Anthropogenic Global Warming Poll #2

[Jazzratt]

Just like the last one, but with more accurate poll results after the change. Here is the original opening post( The parenthetical statement at the beginning is the only change):


[Sorry to sound patronising in this bit, but it may help some people clear up confusions:] 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?

[RevMARKSman]

There are two "noticeable + irreversible" options, and no "serious + reversible" option. :)

[Sentinel]

There are two "noticeable + irreversible" options, and no "serious + reversible" option. :)

Fixed. Poor Jazzie was tired.. ;)

Incidentally, I also voted for this option (serious but reversible). It is self evident and scientifically proven that the climate is warming -- and one would have to be a complete moron in order to not realise, that it isn't a coincidence that it is occuring now that we emiss these incredible amounts of carbon dioxide.

I agree with Jazzratt on how this development can be reversed, ie by scrapping capitalism and by ensuring further technological progress. We must get rid of the current heavy dependancy on oil and other even more antiquated energy sources (such coal) -- which is likely to happen faster once we have ridden society of the bastards who profit from them.

[thewoodcutter]

certainly is serious and probably reversible. but much of the literature is predicting that there is only a short window where we can hope to reverse the effects of gw, and the current system doesnt seem to move too quickly on environment issues.

[apathy maybe]

I just voted "The effects will be serious and it is irreversible". but what I really meant was that it won't be possible to bring the Earth's climate back to a pre-industrial state.

That is, humans as a whole (and more specifically the over developed nations while they were developing), have put out so much carbon dioxide and other persistent greenhouse gases that even if we (that is humans as a whole) immediately reduce emissions by a significant amount, and work on removing CO2 from the atmosphere, the over-all temperature of the Earth will still be more then it was before industrialisation.

[Cult of Reason]

Serious and reversible. It will kill (has killed?) millions of people, but it should be possible to at least partially reverse it.

[piet11111]

serious and reversible especially in a post-capitalist society.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Abstained due to lack of knowledge. All I know is that climate change exists and that humans have contributed to it.

[Vanguard1917]

If we can bring about that the kind of economic development that the world requires, the effects of climate change on human society will be negligible. The more developed a society economically, the less vulnerable it is to changes in climate. Environmentalists, of course, campaign against this kind of development worldwide.


It will kill (has killed?) millions of people

How do you say this with such certainty, as though it's an inevitability?

[EricTheRed]

By a lot of accounts I've read, many place it at serious, but reversible. But, if we get past that point, it'll be catastrophic, but still reversible - just extremely tough.

Most people aren't taking it seriously enough, though. A lot think that some contraptions that don't emit shit in the air (but rather contain shit that can leak in the ground and is toxic - mercury and what not) and is called "green" - and, let's not forget the absolutely retarded capitalist ploy of trading pollution credits... that's got to be one of the dumbest things ever conceived - will save us. Simple fact of the matter is we will have to cut out fossil fuels in a short amount of time, if we're to, at least, save this planet for our future generations. It's doable, but a lot of people won't do it - primarily because they're either too comfortable (industrialized and post-industrial), or they're caught up in the race to get caught up (largely impoverished countries.) If we don't do it, then it will lead to catastrophe and, I suspect, once that happens, the population will be probably cut down to a smaller size and the planet will be able to regulate itself again. The tipping point for us may have gone past that point, if we get there, though.

One thing that pisses me off about the right-wing is that they constantly want to politically grand-stand by calling this a non-political issue. The science is settled; climate change is happening - it's because of us, and if we don't do anything about it, we're fucked. That's the short of it, and at that point, differences between "serious" and "catastrophic" are almost meaningless. It ceased becoming a purely scientific issue long ago. It is a political issue now.

[Sendo]

it's not just fossil fuels it's all fuels. Sugar ethanol from Brazil far cheaper and efficient than say, corn ethanol and doesn't have the nasty wastes of petroleum extraction. However it is carbon-neutral since all the Co2 it traps is rereleased.

The goal should be to end the driving the SUVs and the dependence that USA has on "personal" cars, not fill them with food.

Unfortunately, I don't think things will change until we hit crisis points, including ecological and economic ones. Things really suck and I think as leftists we can see that attitudinal changes are not effective, nor are bourgeois environmentalists. The Economist showed a graph depicting the effectiveness of certain environmental policies and their costs/savings. Better infrastructure and efficiency are great, but hybrid cars, the bourgeois environmentalist's favorite christmas gift, has an almost negligible effect esp. given its price.

Really the only other way things will change is cooperative projects to improve public transit and regional self-sufficiency and more activism for regulations. ...or better yet a revolution.

[RedAnarchist]

Its serious but I think that it can be reversed, especially in a post-revolutionary society.

[Dean]

I put "serious and irreversible" because some of its effects are irreversible (though the reaction itself isn't). I think it needs to be clearer, because looking back I do recognize that the reaction is reversible though at the time I was thinking of the effects instead.

