How Credible is This "Global Warming?"

[4Tran]

The relationship between Global Warming and Peak Oil is certainly a very interesting one, but I have the suspicion that the one will make the impact of the other worse.

While Peak Oil may mean that there'll be less carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere via oil, but it's probably not going to help all that much. This is because we're entering a series of positive feedback loops which are projected to increase the global temperature even if we were to reduce emissions to zero. In a lot of ways, the bigger problem is going to be to A) lessen the amount of temperature increase as much as possible, and B) to build the infrastructure so that we can cope with such an increase (mostly in terms of protecting our coasts). However, an overall reduction in available energy can mean that our ability to do both things becomes ever more restricted.

Peak Oil represents the peaking of oil production rather than the cessation of oil usage, so we'll certainly still be using it - it's really a loss of cheap energy. The difference is that this will be limited to the richer countries and people. We can already see this in action as many third world countries can no longer afford the petroleum to maintain any sort of economic growth (or even to keep up with their agricultural production). The end result is probably going to be a double-whammy of ecological hardship followed up by a big reduction in our ability to respond to that hardship. For the most part, I think that the First World countries will be mostly okay (France and Japan seem to have the energy infrastructure to best cope with Peak Oil), but the same can't be said of the Third World countries.

[Khaos]

Ok, let me say it in a different way:
If you compare earth with a man suffering from serious influencia with pneumonia and all serious complications you can have, then the whole global warming debate is like a bunch of people - some of them are doctors, but the majority are people like detail men, hospital functionaries and the janitor - discussing how high his fever will become the next days, what antipyretic drug is the cheapest - they didn't give him any yet - and completely ignoring all other symptoms and complications as well as the cause of the illness.
Of course, treating the fever is important, but it's only ONE part in the whole thing and to treat the fever effectively, you have to treat the cause of the illness, too. And that is what is not happening. Everyone's hysterical because now we feel the impact of our primitive behaviour, but almost noone thinks about the deeper problems.
It's always like this. If in a state in the USA, where death penalty has been abolished a few years ago, if there happens a gruesome murder, than the people will change their opinion and be pro DP. However this doesn't solve the problem, that there are people who kill other people. In germany right now they're discussion boot camps for criminal immigrants on a very low level as if this would solve the problem of people become criminals. It never did, it does not and never will do! And it's the same with the global warming debate.

Originally Posted by Hikari no Hohenheim

That is indeed true; the climate has always been changing - but never this abruptly. This time the excessive amount of CO2, the second most potent greenhouse gas, pouring into the air appears to be the cause. I sure wonder how a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere could NOT have made any difference.

Are you aware how abruptly a massive super volcano eruption or a medium sized meteorite is able to change climate?

[Hikari no Hohenheim]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying that since there are SO many things wrong with this world, there's no use trying to do anything about the threat that lies closest to us? That the ship is already going to sink at some point, so why not let sink sooner than later?

What exactly do you mean by "the cause of illness"? In the Climate issue, wouldn't that be the CO2 emission? Or is that the Fever, and the Cause is every single thing that might doom the earth? I don't think anyone will do a campaign about that, ever.

And gee, you sure seem to know a lot about our world, and how everything will turn into gloom and doom. How did you come across such knowledge?

Originally Posted by Khaos

Are you aware how abruptly a massive super volcano eruption or a medium sized meteorite is able to change climate?

I forgot where I heard this, but apparently volcanos emitts about 0.1 gigaton CO2 per year, altogether. So let's assume there a HUGE volcano that's stronger than all active volcanos on the planet. If that went off one year, together with the rest as usual that would be probably result in a bit more than double the amount of CO2, say 0.2-0.3 gigaton. Still nothing compared to humanmade 3.0 gigatons per year. Of course, if it was a volcano the size of an entire country, that would be a different matter.

But yes, a medium size meteor could very well ruin our earth and throw it into chaos, that I don't doubt. But as far as I know, there haven't been any sightings of meteors that could pose such a threat in a foreseeable future. Of course that could change, in which case the scientists will probably let us know.

