Anthropogenic Global Warming

[Jazzratt]

To clear up the jargon for those who may not know anthropogenic simply means man-made.

This is an issue that is a cornerstone of a lot of debate and discussion today with a lot of extreme views and dishonesty surrounding it. The two camps most guilty of dishonesty are those that deny its existence, although these are closer to the fringe whereas the other group, the scaremongers, are given a lot more credence in the mainstream.

There is overwhelming evidence that it exists, as has been illustrated on other threads. The area of educated speculation is on its reversibility and severity although from given evidence it appears that it is possible to halt or reverse the process and the effects, while serious will not be catastrophic. Questions on how it can be reversed and whether or not capitalism is conducive to this reversal are possibly the most important for those who believe it can be reversed whereas questions on dealing with the effects are important to those who believe it is irreversible.

My own views on the subject are that, yes clearly, it exists but with careful resource management, such as can be found in a planned economy, and sensible research and technological advancement it can be reversed. If we fail, somehow, to reverse it the effects will not be so catastrophic as to be considered an end of the world as we know it type scenario but will nonetheless be noticeable and often unpleasent.

What are your views?

[Janus]

I still think that we need more evidence and research on this issue but due to the recent IPCC report, I'm leaning towards either 2 or 4.

[Sentinel]

'Serious but reversible' here. Serious, because the fact that many species' existance is threatened could have unpredictable and unpleasant consequences. A link in a food chain disappearing can have a huge impact on the lives of the remaining ones.

But I remain confident in my position that mankind will eventually both tackle any problems already caused by global warming, as well as stop it from increasing. This as soon as the wasteful, chaotic and unpredictable world order known as capitalism is replaced by a smarter one.

Communism will not overproduce like capitalism does and is thus by default both far less wasteful of resources and, importantly here, much less harmful to the environment. I think this difference will weigh very heavily and ensure our sustainability by minimising pollution and waste.

[Delirium]

I voted serious and irreversible. Capitalism does contribute much to the problems through overproduction of goods and a culture of consumerism, but any society other than pre-agricultural one will have a serious impact on the planet.

Though if we want to enjoy the comforts of industrial society we have to accept this. The rest of the world must be allowed to develop also.

So i think that development is inevitable and progressive but we may be destroying ourselves in the process. The destruction of capitalism is the largest step we could take in order to ensure humanity long term wellbeing.

[Vargha Poralli]

I think it is serious at the current time. It might turn in t catastophic if we don't act soon.

IMO in some cases it is reversible and in some cases it is irreversible. It is on the swift and deceisive action lies the result.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Serious and irreversible. The effects will set in gradually, but I expect some serious climate change by the end of this century (by "serious" I mean "enough to mess up a lot of agriculture and destroy Bangladesh, but by no means apocalyptic"). I think climate change may plunge capitalism into a global depression, which will be a great opportunity for revolution.

I also think it is quite obvious that global warming is irreversible on any reasonable time frame. We can adapt to it, of course, and so can the Earth's ecosystems, but we won't be able to cool the Earth back down any time soon.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Serious and reversible. I am persuaded that the biosphere has sustained worse than what's probably coming from anthropogenic GW, and come out the other side just fine.

And, don't tell anyone, but I quite like Gaia theory.

-Alex

[Vanguard1917]

With sufficient economic development around the world the effects will be small. The countries which are most vulnerable to changes in climate are those that are severely underdeveloped and too highly dependent on backward agricultural production (such as the countries in sub-Saharan Africa). In order to protect themselves from the negative aspects of temperature increases (and decreases), these countries need to industrialise.

[Robo the Hobo]

I would argue that this is for the time being even more important an issue than implementing a communist society BUT that by doing what needs to be done, (destroying cappitalism, and implementation of planned economy, allong with large amounts of research) dealing with anthropogenic global warming will leave things open for a communist society that will be able to survive.

I am admittedly more of an environmentalist than a communist, but I think that our aims our the same, just that we focus on differnt aspects of the problem.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Robo the [email protected] 12, 2007 02:54 pm
I would argue that this is for the time being even more important an issue than implementing a communist society
I wouldn't. Mainly because it is near enough impossible to deal with the issue unless we have a communist society.


BUT that by doing what needs to be done, (destroying cappitalism, and implementation of planned economy, allong with large amounts of research) dealing with anthropogenic global warming will leave things open for a communist society that will be able to survive.
Wait, so you agree that to deal with agw we have to destroy capitalism and implement a planned economy, yet do not support creating a communist society? What do you suggest in the interim? Fascism?