[non-vio-resist]

the global warming deniers are synonymous with free-market radicals. the only way to curb global warming by any significant measure would be to abolish capitalism. in fact, capitalism is, unequivocally, the cause of man-made global warming; i see no other alternative. a keynesian economic structure would make a slight difference, but the only way to truly combat man-made global warming is to abolish those sects responsible for the overwhelming majority of it, ie, undemocratic multinational corporations, which thrive in free, unregulated economic systems. private, individually owned property and property "rights" do not help the situation either.
buy all the green credits and products you want; it's capitalist fraud. at the same time you're buying "credits," a multinational corp is causing irreversible damage. living in a society that's based strictly on the needs of people, as opposed to maximizing profits short-term would dramatically limit the amount of CO2 emissions, as well as other green-house gases. it's cute when consumers "go green," but it will take something dramatic to nip the problem in the bud. the only way "going green" would be effective is to have millions deciding to not simply boycott, but completely cease to drive, consume products made by corporations, etc. most "green" products in the free market cause environmental degradation, too.
am i suggesting that a state-capitalist/socialist country competing with capitalist superpowers would be much better for the ecosystem that supports us? probably not. it would have less of a blow since profit is not the main initiative. the "invisible hand" that adam smith talked about pre-capitalism does not exist any more, if it ever did. as long as there are radicals to support the belief that global warming is not a real phenomenon, then these multinational corps will continue to abuse the planet.

[MarxSchmarx]

undemocratic multinational corporations, which thrive in free, unregulated economic systems. private, individually owned property and property "rights" do not help the situation either.

China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews)

To be sure, capitalism doesn't help at all. And I think you're right about unaccountable, opaque and undemocratic rule being the source of the problem.

Undoubtedly capitalism is an environmental disaster, for all the good reasons you mentioned. And yes, the problem is incurable under capitalism. However, I think we are burying our heads in the sand a little bit if we say "capitalism gone, problem solved".

Having said all this, do people here think Mao's China would have fared differently? I think it might have. There was a certain commitment to technological innovation, and a commitment to the next generation in Maoist China that is lacking under the current affairs of things. Moreover, one could reasonably argue that the current rulers of China are much more beholden to the Chinese polluting capitalists than their predecessors were.

Nevertheless, pining for the old guard is not an alternative for developing a coherent, socialist solution to man-made global warming in the here and now. Simply denouncing capitalism, I'm afraid, is not that solution.

[Raoul]

Irreversible? Who are we kidding? the last time the arctic ice sheet was completely melted was before the isthmus of Panama was above water. This year we are informed this may actually occur. Maybe we can change what has been set into motion but when the icon of marxist ideology, China, begins to adopt capitalist methods, in an attempt to gain of wealth of the western world we are suddenly all in Deep Shit. They are building coal-fired power plant at an unprecidented rate. The carbon emmissions from asia will soon exceed that of the United States. What the hell is going on ?

Che at one point preferred the Chinese version of communism because their regime avoided the decadence and corruption of the Russian system. They (Chinese) truly believed in the concept of the collective as oppossed to personal gain at the cost of exploitation of those who are less fortuate. He must truly be ashamed of his former ideal! How sad for the planet!

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Irreversible? Who are we kidding? the last time the arctic ice sheet was completely melted was before the isthmus of Panama was above water. This year we are informed this may actually occur. Maybe we can change what has been set into motion but when the icon of marxist ideology, China, begins to adopt capitalist methods, in an attempt to gain of wealth of the western world we are suddenly all in Deep Shit. They are building coal-fired power plant at an unprecidented rate. The carbon emmissions from asia will soon exceed that of the United States. What the hell is going on ?

Che at one point preferred the Chinese version of communism because their regime avoided the decadence and corruption of the Russian system. They (Chinese) truly believed in the concept of the collective as oppossed to personal gain at the cost of exploitation of those who are less fortuate. He must truly be ashamed of his former ideal! How sad for the planet!

1. Humanity is smart, and global warming is now a well established fact throughout the world. While incredibly serious, we can mitigate the worst effects in the short term and in the long term, we can develop means to sequester more carbon. Especially if we utilize vertical farms, which will allow large tracts of forest and wetland to revert back to their carbon sequestering selves.

2. Chinese Maoist socialism was not environmentally sustainable. The Great Leap Forward led to massive deforestation as peasants chopped down forests to fuel those backyard smelters.

[rosa-rl]

I think it is important to realize just how long it can take to reverse enviromental damage as well as to conider both man made warming and the fact that we may also be experiencing natural warming alongside that.

I don't like the idea of living in air conditioned cities... wait... don't we already have that??? I live in Atlanta, Ga. The sad thing is that everyone can not afford to stay cool and that some people (homeless and so on) HAVE to live in the heat.


Another thing, is cooling spaces actually sustainable? Where would all the energy come from while we are fixing the environment? How could we regrow things that can not live under the changed conditions - 5 to 10 degrees higher temperatures? Would we grow tropical forest in ny? What happens to tropical zones and what about the drying that will occure because the heat causes evaporation of water?

[Comrade Rage]

I voted that it doesn't exist.

After twenty years of scientists waffling on this issue, it's pretty clear to me that there is little to no evidence that we are causing climate change, I believe it has more to do with the sun than anything else. We're in a period of high solar storm activity on the sun, and I'm pretty sure that it's what is causing the fluctuating temperatures.

[ships-cat]

Has anyone noticed that the Media don't use the term Global Warming any more, instead preffering "Climate Change".

I wonder why THAT is ?

Perhaps because temperatures have stabilised since about 1998? In fact, the very same people who where warning us about "Global Warming" (and demanding large research grants), are now stating that global temperatures may actually DECLINE over the next few years. At the same time, they say this was all predicted by their Global Warming (ooops... I mean... "Climate Change") theories and computer models.