[Khaos]

Originally Posted by Hikari no Hohenheim

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying that since there are SO many things wrong with this world, there's no use trying to do anything about the threat that lies closest to us? That the ship is already going to sink at some point, so why not let sink sooner than later?

What I am trying to say is, that the attitude behind all this is the problem. It is NOT wrong to do something about climate change, of course not. I just doubt that it will work and i fear that it is also used as an excuse to ignore many other grave problems. And because problems are generally ignored unless there is a big fuss in the media about it - and even then nothing is likely to happen - we won't be able to solve the climate problem. It's not because we possibily couldn't, it is because in reality we don't want to change anything, because we know, to do something that really makes things better, everyone has to question and change his own lifestyle. I don't know if I'm able to explain what I want to say.

What exactly do you mean by "the cause of illness"? In the Climate issue, wouldn't that be the CO2 emission? Or is that the Fever, and the Cause is every single thing that might doom the earth? I don't think anyone will do a campaign about that, ever.

We don't need campaign...we need a change of mind so that everyone will do what's best for everyone out of his own motivation and NOT because he is being told to do it.

And gee, you sure seem to know a lot about our world, and how everything will turn into gloom and doom. How did you come across such knowledge?

Don't know, I just memorize such things when I hear or read them.

I forgot where I heard this, but apparently volcanos emitts about 0.1 gigaton CO2 per year, altogether. So let's assume there a HUGE volcano that's stronger than all active volcanos on the planet. If that went off one year, together with the rest as usual that would be probably result in a bit more than double the amount of CO2, say 0.2-0.3 gigaton. Still nothing compared to humanmade 3.0 gigatons per year. Of course, if it was a volcano the size of an entire country, that would be a different matter.

Well, CO2 is not the main problem with volcanoes.

[Hikari no Hohenheim]

What I am trying to say is, that the attitude behind all this is the problem. It is NOT wrong to do something about climate change, of course not. I just doubt that it will work and i fear that it is also used as an excuse to ignore many other grave problems. And because problems are generally ignored unless there is a big fuss in the media about it - and even then nothing is likely to happen - we won't be able to solve the climate problem. It's not because we possibily couldn't, it is because in reality we don't want to change anything, because we know, to do something that really makes things better, everyone has to question and change his own lifestyle. I don't know if I'm able to explain what I want to say.

So you're saying that the problem lies within the life philosofies of humankind.

You speak as if you knew every single human being in the world - or at least everyone who has the least bit influense in our society. You say "we don't want to anything" and "many will use this as an excuse to ignore other problems" - and you're probably right about that, as there is a heck of a lot of people who's lazy, uncaring and selfish. Is this what makes you doubt it will work? How can you be so sure that this is the majority of people, and that there is not an equal amount of people who do care, and who WANT to change for the better?

For that matter, I seriously doubt that nothing will happen if the media makes a big fuss about this. Remember, this is an issue that most scientific bodies in the world believe to be one of the biggest threat to mankind ever, one that involves all of us, regardless of nationallity or race. I think a good number of people would stand up and take notice.

We don't need campaign...we need a change of mind so that everyone will do what's best for everyone out of his own motivation and NOT because he is being told to do it.

That's true and all, but there is more to it than that.

There's absolutely no need to care about anyone but yourself in order to want to make a difference. More than saving the world, we're talking about saving our own cookies. If the worst of Global Climate Change would happen, then no one will be safe. In a world full of panic and political crisies, how big is that chance that you or me will get what we want out of life? The reason I care is because I want to ensure my own future, my own manga/anime/Videogame collection, my own privacy; I'm sure it's the same for a whole lot of people. Isn't that enough to justify action against climate change?

(Not that I don't care about other people, mind - I hate to see other people suffer - but it pales in comparison of what might happen to my own life.)

[Khaos]

Originally Posted by Hikari no Hohenheim

So you're saying that the problem lies within the life philosofies of humankind.

Exactly, in fact it's only one believe that is the root for most of our misery, the belief, that humans are bad by nature.