I am admittedly more of an environmentalist than a communist, but I think that our aims our the same, just that we focus on differnt aspects of the problem.
My aim is the creation of a stateless classless society, how is this related to your aims?

[Kami]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:26 am
I think it is serious at the current time. It might turn in t catastophic if we don't act soon.

IMO in some cases it is reversible and in some cases it is irreversible. It is on the swift and deceisive action lies the result.
I admit that the effects are noticable, but can you really justify calling them serious at the moment? Perhaps the deterioration may be serious, but we're still in the green at the moment, if you'll excuse the turn of phrase

Myself, I'm saying noticable and reversable. But only if we stop with this "Carbon Offsetting" rubish that makes people think they're doing good, and get our technology running more efficiently.

[ichneumon]

I wouldn't. Mainly because it is near enough impossible to deal with the issue unless we have a communist society.
My aim is the creation of a stateless classless society, how is this related to your aims?

this is a serious conundrum. how much ecological damage would a revolution cause? would it be reversible? it would take decades to get society working again, an in the mean time people will do what they have to to survive.

it's my feeling that capitalism will result in horrible ecological damage, which will result in revolution. there is ecological theory to support this: mutualistic ecologies thrive under harsh conditions - having fewer resources will make communism a stronger contender.

nevertheless, horrible ecological damage and bloody global revolution should be avoided if there is any other way.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:07 pm

I wouldn't. Mainly because it is near enough impossible to deal with the issue unless we have a communist society.
My aim is the creation of a stateless classless society, how is this related to your aims?

this is a serious conundrum. how much ecological damage would a revolution cause? would it be reversible?
That depends on your vision of the revolution. If you're imagining massive conflicts as the people rise up against a similar force or one where the insurgents are using highly environmentally damaging weapons (Fighter jets, Missiles, ect then the effects could easily be huge. Although, as with most things, they may either be reversible or have effects we could adapt to.


it would take decades to get society working again, an in the mean time people will do what they have to to survive.
How people will live in the time between the revolution and communism or socialism is quite a poser. I'll get back to you on that.


it's my feeling that capitalism will result in horrible ecological damage, which will result in revolution. there is ecological theory to support this: mutualistic ecologies thrive under harsh conditions - having fewer resources will make communism a stronger contender.
That would be disastrous as communism is not a system conducive to distributing scarce resources.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Kami+April 12, 2007 11:58 pm--> (Kami @ April 12, 2007 11:58 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 06:26 am
I think it is serious at the current time. It might turn in t catastophic if we don't act soon.

IMO in some cases it is reversible and in some cases it is irreversible. It is on the swift and deceisive action lies the result.
I admit that the effects are noticable, but can you really justify calling them serious at the moment? Perhaps the deterioration may be serious, but we're still in the green at the moment, if you'll excuse the turn of phrase

Myself, I'm saying noticable and reversable. But only if we stop with this "Carbon Offsetting" rubish that makes people think they're doing good, and get our technology running more efficiently. [/b]
I don't know about this claim that we are in the green so to speak. There has already been huge problems due to this global warming such as in the north entire villages having to move because of melting ice.

[RedAnarchist]

I think that, although the effects will be serious, they are certainly reversible, although some areas won't recover.

[jaycee]

global warming simply underlines the fact that revolution is a material necessity for humanity, otherwise we may not survive this century.

[Cult of Reason]

I have not voted in the poll.

I think that, with the balance of currently available evidence, global warming probably is predominantly anthropogenic. The problem, however, is that I find it almost impossible to get around the rabid sensationalism.

[Vanguard1917]

Apparently sensationalism is good if it serves to make us 'take notice'. So, for example, it's OK to say that by the end of the 21st century the only inhabitable place on earth will the North Pole or that most of Europe is going to be under water. Such ridiculous assertions are justified on the basis that they increase 'awareness' and 'make us think' about recycling our rubbish or, more consequentially, into supporting anti-development policies.

It's like what Britain's chief Green ideologue George Monbiot said. He said he wants to 'make people so depressed about the state of the planet that they stay in bed all day, thereby reducing their consumption of fossil fuels'.

It reminds me of those government adverts from the 1990s telling teenagers that they'll all die if they don't stop taking ecstacy or that they'll catch AIDS if they don't start wearing condoms. It was all sensationalist bullshit; but it was justified because it was 'raising awareness'. Raising awareness about nonexistent threats to human life... In other words, scare-mongering.