Yup... you got it... Global Warming may produce Global Cooling. And they knew this all along.... it's all predicted... no need to change tack or reduce those research grants. The chutzpah is remarkable; rather than admit that they where wrong throughout the 1990's and well into the 2000's, they are claiming that "oh yes, we knew this was going to happen all along. This cooling does NOT prove that our theories where wrong... "

I am reminded of the "perpetual war" concept in Orwells '1984', and the big anti-war rally wherein the name of the enemy was changed halfway through, and the State maintained that they had ALWAYS been at war with the new enemy, had NEVER been at war with the OLD enemy.

Talk about airbrushing history.

Incidently, It is my understanding that we are currently in an inter-ice-age period, and fairly soon (by geological standards) we should be sliding down the temperature slope into the next scheduled Ice Age. This is part of a regular cycle.

I have read some theories that anthromoporphic global warming might actually STALL that slide, which would be a VERY good thing. (within reason).

Oh - a slight side-issue; remember all that fuss about the Holes in the Ozone layer, and the expensive rush to ban CFC's ?

You don't hear much about that these days, do you ? Wonder why ?

Perhaps because they have discovered that Ozone is a very potent "greenhouse gas".

Ooops - bit of an own-goal there methinks ?

Meow Purr :)

[Vanguard1917]

Yeah, people forget that environmentalism is a political ideology first and foremost, with its own political beliefs and aims. Environmentalists use aspects of 'the science' which suits their narrow and conservative worldview, and they alter their political language when their predictions of apocalypse are over and over again proven wrong.

In terms of climate change, let's remind ourselves that in the 1970s all the hype was about a supposed global cooling, not global warming, bringing about 'climate catastrophe'. A couple of quotes from that decade:

'Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive actions to compensate for climate change... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult they will find it to cope with the effects of global cooling.'
- 'The Cooling World', Newsweek, 28 April 1975

'All respectable scientists know that global cooling is inevitable'
- Iben Browning, Climate Change in the Affairs of Man, 1975

[ships-cat]

Sooo... considering I found this on page 7... the "left" don't care about the current manifestation of the Capitalist "state of fear".

Oh well.. guess you're all comfortable with that then ?

Meow Purr :)

[superiority]

Yeah, people forget that environmentalism is a political ideology first and foremost, with its own political beliefs and aims. Environmentalists use aspects of 'the science' which suits their narrow and conservative worldview, and they alter their political language when their predictions of apocalypse are over and over again proven wrong.

In terms of climate change, let's remind ourselves that in the 1970s all the hype was about a supposed global cooling, not global warming, bringing about 'climate catastrophe'. A couple of quotes from that decade:

'Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive actions to compensate for climate change... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult they will find it to cope with the effects of global cooling.'
- 'The Cooling World', Newsweek, 28 April 1975

'All respectable scientists know that global cooling is inevitable'
- Iben Browning, Climate Change in the Affairs of Man, 1975

Citation from a paper in a journal, please. A few, preferably.


Has anyone noticed that the Media don't use the term Global Warming any more, instead preffering "Climate Change".

Or (http://www.google.com/archivesearch?q=global+warming&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=t&as_ldate=01%2F1950&as_hdate=07%2F2008) not (http://www.google.com/archivesearch?q=climate+change&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=t&as_ldate=01%2F1950&as_hdate=07%2F2008).


Perhaps because temperatures have stabilised since about 1998? In fact, the very same people who where warning us about "Global Warming" (and demanding large research grants), are now stating that global temperatures may actually DECLINE over the next few years. At the same time, they say this was all predicted by their Global Warming (ooops... I mean... "Climate Change") theories and computer models.

Yup... you got it... Global Warming may produce Global Cooling. And they knew this all along.... it's all predicted... no need to change tack or reduce those research grants. The chutzpah is remarkable; rather than admit that they where wrong throughout the 1990's and well into the 2000's, they are claiming that "oh yes, we knew this was going to happen all along. This cooling does NOT prove that our theories where wrong... "

1998 is the warmest year on record since they started measuring. Any line from there to today is going to show slight cooling.


Incidently, It is my understanding that we are currently in an inter-ice-age period, and fairly soon (by geological standards) we should be sliding down the temperature slope into the next scheduled Ice Age. This is part of a regular cycle.

If you're not actually in an ice age then of course you're between ice ages (provided the Earth isn't going to blow up anytime soon, of course). The fact that global mean temperature has a record of cyclical behaviour does not mean that human activity has not affected it, and does not lessen the potentially catastrophic consequences.


Oh - a slight side-issue; remember all that fuss about the Holes in the Ozone layer, and the expensive rush to ban CFC's ?

You don't hear much about that these days, do you ? Wonder why ?

Because it's not a problem anymore. The ozone hole(s) is(are) shrinking. Substances such as CFCs that release radicals that attack ozone are not widely used anymore. I know, I live pretty much directly beneath one of the said ozone holes.


After twenty years of scientists waffling on this issue

Waffling? Elaborate please.


it's pretty clear to me that there is little to no evidence that we are causing climate change

How regularly do you review the scholarly literature?


I believe it has more to do with the sun than anything else. We're in a period of high solar storm activity on the sun, and I'm pretty sure that it's what is causing the fluctuating temperatures.

Or not. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/)

[RedAnarchist]

I voted that it doesn't exist.

After twenty years of scientists waffling on this issue, it's pretty clear to me that there is little to no evidence that we are causing climate change, I believe it has more to do with the sun than anything else. We're in a period of high solar storm activity on the sun, and I'm pretty sure that it's what is causing the fluctuating temperatures.