You speak as if you knew every single human being in the world - or at least everyone who has the least bit influense in our society. You say "we don't want to anything" and "many will use this as an excuse to ignore other problems" - and you're probably right about that, as there is a heck of a lot of people who's lazy, uncaring and selfish. Is this what makes you doubt it will work? How can you be so sure that this is the majority of people, and that there is not an equal amount of people who do care, and who WANT to change for the better?

Hm, you're right about that. I suppose I tend to look too much on the whole system and to less on the individual people.

For that matter, I seriously doubt that nothing will happen if the media makes a big fuss about this. Remember, this is an issue that most scientific bodies in the world believe to be one of the biggest threat to mankind ever, one that involves all of us, regardless of nationallity or race. I think a good number of people would stand up and take notice.

Yeah, on the other hand, if I ignore my previous pessimisn it also may become some sort of catalyzer for noticing the other threats as well to get closer to the critical mass of different thinking and acting for the whole system to tilt to a better direction. (again my view on the system )

There's absolutely no need to care about anyone but yourself in order to want to make a difference. More than saving the world, we're talking about saving our own cookies. If the worst of Global Climate Change would happen, then no one will be safe. In a world full of panic and political crisies, how big is that chance that you or me will get what we want out of life? The reason I care is because I want to ensure my own future, my own manga/anime/Videogame collection, my own privacy; I'm sure it's the same for a whole lot of people. Isn't that enough to justify action against climate change?

(Not that I don't care about other people, mind - I hate to see other people suffer - but it pales in comparison of what might happen to my own life.)

I understand what you mean, I'll rephrase it more spiritually: You only can love others if you love yourself, so being good to yourself enables you to be good to others, for if you understand that everyone is connected to each other, then it's the best for your own happiness to help others also find happiness and a good life.

Need to think about this more now.

[Thingle]

Come on, why are the skeptics shirking from my "Thingle Challenge"? Because empirical evidence is irrefutable by their quacky statistics?

[Hikari no Hohenheim]

That challange could be done here in Sweden as well. Stay here a couple of years, and tell me where Winter has gone. Today was a sunny weather most unbefitting January.

By the way, I found a neat quote the other day. Thought I'd share it with you here:


"When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world.

I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation.

When I found I couldn't change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn't change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family.

Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world."


Answers the argument "there's nothing we can do" nicely, don't you think?

[arcadeplayer987]

The climate changing is obvious and the sad thing is that we don't make too much to help changing this, I mean we are not doing important things to avoid pollution

[Thingle]

Originally Posted by Hikari no Hohenheim

That challange could be done here in Sweden as well. Stay here a couple of years, and tell me where Winter has gone. Today was a sunny weather most unbefitting January.

By the way, I found a neat quote the other day. Thought I'd share it with you here:


"When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world.

I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation.

When I found I couldn't change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn't change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family.

Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world."


Answers the argument "there's nothing we can do" nicely, don't you think?

Ahh. Ripped from the Da Xue

[siya]

Originally Posted by Thingle

Come on, why are the skeptics shirking from my "Thingle Challenge"? Because empirical evidence is irrefutable by their quacky statistics?

Well, I think some people don't think it's happening because they don't want to believe it's happen if from facts..I know some of my friends don't believe it's happening because they feel that if sunlight is able to come in, it's able to go out and everything is fine...

[Sodagod]

Originally Posted by siya

Well, I think some people don't think it's happening because they don't want to believe it's happen if from facts..I know some of my friends don't believe it's happening because they feel that if sunlight is able to come in, it's able to go out and everything is fine...

I see nothing, therefore it isn't real.
Ignorance is bliss.
Right?

Turning your back on things is always easier and that is what most people do. It's unlikely to change until something really hits them, but then it might already be too late. To change the world, start with the way of thinking.

[JustInn14]

Erhm, It's friggin frigid over here in Wisconsin. Global warming's probably a crock. EXTREME WEATHER, though....

[siya]

Originally Posted by Sodagod

I see nothing, therefore it isn't real.
Ignorance is bliss.
Right?

