all together. Ever the sober minded scientist, I'm brutally honest about these things when discussing climate change with my pupils.

    But...
    While the evidence of man's involvement in climate change may be far less compelling than what Al Gore taught us ten years ago, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to support the basic notion that we are making a difference and not in a good way and that any effort to stop pollution, to stop the overpopulation of the planet and to stop deforestation, is worth it.

    Incidentally, if I'm allowed one dogma - and I generally find dogmas terribly unpleasant - I'd say the root of all of what's going wrong is overpopulation.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    And why am I not one of the intelligent people?
    You ARE intelligent- that's not the problem. You seem more intelligent than average, and sometimes this leads to a superiority complex. As if no belief or concept the person can have could be in error. This precludes viewing facts and data objectively.
    You aren't here to discuss, you are here to show us how much more you know than we do. But all you seem to know is what you've heard on right wing American radio... =))
  • Deserts have grown for millennia, and that has been a huge threat to the whole planet, not just humans. Now, with a growth in CO2 levels, that looks like it is reversing.

    Yeah, I agree. We'll see what happens there with time.

  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    Regarding your response, I am glad you are willing to understand that there are multiple forces at work when it comes to CO2 levels on this planet. That being said, even if I were to agree that man is contributing to the increasing levels of CO2, the fact that you acknowledge other forces at work here show me that it is not so cut and dry to conclude that man is drastically raising the CO2 levels on earth. It's possible, but other sources need to be researched since we don't fully understand all the mechanisms which drive this planet. There are so many contributors to the fluctuating levels of CO2 in addition to those you listed above. Perhaps even sun spot activity influences global temperature more than CO2.

    I certainly won't claim that Earth was the epitome of stability before man and his industrialisation came. A runaway greenhouse effect most likely happened on Venus too, without a flourishing industry to be its direct cause. Chaos theory predicts that there's always a chance, however small, that the flimsiest, silliest ripple in the water could set in motion a whole series of events which might have effects of cosmic proportions. The big bang itself might have originated from one virtual particle jumping into existence according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for all we know. Hence, we can't be absolutely sure that man is the cause of climate change.

    However, we can't be sure that he isn't either. In fact, there's good reason to assume a direct link exists. An alarming demographic growth, combined with an alarming increase in fuel consumption, combined with an alarming increase in deforestation... all these things neatly correlate to the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But of course, if there's a cut open body in the room, did the guy with the bloody knife in his hand do it? I can never be sure. If a heavy smoker dies of lung cancer, did the smoking cause the cancer? I can never be sure. If a biker is hit by a car and instantly dies, did the drunk driver really cause the accident or did the biker perform a dangerous manoeuvre? We can never be sure. So you see, @A_Kristatos, I have those thoughts too. We pollute, we cut away the rainforest, we consume... but climate change may be induced by a gazillion of factors all together. Ever the sober minded scientist, I'm brutally honest about these things when discussing climate change with my pupils.

    But...
    While the evidence of man's involvement in climate change may be far less compelling than what Al Gore taught us ten years ago, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to support the basic notion that we are making a difference and not in a good way and that any effort to stop pollution, to stop the overpopulation of the planet and to stop deforestation, is worth it.

    Incidentally, if I'm allowed one dogma - and I generally find dogmas terribly unpleasant - I'd say the root of all of what's going wrong is overpopulation.

    Great points Darth. I'm not saying that humans aren't influencing climate change and CO2 levels at all, I just think it's miniscule at best compared to the other forces at work here. And I truly appreciate your rational discussion and logic in discussing all potential causes of what may be causing CO2 levels to rise.

    Like I said above, I do agree that there are other reasons to clean up the planet. If it helps the climate, fine, but I too am far more concerned with pollution and overpopulation of the planet for reasons that go beyond the climate change debate. And the ironic thing about deforestation is that higher CO2 levels may actually help the planet to restore more plant life at a faster rate.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    And why am I not one of the intelligent people?
    You ARE intelligent- that's not the problem. You seem more intelligent than average, and sometimes this leads to a superiority complex. As if no belief or concept the person can have could be in error. This precludes viewing facts and data objectively.
    You aren't here to discuss, you are here to show us how much more you know than we do. But all you seem to know is what you've heard on right wing American radio... =))

    Oh, thanks for the compliment Chris, I think.