We aren't the only cause of globaing warming, but we are one of the many causes of global warming.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I voted that it doesn't exist.

After twenty years of scientists waffling on this issue, it's pretty clear to me that there is little to no evidence that we are causing climate change, I believe it has more to do with the sun than anything else. We're in a period of high solar storm activity on the sun, and I'm pretty sure that it's what is causing the fluctuating temperatures.


The only scientists arguing that are in the employ of exxonmobil. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and CO2 emissions have skyrocketed, in line with both the temperature and human CO2 production. There's no reasonable claim to dispute anthropogenic Climate change, period.

[Lynx]

Serious and irreversible (assuming the theories regarding reinforcing mechanisms are correct). I believe most of our efforts should go towards adapting to a warmer world.

If you look at the distant past, Earth has been warmer than it is now, with forests existing at high latitudes. There were also times when CO2 levels were higher than they are now. There was also a time when high oxygen levels nurtured ferocious wildfires and gigantic insects. Not to mention several 'Snowball Earth's. The only situation not claimed by paleo-climatologists is a runaway greenhouse effect similar to what is observed on Venus today.

[Revolution 9]

On one hand, I don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, but on the other hand, I'm not denying that global warming is happening. Quite frankly, carbon taxes and "cap and trade" programs will be completely useless. We would benefit more by encouraging people to move from areas prone to flooding and by investing more in levees, natural flood areas, etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Currently my view is that climate change (a more accurate term than "global warming") is real and that human industrial activity has contributed towards it.

Where I diverge from traditional environmentalism is on the issue of action. I do not think there is anything we can do about our emissions without immiserating the entire human species, and if we're past the tipping point then any action we do carry out will be useless if not counterproductive.

No, the best idea is to make preperations for living in a world with a radically different climate. I do not think that the consequences for life on Earth in general will be too drastic, since it has survived far worse and pulled through fine. Remember that all that CO2 that's we're digging up once formed part of the atmosphere, mainly during the Carboniferous period, which was considerably warmer than today - it had jungles at the poles if I remember correctly.

But we must keep and eye out and an ear to ground for any unforseen effects that could have a significant impact on the quality of life of human beings. For the effects that we do know about, such as rising sea levels, I support asylum programs for those displaced by the rising seas and genetic engineering programs to engineer plants for drier/wetter/saltier climes, as well as the tilling of soil that has lain fallow for a long time, such as certain places in Russia.

In other words, let us prepare for the worst and hope for the best. "Preparing for the worst" does not necessarily entail wholesale belt-tightening or immiseration, but a diverse array of pro-active programs that sustain a high quality of life in the most adverse conditions.

[Rascolnikova]

I'm only posting this to clarify that I don't perfectly agree with my vote--which I entered because I wanted to see the results. I put "serious and irreversible," but honestly I'm not sure it's possible to say, and I'm not an expert. If I had to guess I'd place it somewhere in the serious to catastrophic range, and if "reversing" means "putting things how they were recently before" I don't think that will happen.

[butterfly]

The environmental movment need's to know that capitalism doesn't offer a solution.
I'll refrain from doom-mongering, other to say that we're pretty fucked.

[Cunning_plan]

I voted that it doesn't exist.

After twenty years of scientists waffling on this issue, it's pretty clear to me that there is little to no evidence that we are causing climate change, I believe it has more to do with the sun than anything else. We're in a period of high solar storm activity on the sun, and I'm pretty sure that it's what is causing the fluctuating temperatures.

Wow, really surprised by some of the opinions coming up here. Saving any preaching I suggest people read the Human Development Report available here: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/ this shows the findings of the IPCC along with the most up to date statistics and models.

As for China being the worlds biggest polluter. Take a look at per capita emissions. the US is something like 12 times higher. If you use general ones your simply going to be saying the smallest countries are the best!

[butterfly]

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/

IPCC predictions are considered extremely conservative according to some of the worlds most accredited scientists.

[Cunning_plan]

I agree, some of them are my lecturers! But I consider that to be the best source to use with people who are scepticle as the predictions have the most science behind them :)

[swirling_vortex]

Hard to say. Here's an ice core sample (can't post links yet):

gristmill.grist.org/images/user/8/vostok.jpg

We certainly are at the top, but saying we're on a runaway path towards frying ourselves doesn't seem to correlate with the data. In fact, we haven't eclipsed the last warming period yet. So no, I don't believe man-made warming exists.

However, I still favor capping emissions because of pollutants and still pushing subsidies for clean technologies. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and pollutants can linger in the atmosphere for years, which have been scientifically proven. At least in this manner you're going toward the same goal, but with more reliable facts behind you.

[butterfly]

Wow...
One would like to think that the legitimacy of a global consensus of scientists/climatologists would take primacy over a single ice-core.
Can I ask where you find such confidence in unfounded ideas? It's hard to see how any mildy sane person would buy into that skeptic crap anymore.

[swirling_vortex]

Wow...
One would like to think that the legitimacy of a global consensus of scientists/climatologists would take primacy over a single ice-core.
Can I ask where you find such confidence in unfounded ideas? It's hard to see how any mildy sane person would buy into that skeptic crap anymore.
First, there is no global consensus. Science simply offers the data where scientists can then test it and make a conclusion from it. Different data and variables are constantly changing the answer.

Second, you also have the profiteers and the corporatists riding the CO2 train. What better way to hurt the poor and middle class than by raising their energy bills? Just at how much Al Gore is going to profit from it.