[Whitten]

I said catastrophic and reversable (that is, the most extreme can be stopped if action is taken now, its lighter effects are now inevitable, and being felt already).

I feel that CO2 content in the atmosphere is in many ways a weak link in the chain that makes up our enviroment. Pump the air full of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses and it will have other effects. Melting Ice caps cause a change in ocean temperature and PH, and it doesn't take much of a change to kill off entire species of fish. It'll cause a complete distortion of rainfall patterns, causing wide spread drouts in many regions and massive flooding in some others. This kills off large ammounts of the plantlife, which accelerates the warming even further, while also having a massive effect on the rest of the food chain, not to mention the humanitarian impact.

[bezdomni]

catch AIDS if they don't start wearing condoms.
You should start wearing condoms.

[socialistfuture]

With sufficient economic development around the world the effects will be small. The countries which are most vulnerable to changes in climate are those that are severely underdeveloped and too highly dependent on backward agricultural production (such as the countries in sub-Saharan Africa). In order to protect themselves from the negative aspects of temperature increases (and decreases), these countries need to industrialise.

no it is industrialization that has caused the man made espect of global warming. what about the heat wave in europe, hurricane katrina and the effect of sea level rises on coastal countires like the netherlands? you are so dogmatic about rapid industrialization..do you work in a massive factory.. have you ever been to a mega city?
you forget a lot of industrial areas are wastelands and depended on healthy soild elsewhere to grow the food that supplies them, and that many resources come from outside the rich industrial zones.

maybe we should have a thread on development and industrialization.

on a seperate note anyone read COLLAPSE by jared diamond?

[TheTickTockMan]

The "scare-mongers" you speak of do not, in fact, exist. Nobody wants to profit off of global warming. In fact, their existence is as much a lie as the "Invisible Hand" of capitalism, a term created by right-wing cronies and the corporate elite to impede serious action.

I answered Catastrophic and Irreversible.

Why?

Because, as scientists have recently discovered, the reserves of methane clathrates frozen in sub-Arctic permafrost layers are beginning to be released into the atmosphere, as the permafrost melts and turns into methane-producing peat bogs. There are millions of hectares of such areas, and the alarming discovery is that the rapid release of several gigatonnes of methane into the atmosphere, in a short timespan, could trigger a runaway greenhouse effect, effectively transitioning the earth in one abrupt shift from a periodic glacial-interglacial regime into a hothouse world similar to that of the upper Cretaceous.

In fact, the current global warming is causing this very effect. Once it gets started, the increasing atmospheric methane will trigger even more global warming, releasing still more methane. This abrupt positive feedback loop will certainly change the climate within our lifetimes -- by my estimation, around fifty to seventy years from now.

And an abrupt transition from one climate regime to another shall be accompanied by severe climatic disruptions in the interim. Floods, droughts, sea level rise, immensely powerful hurricanes and storms, and ecological chaos shall affect all corners of the globe.

Based upon my assessment of the state of the world at present, human society will not change in time to stop this from happening. Carbon dioxide lasts at least 200 years in the atmosphere before it is sequestered, and its long-term ramifications resonate in the earth's climate system continue to be felt at least a thousand years afterwards. Human society will not be able to cast off the specter of CO2 in this time. In fact, I believe that the coming climatic chaos will stress society to such a point that a catastrophic breakdown of social systems is inevitable.

@~TTTM

[Wilfred]

Well, I'm not so pessimistic as you, but we have to act fast. Fortunately the fact that the oil will run out, is a good thing, since it will limit the amount of CO2 we can push into the atmosphere. Most scientist think that those runaway effects you describe are possible but unlikely. Although it is a lot of wishful thinking on my part, I wouldn't like it if billions of people start migrating.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:48 pm
Well, I'm not so pessimistic as you, but we have to act fast. Fortunately the fact that the oil will run out, is a good thing,
since it will limit the amount of CO2 we can push into the atmosphere.
No. The oil running out with our current reliance on it a source of energy will be catastrophic. Far worse than most of the doom-monger fantasies about AGW.


Although it is a lot of wishful thinking on my part, I wouldn't like it if billions of people start migrating.

What do you mean by this?