    I'll say it again, if you feel my disagreement with you stems from a lack of intelligence on my part (which you just took off the table since you do feel that I'm intelligent) or due to a "superiority complex", well, I honestly don't know how we can have a serious debate. Take a look at my response to some of the posters above, and you will see that if someone engages in a rational debate, I will respond with the same amount of respect and professionalism that they showed me. However, if you want to continue to post smart aleck responses, well then I will continue to respond accordingly. If you want to keep up this game, then have at it, but don't expect too many people to take you seriously.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2016 Posts: 17,687
    Okay. Let's look at this from a simple standpoint (something I excel at :P)- man's activities have polluted the water of this planet to the point that there is measurably less life in the ocean now than ever before in recorded history, and there's not even twice as much air as there is water here. Man's ability to change things (for the worse) including climate is definitely understandable when you look at it like that IMO.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    Okay. Let's look at this from a simple standpoint (something I excel at :P)- man's activities have polluted the water of this planet to the point that there is measurably less life in the ocean now than ever before in recorded history, and there's not even twice as much air as there is water here. Man's ability to change things (for the worse) including climate is definitely understandable when you look at it like that IMO.

    From a cleanliness standpoint, yes. Not sure if it has a huge impact on climate though. That is a different animal altogether.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2016 Posts: 17,687

    From a cleanliness standpoint, yes. Not sure if it has a huge impact on climate though. That is a different animal altogether.
    Predictably, you miss my point. With that, I withdraw from conversing with you sir, as you seem young, somewhat out of your depth scientifically speaking, and needlessly absolutist to boot.

    ;)
  • chrisisall wrote: »

    From a cleanliness standpoint, yes. Not sure if it has a huge impact on climate though. That is a different animal altogether.
    Predictably, you miss my point. With that, I withdraw from conversing with you sir, as you seem young, somewhat out of your depth scientifically speaking, and needlessly absolutist to boot.

    ;)

    No, I'm actually of middle age and very well versed scientifically. But as usual, you fit perfectly well into that category of people who when someone disagrees with them, the person they disagree with is "uninformed, unqualified, and misled". And inevitably they pull out of the discussion all together. Well, that's your prerogative. Sorry you decided to end it, but you obviously are pretty set on your opinions on this.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    you obviously are pretty set on your opinions on this.
    Actually I'm not, but you wouldn't be able to tell that.
    :D
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 565
    JamesStock wrote: »
    Here's my take on the issue. I'll admit to being a right-winged American, however I'll be the first to recognize that climate change is real and a portion of it is undoubtedly human-influenced. One thing that has always impressed me is that you can go to Google Maps and you can literally pick just about any spot on Earth and you'll be able to see some imprint from man. Just on that alone, it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to translate that very tangible observation to influences on weather.

    The problem I have with climate change is the economics against it. In order to make any real impact you need to get all of the major players on the world stage to jump in on the bandwagon...which is not something that seems likely, at least in my lifetime. Human nature is always to take the path of least resistance. There's always going to be external forces (as in economic pressure) pushing against climate change incentives.

    Say for example, the US goes through with implementing some regulations. Now say China, which for this example, stays status quo. It inevitably makes doing business in the US more cumbersome and more expensive, giving China the upper hand, economically. So what incentive does the US have other than "for the good of mankind" to purposefully put itself at that disadvantage? Only until public at large in both countries feels the pressures/effects of climate change or until eco-friendly alternative methods become economically superior (not just feasible), will any real action take place. I just don't think we're anywhere near there yet.

    Speaking of which, if anyone is willing to donate $50,000 for a green cause, I would gladly take that money to buy a used Tesla. Just sayin'...

    James, I'm a right-winged American as well, but not all conservatives believe in man made climate change. I'm just curious as to what you believe is the proof that we are causing climate change. And not just some correlation between the number of people on the planet and an increase in CO2 levels. I'm just looking for you to prove to me that it's not some other force that can be causing this increase.
    A_Kristatos, I don't have any more proof of man-caused climate change than anyone else. Let me say that I completely agree with you in questioning what we're being told. You can certainly measure the amount of CO2 levels. But dividing that between man-made causes from natural causes can only be estimated. Assumptions have to be made and that in itself gives credit to questioning data. Like for any form of politics, data can be spun to give the picture you want to paint (I know this first hand, given my work experience)....and on that note, I do believe that there are a lot of politics at play behind the climate change debate.