Third, people often use too narrow a range for determining warming or cooling. Yes, we've seen warm years, but over how long a period? 50 years? 100 years? That's not enough to get the big picture. You have to look at a time frame over thousands of years in order to see all of the peaks and valleys. CO2 levels have been at this level thousands of years ago, so don't you think there's something else besides industrialization that may be warming the planet? (not to mention that CO2 only accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere)

Finally, in order to link with point 1, the consensus is changing. If you looked at the news recently, I haven't seen one global warming article. I'm seeing more and more scientists accepting that another ice age is under way. So therefore, how could any sane person put on the blinders and not realize that we may be once again wrong? We can't predict the weather 10 days in advance, let alone see what will happen in 100 years.

[butterfly]

First, there is no global consensus. Science simply offers the data where scientists can then test it and make a conclusion from it. Different data and variables are constantly changing the answer.

There is no denying that the variables are constantly changing, that's why some scientists will tell you to expect a 25ft rise in sea levels, whilst other's will tell you 75ft, or a variation in temperature increase from 1.1-6.8degrees C over the next century. I have been told a dramatic increase in temperature could trigger an ice-age due to the slowing of the ocean currents.
A well established fact however is that Climate Change is occurring and very likely a result of human activity, only a minority will tell you otherwise.
The consensus is that we have a short period of time in which to reverse the effects or adapt.


Second, you also have the profiteers and the corporatists riding the CO2 train. What better way to hurt the poor and middle class than by raising their energy bills? Just at how much Al Gore is going to profit from it.

You also have the profiteers and the corporatists riding the skeptic train. What better way to liberate the working class then providing them with access to an abundant and ultimately cheap energy source.
In fact Exxon-Mobil have poured $18-23m since 1989 into over 40 organisations which dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence.
After it's significant monetary role in the 2000/2004 US election's, they called for the removal of the head of the IPCC and enacted a multi-million dollar advertising campaign overemphasising the social and economic ramifications of signing the Kyoto Protocol.


Third, people often use too narrow a range for determining warming or cooling. Yes, we've seen warm years, but over how long a period? 50 years? 100 years? That's not enough to get the big picture. You have to look at a time frame over thousands of years in order to see all of the peaks and valleys. CO2 levels have been at this level thousands of years ago, so don't you think there's something else besides industrialization that may be warming the planet? (not to mention that CO2 only accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere)

You're right, it has to be a determination based on contrasting the climate over thousands of years which is exactly what the thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC have done.
We know that Co2 concentration is rising steadily for the time being, and based on these figures we should be concerned.
Northern permafrost, which has remained intact for hundreds of thousands of years is beginning to thaw, releasing immense amounts of Co2 into the atmosphere; just one factor that speeds up the process.


Finally, in order to link with point 1, the consensus is changing. If you looked at the news recently, I haven't seen one global warming article. I'm seeing more and more scientists accepting that another ice age is under way.
I thought there was no consensus:rolleyes:
Please provide some evidence, other than that of the anecdotal kind, that proves this is changing.


So therefore, how could any sane person put on the blinders and not realize that we may be once again wrong? We can't predict the weather 10 days in advance, let alone see what will happen in 100 years.
If it's raining no sane person need to predict this fact. Co2 concentration is something that can be steadily monitored.

[swirling_vortex]

There is no denying that the variables are constantly changing, that's why some scientists will tell you to expect a 25ft rise in sea levels, whilst other's will tell you 75ft, or a variation in temperature increase from 1.1-6.8degrees C over the next century. I have been told a dramatic increase in temperature could trigger an ice-age due to the slowing of the ocean currents.
A well established fact however is that Climate Change is occurring and very likely a result of human activity, only a minority will tell you otherwise.
The consensus is that we have a short period of time in which to reverse the effects or adapt.


You also have the profiteers and the corporatists riding the skeptic train. What better way to liberate the working class then providing them with access to an abundant and ultimately cheap energy source.
In fact Exxon-Mobil have poured $18-23m since 1989 into over 40 organisations which dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence.
After it's significant monetary role in the 2000/2004 US election's, they called for the removal of the head of the IPCC and enacted a multi-million dollar advertising campaign overemphasising the social and economic ramifications of signing the Kyoto Protocol.


You're right, it has to be a determination based on contrasting the climate over thousands of years which is exactly what the thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC have done.
We know that Co2 concentration is rising steadily for the time being, and based on these figures we should be concerned.
Northern permafrost, which has remained intact for hundreds of thousands of years is beginning to thaw, releasing immense amounts of Co2 into the atmosphere; just one factor that speeds up the process.


I thought there was no consensus:rolleyes:
Please provide some evidence, other than that of the anecdotal kind, that proves this is changing.


If it's raining no sane person need to predict this fact. Co2 concentration is something that can be steadily monitored.
Well, I'm certainly not a scientist, so I certainly can't engage in a decent debate without getting some more background information. Regardless, clean energy should be the goal whether man-made climate change is real or not.

I'll shut up now. :)

[Cunning_plan]

What are the scientific questions being raised. I am happy to provide proof contradicting most denials.

In answer to an earlier question, we say "climate change" not "global warming" because they are different things. climate change takes into account multiple changes, global warming takes into account just one. Modern science does not say the world will just warm up. certain areas will warm others will cool. unfortunately the biggest area to warm up is going to be over the poles.

It's also worth noting its methane being released from ice thats the problem not CO2. methane is 8-20x more damaging a greenhouse gas.