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:48 pm
Well, I'm not so pessimistic as you, but we have to act fast. Fortunately the fact that the oil will run out, is a good thing,
since it will limit the amount of CO2 we can push into the atmosphere.
No. The oil running out with our current reliance on it a source of energy will be catastrophic. Far worse than most of the doom-monger fantasies about AGW.
Not really, we need to shift to electrified transport, think trains and trams. If we also go live in densely populated cities, think Amsterdam or Copenhagen not Houston, then bikes and such will become much more useful. The western countries also waste a lot of energy, simply because they can.



Although it is a lot of wishful thinking on my part, I wouldn't like it if billions of people start migrating.

What do you mean by this?
AGW will shift the arable land we have. So people will move from where the fertile land was to where it will be. The Sahara will get bigger, but Sweden will have better harvests.

[Rhino Thunder Pants]

Since looking through this forum i have managed to find ignorant sexist and even stupid communists and anrachists. its pretty much a fact that global warming is not reversable the planet cycle itself its to slowly breakdown and we have just sped it up so how can we reverse it also being sent into a mini ice age for 10 -15 thousand years theres not alot man cna do about that

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Wilfred+August 21, 2007 02:21 am--> (Wilfred @ August 21, 2007 02:21 am)

[email protected] 20, 2007 11:48 pm
Well, I'm not so pessimistic as you, but we have to act fast. Fortunately the fact that the oil will run out, is a good thing,
since it will limit the amount of CO2 we can push into the atmosphere.
No. The oil running out with our current reliance on it a source of energy will be catastrophic. Far worse than most of the doom-monger fantasies about AGW.
Not really, we need to shift to electrified transport, think trains and trams. If we also go live in densely populated cities, think Amsterdam or Copenhagen not Houston, then bikes and such will become much more useful. The western countries also waste a lot of energy, simply because they can. [/b]
Um, how we move about after peak oil will be, at best, a secondary issue when compared to the collapse of industry it will cause.

[hajduk]

dont wory JAZZRATT remember Nikola Tesla when he spoke with capitalists and say to them there is no need for cables to send electric energy in people houses
capitalists have solution for alternative energy they just wait for god economy situation to make money on that

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rhino Thunder Pants+August 21, 2007 02:30 am--> (Rhino Thunder Pants @ August 21, 2007 02:30 am) Since looking through this forum i have managed to find ignorant sexist and even stupid communists and anrachists. [/b]
Really? Links please.


its pretty much a fact that global warming is not reversable

Evidence for this assertion would be nice.


the planet cycle itself its to slowly breakdown and we have just sped it up so how can we reverse it

By removing the CO2 we put into the atmosphere, perhaps?


also being sent into a mini ice age for 10 -15 thousand years theres not alot man cna do about that

Nonsense. By speeding up global warming we have potentially warded off any ice ages.


Originally posted by [email protected]
dont wory JAZZRATT remember Nikola Tesla when he spoke with capitalists and say to them there is no need for cables to send electric energy in people houses
capitalists have solution for alternative energy they just wait for god economy situation to make money on that

An extraordinary claim! Care to have any extraordinary evidence to go with it? Nikola Tesla is the subject of many a far-out hypothesis.

Too many people on this forum spout wild claims as if they were common knowledge. This has to stop, unless you enjoy looking like conspiracy nutters and kooks.


TheTickTockMan
The "scare-mongers" you speak of do not, in fact, exist.

You say this...


And an abrupt transition from one climate regime to another shall be accompanied by severe climatic disruptions in the interim. Floods, droughts, sea level rise, immensely powerful hurricanes and storms, and ecological chaos shall affect all corners of the globe.

...In fact, I believe that the coming climatic chaos will stress society to such a point that a catastrophic breakdown of social systems is inevitable.


...But then say this. Sounds like scare-mongering to me, since "immensely powerful hurricanes and storms" are pretty scary to most sensible people. Just because it might actually happen doesn't make it not scare-mongering.

---

Let's get one thing straight. Climate change is not the end of the world. Since the beginning, the Earth has been covered in ice, smacked about by asteroids and comets, and had it's oceans and atmosphere poisoned by titanic volcanic eruptions. Not all of these were gradual events, and none of them exterminated life. Civilisation has seen nothing yet, believe me. The challenge is to survive the best we can while preserving civilisation as much as we can. Because that's what it is, a challenge; not punishment from a vengeful Nature for our greed and arrogance or any other such rot, but a mess we got ourselves into and which we should do our damn best to get ourselves out of.

Sanctimonious recriminations and daydreaming about an idyllic future primitive will get us nowhere. We need to use the tools of science and civilisation that have got us so damn far in the first place.