    That said, all I can say with regards to climate change is the first paragraph in my original comment (maybe with some borrowing of DarthDimi's thoughts). You're right, I don't have any data that firmly links land use/population/amount of industry to increased levels of CO2 that we wouldn't be otherwise experiencing. However if you zoom in on a local scale, the cause-effect type relationships can become more apparent/suggestive.

    When you get right down to it, belief is just that...one's belief doesn't necessarily come from fact, but rather as a result from experiences. I guess I just fall in that category: that from what I've learned and experienced, I am led to the belief that a statistically significant portion of climate change is likely linked to man's efforts. Also, it may be worth noting that my comments were not trying to influence anyone's belief, but rather just to provide an alternate opinion.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    @A_Kristatos, I've been away here a bit and just tried to read all the posts above. Forgive me if I missed something, but you put foreward some arguments which I'd like, at least, to make you rethink.

    data collecting:
    You presume the data used by climatologists comes from measurements in the last 200 years in which humans actively measured local temperatures. This data, obviously, is used. But isn't everything. Like trees, ice and snow on the poles is laid down every year. These ice layers have chemical structures that tell us how warm/cold it had been on average that year. As you can probably imagine, a layer of ice which has had a higher temperature on the surface has a different structure and thickness then ice of colder years. This is then also compared to other sources (like tales of warm/ cold years, etc.).
    There are undoubtedly even more sources, but I know about this one. Be sure though that we have proper information about the climate on earth for at least the last 3000 years.

    Sun flares:
    This was one more argument that I used to think was a good one, as I too wasn't convinced. However, about 4 to 5 years ago (I'm really bad at that, counting back which year it was exactly) my ex and me were actually paying a lot of attention, as that year had an increadable increase of solar activity. You'd expect that to be a huge influance, we expected hot summers, warm winters and a lot of rain. But, compared to the previous years, there was no noticable difference. I think it was even just a little bit chillier then the year before.

    warm summers, how hot was this year?:

    You mentioned that 'winters are still cold, and summers warm'. And yes, they are. But there's a difference. If the temperature is, on average, every day one degree warmer then the year before, we as humans may not notice this, but the planet does. It means the ice caps on the poles grow less during the winter and lose more through the summer. All that water has to go somewhere. So oceans rise. Perhaps just a centimetre (and come on, how much is that eh!) but think again, as an engeneer, on the sheer volume of water that's now added to the oceans. The first year this isn't a problem, neither is it the next year. But in 20, 30 years, it makes a huge difference, as the process accellerates. And here's the problem: if it's us that started it all, there's no way we can stop it. It's a ball you push off a mountain. In the beginning, if you stop pushing, you might be lucky enough that it slows down. But there's a point of no return.

    mre CO2 is good for plants:

    No, it isn't. It won't make them grow any faster. They need water. There's allready plenty of CO2 in the air. Just like we only use 2% of the oxigen in the air to breath, we don't grow any faster if you put more oxigen in. But you can actually overdose on the stuff.

    Again, I've always been very sceptical about climate change. How do you know the added pollution is key to such huge changes? Well, first off we do produce quite a lot. Perhaps not here in Europe or the US, but check out China. Have you ever been there? Can you imagine what you need to produce for 1.2 billion people? And the sad thing is, they use old fashioned (or should I say: less advanced) technologies on a scale that we can hardly imagine.
    And second: perhaps that small push we're giving here is actually enough to make this ball roll. There are many precarious balances on this planet, and in the universe. Why would this one be so rugged? Because it's so big? So are planets. So are stars. So is that 747 airliner in the air, flying in formation with a jet. And there's very little necessary to make them collide and bring them both down.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Well put sir.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Not entirely true. Do you know how big insects were back in the day when oxygen levels were much higher than now? I wouldn t want to be around them.
  • JamesStock wrote: »
    JamesStock wrote: »
    Here's my take on the issue. I'll admit to being a right-winged American, however I'll be the first to recognize that climate change is real and a portion of it is undoubtedly human-influenced. One thing that has always impressed me is that you can go to Google Maps and you can literally pick just about any spot on Earth and you'll be able to see some imprint from man. Just on that alone, it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to translate that very tangible observation to influences on weather.

    The problem I have with climate change is the economics against it. In order to make any real impact you need to get all of the major players on the world stage to jump in on the bandwagon...which is not something that seems likely, at least in my lifetime. Human nature is always to take the path of least resistance. There's always going to be external forces (as in economic pressure) pushing against climate change incentives.