This is a debate that needs to be argued over each separate area not just do i believe in it or not. do you think we are having any impact on the environment? do you think we will make it hotter or colder? are we affecting the weather patterns? what is the timescale? can the system buffer the changes we are making? and so on.

As is said earlier the best place to start is the human development report. Its the most scepticle and most well backed up document on the subject. There is little point debating anything more scepticle than that IMHO.

Personally, within our lifetimes, we need to worry far more about oceanic acidification as a result of anthropogenic co2 than we do climatic change.

Oh and the hockey stick graph is the one you sceptics may want to consult :)

[Coggeh]

Isn't it true that humans emit 3% of the total carbon emissions ? I mean from a basic viewpoint all i can say is , wtf are we supposed to do ?

Climate change/global warming whatever could be very real , we could be contributing to it alright but 3% ?

Serious and irreversiable (but adaptable)

[Cunning_plan]

Sadly not.

As I said, take a look at the hockey stick graph.

It's also worth pointing out It's not just CO2 thats the issue, It's tropospheric ozone, water vapour and methane...

[Glorious Union]

I think it is quite clear that anything we do to Earth is reversable. There have been meteors that have wiped out more then 99% of life on Earth and turned the world into an inhospitable terrain, in most parts incapable of supporting life. Yet in a few million of years of natural growth the world goes back to its natural life supporting atmosphere.

[Yazman]

Can I have my vote changed to it doesn't exist please?

I do not feel that climate change is anthropogenic in nature, or that we even have the capability of causing it ourselves. Climate change is historically cyclical in nature and there have been significantly much more serious changes in climate pre-industry than there have after it.

[butterfly]

It's much easier to pretend nothings happening, isn't it?

[Yazman]

It's much easier to pretend nothings happening, isn't it?

Who is doing that? If your post is in reference to me then you have obviously taken a woefully mistaken position, characterised by a significant misinterpretation of what I have posted.

I never once said climate change "doesn't exist" or that I think "nothings happening" as you have portrayed me. My objection is to the wording of the thread; I do acknowledge significant climate change and that it will be noticeable, but that it is irreversible by us as I do not think that it is anthropogenic in nature. We may have irritated it in certain regions but certainly you do not think we have initiated global climate change?

It, to me, is arrogant of humans to think that we are at the level of technology where we could significantly change a planet's geological or atmospheric conditions in a matter of 100-150 years (this is the approximate period in which we have been measuring).

[butterfly]

Yes I think we have initiated global climate change, it is anthropogenic in nature and that there is much that can be done to minimise the effects...

Apologies though, I thought you were attacking it's actual existence.

[Yazman]

Of course not, attacking its existence would be folly.

I feel that while we probably didn't cause it, that we may be irritating it and so should do what we can in order to minimise our contributions.

[Rangi]

There is no option for "No one really knows the possible effects of man heating up the planet but it probably isn't a good idea. We don't have a spare planet to replace this one so lets make sure we leave this one as close as possible to the state we found it in."

If there was such an option I would vote for it.

[butterfly]

It, to me, is arrogant of humans to think that we are at the level of technology where we could significantly change a planet's geological or atmospheric conditions in a matter of 100-150 years (this is the approximate period in which we have been measuring).
We can measure the levels of greenhouse gasses such as methane and Co2 through ice-core samples, dating back thousands of years.
In regards to that comment there's nothing that sums up arrogance more than to ignore an intergovernmental, scientific bodies warnings.
To say that we have not had an impact of this planet and to ignore the data is to discourage the action which you claim to support.

[Picky Bugger]

The science behind the global warming theory is based upon climatic records collected from ice cores dating from the last glacial maxim. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were recorded as roughly 300ppm and the current level exceeds this to roughly 350ppm. Therefore it was seen that man has increased to issue of warming. Due to various issues concerned with ice cores it seems that the 300ppm level is actually below the actual level at the last glacial maxim. This means that it is likely that the earth may have warmed to an increased level without anthropogenic activity causing it to.

Now of course human activity has introduced large levels of CO2 into the atmosphere and it has had an large affect on the speeding up of the heat increase. Since the ball is rolling already it will be incredibly hard for human intervention to slow and stop global warming, although that does not mean we should not try.

My point really is that the earth goes through cycles of increased heating and cooling so the effects will be reversible. Sadly the effects may be too damaging for human society. It may screw us but the earth will be fine...

[political_animal]

I came onto this thread hoping for some answers to satisfy my skeptical brain but unfortunately haven't found any. I don't want to sound like a right-wing, oil-loving nut case but I want some evidence please.
The problems I have with global warming are as follows...

1. When I was at school nearly 20 years ago, there was no knowledge of this phenomena. We were taught that there were ice ages which effected change over millennia and that we were roughly halfway between ice-ages. This was accepted fact and good science. We were also told that the earths natural resources only had between 20-50 years if usage was left unchecked. These levels still seem to be quoted as correct now but the accepted science has now been replaced.

2. I have read many threads and articles on this site and found the disconnect very odd that for most issues we have people urging to dismiss the 'capitalist media', that sources are 'unreliable' and there are 'interest groups' involved. Why is this issue the exception? How and why has global warming become an accepted fact seemingly overnight, with little controversy, to the point where if you challenge the whole issue, you come across as looking a little crazy?