[RHIZOMES]

I think it'll be serious, but we'll just move to higher land.

Shame about the polar bears.

[Lynx]

I would like to see a proper analysis of the pros and cons of a warmer world.

[farleft]

We're doomed, doomed I tell you!



But seriouly...

I voted for The effects will be noticeable but it is reversible

[Titan]

People are very conservative when it comes to climate, any shift from our usual moderate, predictable climate and people go nuts. You have to understand the history of climate, it has been fluctuating since the planet was formed. Only 100,000 years ago we had ice caps in northen Spain, and 500 years ago England was like southern france. We orbit a Star that is constantly getting hotter ( albeit slowly), and we have complex systems on Earth that regulate and even out the temperature. My local news channel can barely predict tomorrows weather, I'm sceptical about the predicted fate of the global weather. There are far more important issues at hand. :)

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by NoXion+August 23, 2007 12:15 pm--> (NoXion @ August 23, 2007 12:15 pm)
its pretty much a fact that global warming is not reversable

Evidence for this assertion would be nice.


the planet cycle itself its to slowly breakdown and we have just sped it up so how can we reverse it

By removing the CO2 we put into the atmosphere, perhaps?


also being sent into a mini ice age for 10 -15 thousand years theres not alot man cna do about that

Nonsense. By speeding up global warming we have potentially warded off any ice ages.


Originally posted by [email protected]
dont wory JAZZRATT remember Nikola Tesla when he spoke with capitalists and say to them there is no need for cables to send electric energy in people houses
capitalists have solution for alternative energy they just wait for god economy situation to make money on that

An extraordinary claim! Care to have any extraordinary evidence to go with it? Nikola Tesla is the subject of many a far-out hypothesis.

Too many people on this forum spout wild claims as if they were common knowledge. This has to stop, unless you enjoy looking like conspiracy nutters and kooks.


TheTickTockMan
The "scare-mongers" you speak of do not, in fact, exist.

You say this...


And an abrupt transition from one climate regime to another shall be accompanied by severe climatic disruptions in the interim. Floods, droughts, sea level rise, immensely powerful hurricanes and storms, and ecological chaos shall affect all corners of the globe.

...In fact, I believe that the coming climatic chaos will stress society to such a point that a catastrophic breakdown of social systems is inevitable.


...But then say this. Sounds like scare-mongering to me, since "immensely powerful hurricanes and storms" are pretty scary to most sensible people. Just because it might actually happen doesn't make it not scare-mongering.

---

Let's get one thing straight. Climate change is not the end of the world. Since the beginning, the Earth has been covered in ice, smacked about by asteroids and comets, and had it's oceans and atmosphere poisoned by titanic volcanic eruptions. Not all of these were gradual events, and none of them exterminated life. Civilisation has seen nothing yet, believe me. The challenge is to survive the best we can while preserving civilisation as much as we can. Because that's what it is, a challenge; not punishment from a vengeful Nature for our greed and arrogance or any other such rot, but a mess we got ourselves into and which we should do our damn best to get ourselves out of.

Sanctimonious recriminations and daydreaming about an idyllic future primitive will get us nowhere. We need to use the tools of science and civilisation that have got us so damn far in the first place. [/b]
Noxion, as far as your claim about ice ages are concerned, your ignorance is showing again, sigh.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-ya-gonna-call/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/who-ya-gonna-call/)

[peaccenicked]

Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether the government has been notified. “Yes, as soon as my research revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House science committees as well as most of the nation’s media outlets. Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable. With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change, hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world’s brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth’s climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most important climate story of this century.”

There is no option saying do you think it will get colder (http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html)

[Wilfred]

There is no option saying do you think it will get colder (http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html)
Obviously not, since this forum is not run by shills for the oilindustry.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Noxion, as far as your claim about ice ages are concerned, your ignorance is showing again, sigh.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-ya-gonna-call/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/who-ya-gonna-call/)


Which claim? The one I made where I said they happened, or the one where I said we've effectively warded off another ice age? If it's the first you're an ignorant twat, or if it's the second your link doesn't address my claim, and indeed seems instead to be talking about atlantic cooling as opposed to global ice ages.

It might be useful in the future to remove all the parts of a post you're quoting that you are not addressing, because quite frankly it's annoying to have to scroll through stuff I have already read before and also it allows people to address your posts properly.

[Jazzratt]

Closed in order to start a new poll with more accurate results.