    Say for example, the US goes through with implementing some regulations. Now say China, which for this example, stays status quo. It inevitably makes doing business in the US more cumbersome and more expensive, giving China the upper hand, economically. So what incentive does the US have other than "for the good of mankind" to purposefully put itself at that disadvantage? Only until public at large in both countries feels the pressures/effects of climate change or until eco-friendly alternative methods become economically superior (not just feasible), will any real action take place. I just don't think we're anywhere near there yet.

    Speaking of which, if anyone is willing to donate $50,000 for a green cause, I would gladly take that money to buy a used Tesla. Just sayin'...

    James, I'm a right-winged American as well, but not all conservatives believe in man made climate change. I'm just curious as to what you believe is the proof that we are causing climate change. And not just some correlation between the number of people on the planet and an increase in CO2 levels. I'm just looking for you to prove to me that it's not some other force that can be causing this increase.
    A_Kristatos, I don't have any more proof of man-caused climate change than anyone else. Let me say that I completely agree with you in questioning what we're being told. You can certainly measure the amount of CO2 levels. But dividing that between man-made causes from natural causes can only be estimated. Assumptions have to be made and that in itself gives credit to questioning data. Like for any form of politics, data can be spun to give the picture you want to paint (I know this first hand, given my work experience)....and on that note, I do believe that there are a lot of politics at play behind the climate change debate.

    That said, all I can say with regards to climate change is the first paragraph in my original comment (maybe with some borrowing of DarthDimi's thoughts). You're right, I don't have any data that firmly links land use/population/amount of industry to increased levels of CO2 that we wouldn't be otherwise experiencing. However if you zoom in on a local scale, the cause-effect type relationships can become more apparent/suggestive.

    When you get right down to it, belief is just that...one's belief doesn't necessarily come from fact, but rather as a result from experiences. I guess I just fall in that category: that from what I've learned and experienced, I am led to the belief that a statistically significant portion of climate change is likely linked to man's efforts. Also, it may be worth noting that my comments were not trying to influence anyone's belief, but rather just to provide an alternate opinion.

    Great points James. But my issue is if we make public policy based on beliefs, and not hard facts, that's going down a slippery slope, to say the least. That's why I think we really need to make sure we have our facts straight. By our facts, I'm talking about scientists and politicians.
  • @A_Kristatos, I've been away here a bit and just tried to read all the posts above. Forgive me if I missed something, but you put foreward some arguments which I'd like, at least, to make you rethink.

    data collecting:
    You presume the data used by climatologists comes from measurements in the last 200 years in which humans actively measured local temperatures. This data, obviously, is used. But isn't everything. Like trees, ice and snow on the poles is laid down every year. These ice layers have chemical structures that tell us how warm/cold it had been on average that year. As you can probably imagine, a layer of ice which has had a higher temperature on the surface has a different structure and thickness then ice of colder years. This is then also compared to other sources (like tales of warm/ cold years, etc.).
    There are undoubtedly even more sources, but I know about this one. Be sure though that we have proper information about the climate on earth for at least the last 3000 years.

    Sun flares:
    This was one more argument that I used to think was a good one, as I too wasn't convinced. However, about 4 to 5 years ago (I'm really bad at that, counting back which year it was exactly) my ex and me were actually paying a lot of attention, as that year had an increadable increase of solar activity. You'd expect that to be a huge influance, we expected hot summers, warm winters and a lot of rain. But, compared to the previous years, there was no noticable difference. I think it was even just a little bit chillier then the year before.

    warm summers, how hot was this year?:

    You mentioned that 'winters are still cold, and summers warm'. And yes, they are. But there's a difference. If the temperature is, on average, every day one degree warmer then the year before, we as humans may not notice this, but the planet does. It means the ice caps on the poles grow less during the winter and lose more through the summer. All that water has to go somewhere. So oceans rise. Perhaps just a centimetre (and come on, how much is that eh!) but think again, as an engeneer, on the sheer volume of water that's now added to the oceans. The first year this isn't a problem, neither is it the next year. But in 20, 30 years, it makes a huge difference, as the process accellerates. And here's the problem: if it's us that started it all, there's no way we can stop it. It's a ball you push off a mountain. In the beginning, if you stop pushing, you might be lucky enough that it slows down. But there's a point of no return.

    mre CO2 is good for plants:

    No, it isn't. It won't make them grow any faster. They need water. There's allready plenty of CO2 in the air. Just like we only use 2% of the oxigen in the air to breath, we don't grow any faster if you put more oxigen in. But you can actually overdose on the stuff.