3. Evidence. Where is it? I mean, seriously, where is it? You will get people saying 'it definitely exists' or 'there is no question it is real' but that is as far as it goes. They don't use sources to back up the argument, it is merely an accepted fact, with no challenges. Do we not need to be a little bit more skeptical? For example, we are told that generally, crime is falling, yet most polls show that people think crime is going up - generally because it is all pervasive in the media. Is this not the same effect with global warming?

4. The science... I love statistics. I also know full well that you can skew statistics to pretty much say anything you wish. So, when I view websites purporting to show the evidence for global warming, I am always stunned by the incredibly bad science that it shows. Some data will show evidence over a period of 50 years, some data over 20 years, some over 10. Anyone with even a modicum of interest in statistics knows that you can't possibly use these to correlate each other and draw empirical conclusions. The argument will come back that it is a new phenomena and we didn't start collecting the data on various aspects until quite recently. Well, this needs challenging. If natural global warming or climate change moves over thousands of years (ice ages), how can we say with any certainty that evidence over a period of 50 years isn't a statistical anomaly?

5. Al Gore. His film is often used as the example where the issue crossed over to the mainstream. Yet there were many innacuracies in it that were challenged and upheld by the British law courts. This, therefore, wouldn't have been accepted in any respected scientific journal, yet is always used as 'the evidence'. This is seriously flawed.

Like I said at the top, I came here looking for evidence. I have an open but skeptical mind on most issues to do with the media and am quite happy to look for the truth outside of the mainstream, or read between the lines. I am just not happy that this issue has seemingly swept into our consciousness without a second thought, or pause for breath. The science is bad, there is too short a timescale for evidence and the statistics are all over the place. Please can somebody help me out here, as I don't want to have to line up alongside a bunch of ravenous right-wingers just because there has been no discussion and we haven't gone through the evidence thoroughly.

[Picky Bugger]

1. I would disagree that 20 years ago there was no evidence for this warming as the increase in Co2 in the atmosphere was known even then although I doubt the rapid rate of growth was known or predicted. There was not a defined or even a developed theory to link anthropogenic activity and global warming. Of course it is human nature to leave something to the last minute when there is little chance of turning back.

20 - 50 years left of natural resources back in 1989 is not correct. For instance it is known now that the UK has enough coal for at least 150 years at current consumption and global oil stocks should last for at least another 30 - 50.

2. It cannot be argued that the amount of Co2 in the environment has increased rapidly over the past 100 years increasingly so at the end of the 20th century. The issue against global warming is usually not that it is occurring but the human role in the levels of change. It can hardly be argued that pollution from industry and the destruction of carbon sinks such as the rain forests has not caused more Co2 aswell as others such as Methaneto enter the environment, there is plenty of evidence for this. But the addition could be likened spitting into an ocean, the earth is a much larger place than sometimes thought and it is hard to qualify the damage the anthropogenic Co2 is having.

3. There is evidence for both natural and anthropogenic activity there are many academic journals and writing that have clear evidence within them. I know the media may seem rather empty on the evidence front but the 10pm news is not the best place to base your knowledge on. There are plenty of places such as the IPCC who are actively testing for and validating the global warming theory, as well as several other reliable sources. The evidence is there you just need to look for it...

4. Yes 20 years is not acceptable to for statistics. The evidence for Co2 increase can be dated back for several hundered years using the most reliable utility of ice cores.Given the fact that the current Co2 increase closely matches the previous warming period before the last ice age it is unlikely that it is an anonalie.

5. His film is vappid nonsense based on little evidene, which in several places is contradictory at that, it is a shame his film is often the most cited as a reliable source.

Check the IPCC aswell as the UN for specific evidence as it is there to be found. I do not see that the science is bad but I can understand why you would think that as it is hard to show conclusive evidence for something we know little about. The subject is very deep indeed and I do not confess to be an expert to any degree but I think that the evidence for global warming be it natural or anthropogenic seems to me irrefuetable.

[political_animal]

You haven't won me over but I thank you for your thorough response :thumbup1:

I'm just going to have to keep ploughing through websites until I find the science that satisfies me.

[Picky Bugger]

You haven't won me over but I thank you for your thorough response :thumbup1:

I'm just going to have to keep ploughing through websites until I find the science that satisfies me.

No problem its an important topic whether you accept it or not and should be discussed. As I said before the IPCC website is the best place to find the science as they regularly release new evidence from their reports, which largely are reliable.


As for you JohannGE change the sodding font size on your post...

[Picky Bugger]

It would surely require that you had an at least comparable level of knowledge of the multiple disciplines involved as those who produced the available data and papers, to be able to realistically assess them.



I disagree with this point the results gathered from many studies are not in themselves difficult to understand. I feel someone who has little prior education/training in the field could arrive at an educated conclusion not necessarily about the outcomes of global warming but certainly the affect it is having and its existence.

[JohannGE]

I disagree with this point the results gathered from many studies are not in themselves difficult to understand. I feel someone who has little prior education/training in the field could arrive at an educated conclusion not necessarily about the outcomes of global warming but certainly the affect it is having and its existence.

I agree most people could arive at an educated conclusion by examining the results available. Without the relevant educational standards to seperate the wheat from the chaff they would have to take a leap of faith in exactly which results and interpretations they go with. People tend to accept the data that supports their preconceptions.

I think they would hit the wall in attempting a critical analysys of the reletive value of the conflicting information from so many quarters. Without such an analysys we must at some point, different for all, have to settle for trust in the sources we deem most trustworthy.

[Picky Bugger]

Yes the majority of people do not have the time or inclination to study the sources properly which makes proving global warming all the more difficult.