Turning your back on things is always easier and that is what most people do. It's unlikely to change until something really hits them, but then it might already be too late. To change the world, start with the way of thinking.

There you go...Exactly......They usually say that too...Then I simply say...Oxygen doesn't exist...then they say it does..then I say "According to you, it doesn't, if you can't see it it doesn't exsit..." by that time they change the subject because they know they are wrong but they have no way of talking themselves out of it

[Ledgem]

I didn't get a chance to go through all ten pages of material here, but some of the comments on the first page were very misinformed (Cats, WanderingKnight) and I notice that some of the comments even here on page 10 are off.

JustInn14, your own observations are relatively meaningless with regard to global warming. For the past five years, every time I returned home to New York for winter break, the weather would become warmer than it was in Los Angeles. That is unseasonably warm, and yet my observations alone can't be used as evidence of global warming. Oddly enough, practically right after I left, the weather would become colder, as it usually is. And no, it doesn't mean that I am a source of global warming.

The problem is that many people hear the term "global warming" and expect just that - warming. Global warming means that the overall temperature of the Earth increases. The affects of this rise in temperature can mostly be seen in alterations to the weather (typically, more extreme weather). This does not mean that weather becomes warmer everywhere. For example, one model predicts that as the warming occurs and the arctic ice caps melt, a massive stream of cold water will flow from the North pole down to the Atlantic Ocean. The result of this massive amount of cold water would actually result in extremely cold temperatures for Europe - if this model were correct, global warming would ironically trigger a regional ice age.

Yes, the carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures go through cycles. But as Jinto Lin pointed out, the speed of the change (and the magnitude, I might add) are extremely important to consider. The changes are currently happening very quickly. It has been noted that the cycles of many insects - synchronized with the cycles of plants through time ("evolution" if you prefer) - are increasingly becoming out of sync. The plants respond to the climate.

Yet some more evidence was listed on CNN, where researchers noted that some ancient arctic ice shelves have started breaking apart. The formation of that ice lasted through plenty of the cycles in global warming and cooling - that's some of the ice that's been used to study what the atmospheric carbon content was since all those years ago, after all.

Additionally, an interesting scientific article was posted a few months ago, hypothesizing that global warming was what killed the dinosaurs. Someone in this thread mentioned that volcanoes emit a good amount of carbon dioxide, and it was found that there was quite a bit of volcanic activity in the period of time before the dinosaurs went extinct. There was some other evidence as well, but I don't recall it - I can dig up the article if anyone is interested.

If you're one of those people who somehow isn't convinced that carbon dioxide is to blame, that's really fine. What you should be aware of is that the Earth and all of its ecosystems are incredibly complex, and we don't fully understand what's happening or how they run. All natural systems do seem to have resilience to disturbances, but they have a limit before they break down (Google around to find out about coral reef bleaching as an example of this; you can also try to find the scientific article stating the fate of fish populations. Here's a spoiler: within our lifetimes, the predictions are that only jellyfish would be around the seas). Because we don't understand the systems, it would be best to leave as small a footprint as possible, just so that we can make sure that we're not messing up something that we won't be able to put back together. You do this with your computer, you do this with scientific experiments - why be so rash with the only planet we have to live on?

Many people also like to retaliate (or take that argument to an extreme) and say that environmentalists want society to go back to the dark ages, or some other such garbage. No, society should continue to develop, but we should give higher priority to being efficient. We can do it, it's just a matter of making it a higher priority and following through.

[Reckoner]

Sorry for reviving a dead thread, but I just read a very interesting article concerning this "global warming."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

It has further made me skeptical of this issue by quite a bit. Yes we should care for our environment and not pollute it to death, but I am thinking that we are a little out of hand here with predicting the end of the world.

[Feitolicious]

I'm not too sure about the whole "Global Warming" topic. It could just be another thing to get us of our gaurd. I once heard someone say, If we don't change the way we live, the way we live will change us." If it is not a hoax, we should pay attention to these words. We need to stop polluting, and spraying chemical trails into the air. The earth should be a healthy place for us to live in, but this wont happen untill we decide to change. It has alot to do with our leader though. Our current president doesn't seem to care much about this topic, but more on war.