    Again, I've always been very sceptical about climate change. How do you know the added pollution is key to such huge changes? Well, first off we do produce quite a lot. Perhaps not here in Europe or the US, but check out China. Have you ever been there? Can you imagine what you need to produce for 1.2 billion people? And the sad thing is, they use old fashioned (or should I say: less advanced) technologies on a scale that we can hardly imagine.
    And second: perhaps that small push we're giving here is actually enough to make this ball roll. There are many precarious balances on this planet, and in the universe. Why would this one be so rugged? Because it's so big? So are planets. So are stars. So is that 747 airliner in the air, flying in formation with a jet. And there's very little necessary to make them collide and bring them both down.

    Great post Commander. However, see my post above regarding policy based on beliefs rather than facts. Also, of course we have years where global temperatures go up, and put a tremendous amount of water in the oceans. But at the same time we also have cooler years which may drop the water levels. I'd hate to have people pay a lot of taxes for a problem that might not even exist.

    And regarding your point about the huge influence humans are on this planet. I'm sure they are, but despite that, humans may still only account for such a tiny fraction of what makes our planet tick. You said the precarious balances of this planet are due to mechanics that are so big, but I'm not sure even humans have the power to drastically change them. Yes we can dirty our planet pretty easily, but I don't know if we can change the climate as easily. Just my opinion.

    I totally agree about the ice cores. But there are plenty of documented cores on record that show there was much warmer climates than what we are going through now in the past. And there were probably not too many people if any on the planet at that time. So scientists can say we have "100%" evidence that the climate is definitely warming at a drastic rate all they want. But reality is we don't have all the evidence, and we don't have all the answers.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    All this CO2 crap takes the focus away from all the poisonous metals we are drowning the planet with.
  • All this CO2 crap takes the focus away from all the poisonous metals we are drowning the planet with.

    Poisonous metals? Are you talking about all the exhaust we are putting in the atmosphere?

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited February 2016 Posts: 45,489
    No 1 is aluminium, which is everywhere other than where it should be right now. Lots of others as well. Beryllium is probably no 2, but don t take my word for it.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    @A_Kristatos I can tell you, living in a country which is for a large part below the sealevel, that we're allready quite concearned if we can actually live here in 50 years' time. As I said before, yes, we have warmer and cooler years, but as the average temperature rises, so does the sea level. And a centimetre or two may seem little, but I can tell you, that's a hell of a lot of water at spring tide! I don't know where you live, but I've grown up with the notion of the power of water. You can't win. Not in a million years.

    To put it this way: no, scientists can't be sure 100%. Not on this matter, as we know too little about climatic changes in the past. Still, we do know rising CO2 levels are a major part of climatic change. They have been in those earlier warm periods as well. Another fact is that we, as humans on this planet, have been 1. emitting far more CO2 gasses into our atmosphere then would naturally occur, and 2. have been destroying forests that would absorb those gasses. Take a look at Google maps, and put on satalite imaging. Then look at, i.e, Brazil. All the light grean area (over half the country) used to be as dark green as the Amazone. And then remember Brazil is about 4 times bigger then you see on the map (that's what you get when you make a globe flat). Look at Africa, it's the same story. Indonesia- Java used to bee utterly and completely dark green. All you can see now are rice paddies.

    Yes, before you ask, that's been going on before the industrial revolution, but it's the scale that's different now. In 1900 the world had an estimated total population of 1,7 (1,65) billion people. In 2012 we passed the 7 billion mark. That's fivefold in an industrial era in which we an masse destroyed our forests and burnt most of them, putting the CO2 back in the atmosphere, which can't be picked up by those trees anymore as they're not replaced.

    You say you think we're not capable of changing our climate. I say the chances are stacked against you, as we're very well capable of destroying more then half the worlds forest, which play such a pivotal roll in this process. And adding insult ti injury, we proceed to burn as many fuels with stored CO2 as we can.

    Again, is it that bad? Well, chances are it is that bad. Can we take those chance? Well, yes, many will say. But those are people living far away from the danger zones. For me? My family, my country? No, we can't take those chances. And, as we're living on the same planet, we'd be very much obliged if you didn't either.
Sign In or Register to comment.