I honestly don't know, but the environment is changing, so maybe we should take action.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Sorry for reviving a dead thread, but I just read a very interesting article concerning this "global warming."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

It has further made me skeptical of this issue by quite a bit. Yes we should care for our environment and not pollute it to death, but I am thinking that we are a little out of hand here with predicting the end of the world.

Ohhh, look a temperature chart from the Medievals until today! And it was much warmer around 1200! Unfortunately this doesn't get any more correct by referring to it for (at least) the second time in this thread.

And yet again the "proof" is on some private webpage.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Sorry for reviving a dead thread, but I just read a very interesting article concerning this "global warming."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

It has further made me skeptical of this issue by quite a bit. Yes we should care for our environment and not pollute it to death, but I am thinking that we are a little out of hand here with predicting the end of the world.

I didn't find it very interesting. It seems that he's pointing out that the Earth has undergone massive warming and cooling on its own in the past, regardless of human activity. This isn't exactly new or stunning information.

The only interesting information that I found was his little tidbit about carbon dioxide being present in vast quantities in the atmosphere, before human activity. This isn't the "gotcha" that critics of global warming are searching for, though. The graph that he gives is very unfriendly to read, so I don't know if the dates match up properly. However, there is a new theory which states that dinosaurs died out due to global warming. No, the dinosaurs weren't driving cars. It was noted that there was incredibly heavy volcanic activity some number of years before the dinosaurs seemingly went extinct. Guess what volcanos put into the atmosphere? You got it Carbon dioxide is among the many pollututants that they put out. The full article contained more data showing that volcanic activity, and subsequently climate change, seemed to be more responsible for the dinosaurs' extinction than did meteor impact (which they also mention). If you're interested in reading the full thing, check the PhysOrg article (which doesn't mention global warming until the end), or the "more credible" Nature article (requires purchase or academic access).

The Earth has never been fully stable in the grand scheme of temperature change over time. The problem is that things seem to be changing at a faster rate than what is usually observed. Carbon dioxide is a major suspect, but nobody can really say for certain. The fact is that we need a relatively limited temperature range to survive. I do not advocate giving up cars and factories, but we should work to minimize our impact on the environment particularly since we barely understand how the environmental balances operate. Doesn't that make sense?

I've also mentioned it before, but I'll say it again: global warming can lead to global cooling. If the ice caps melt (due to an overall rise in global temperatures - that's global warming) it will result in a lot of fresh, cold water suddenly being generated. Due to ocean currents it's estimated that the water would flow down to the Atlantic Ocean, mostly on the eastern side. The water would offset local temperatures and it's expected that Greenland would be totally frozen over while Europe would experience a localized ice age.

I studied environmental engineering and environmental science. I don't claim to be an expert (far from it), but please take this from me: ecology and environmental science are incredibly intricate. It is never as simple as a single cause and effect. There are multiple systems at play, and all act on each other. There are things that we're still discovering that have potentially significant implications on Earth trends. I advocate proceeding with caution because it would be unwise to screw ourselves by messing up a system that is rather vital. And to those who practice wilfull ignorance by claiming that humans can't have that big of an affect on the Earth, I'm not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise. Look into the Dust Bowl disaster in American history as a nice example of what can happen when you screw up royally and abuse the environment. Here's a summary: desertification and the creation of land that is essentially inhabitable. Of course, the Dust Bowl example has a happy ending, as it shows that with a lot of money and effort, such things can be reversed. May we be so lucky on the world scale.

[KholdStare]

Meh, for me this is still just a game of risk. Even if you're 90% sure global warming might happen, how comfortable are you with the 10% that it might happen? Even if it happens, and you're 90% sure that the causes won't be as devastating as people say, but how comfortable are you with the 10% that it could be that devastating? It's up to each individual person if they think the risks could be overlooked.