As a whole it is certainly happening regardless of the human impact. The quick pace of this rise in Co2 will cause issues therefor it seems to me at least that our response to this change is vital. Sadly the current political methods to reduce Co2 are deeply flawed and most likely harmful to our chances of reversing Global Warming.

The Kyoto agreement being the main tool for combating global warming is totally and utterly useless and massively flawed, ideas such as carbon trading do not work and are easily exploited. It is unlikely that its successor will change this trend from mitigation to actual adaption.

[Coggeh]

Yes the majority of people do not have the time or inclination to study the sources properly which makes proving global warming all the more difficult.

As a whole it is certainly happening regardless of the human impact. The quick pace of this rise in Co2 will cause issues therefor it seems to me at least that our response to this change is vital. Sadly the current political methods to reduce Co2 are deeply flawed and most likely harmful to our chances of reversing Global Warming.

The Kyoto agreement being the main tool for combating global warming is totally and utterly useless and massively flawed, ideas such as carbon trading do not work and are easily exploited. It is unlikely that its successor will change this trend from mitigation to actual adaption.
I really don't see how Co2 is fuelling the climate change since during the post war boom temperature actually fell ... for 40years in a row . Seems to contradict what people are telling us .

[JohannGE]

I really don't see how Co2 is fuelling the climate change since during the post war boom temperature actually fell ... for 40years in a row . Seems to contradict what people are telling us .

This is an attempt to explain it.

http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m10

Scroll down to Myth 10:-

DENIAL MYTH #10: There was a significant period of global cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s

Make of it what you will, it's mostly over my head.

[Picky Bugger]

Thanks for the useful post JohannGE, it sums up some of the common mistakes when looking at global warming.

All I will say is that Greenhouse gas emissions affect the atmosphere in a multitude of ways to say that C02 can't be fueling climate change as there was a decline in temperature during a very short period of time is looking at the problem in a very short sighted manner.

There appears to be much confusion around the subject, but the affects of C02 in the atmosphere are scientific fact and the increased rate at which it is being put into the environment is directly contributing to climate change.

As I said the post from JohannGE is good at separating the bad science from the more useful.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I accidently voted for the wrong one, meant to vote that it doesn't exist.

I don't think I've ever been asked to swallow as big a load of BS that man-made climate change is since Y2k.

But either way, doesn't really matter. The Indians and Chinese are going to move from lower to middle class not with solar or wind or any of that but on the resource that's cheap enough for the poor to actually make use of: Coal.

And to be honest, I find the whole "Humans will be extinct!" scare tactics pathetic.

[Picky Bugger]

I don't think I've ever been asked to swallow as big a load of BS that man-made climate change is since Y2k.

As it is clear that you have never looked at the science behind it your statement that it is BS is rather arrogant don't you think...


But either way, doesn't really matter. The Indians and Chinese are going to move from lower to middle class not with solar or wind or any of that but on the resource that's cheap enough for the poor to actually make use of: Coal. Maybe so but this doesn't actually mean that we should stop trying nor does it mean that we should stop with the shift to sustainable ways of living / energy.


And to be honest, I find the whole "Humans will be extinct!" scare tactics pathetic.Well to be honest this is unlikely but it is not extinction that would be the problem, with a 10 degree increase in temperature it would be difficult to sustain any international system or for that matter any large scale society that we recognise today.

[Jazzratt]

I accidently voted for the wrong one, meant to vote that it doesn't exist.

What did you vote originally, that I may change the vote.


I don't think I've ever been asked to swallow as big a load of BS that man-made climate change is since Y2k.

The reason you believe it is is BS is because (choose one of the following):
a) You are a shill for a major company that profits from high-CO2 industries.
b) You own a Hummer and don't want to stop driving it.
c) You purchased a "doctorate" or similar qualification in one of the Earth Sciences from a diploma mill and now feel you can declare whatever the hell you want to be true or false.


But either way, doesn't really matter. The Indians and Chinese are going to move from lower to middle class not with solar or wind or any of that but on the resource that's cheap enough for the poor to actually make use of: Coal.

I certainly hope they don't. Nuclear power is far better as a way to go and it doesn't have nearly as harmful an effect on surrounding populations. You try living near some smokestacks for a while and get back to me on the glories of coal.


And to be honest, I find the whole "Humans will be extinct!" scare tactics pathetic.

Just because some people employ scare tactics and make over the top assertions doesn't mean there isn't a serious problem.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

What did you vote originally, that I may change the vote.

The effect will be noticeable and it is irreversable


The reason you believe it is is BS is because (choose one of the following):
a) You are a shill for a major company that profits from high-CO2 industries.
b) You own a Hummer and don't want to stop driving it.
c) You purchased a "doctorate" or similar qualification in one of the Earth Sciences from a diploma mill and now feel you can declare whatever the hell you want to be true or false.


a. I wish. They pay real good.
b. No, and I want Hummers banned for other reason much more selfish than polar bears.
c. Sure did. Got my PhD from the same place Al Gore did.


I certainly hope they don't. Nuclear power is far better as a way to go and it doesn't have nearly as harmful an effect on surrounding populations. You try living near some smokestacks for a while and get back to me on the glories of coal.

I have. I am using a computer powered by that black stuff.
Something 19th century Britain was very slow on getting at: Filters (though those ugly black skies were caused more by massive amounts of sulfur, not carbon, which was burned and released. A problem which, thanks to technology, is now obsolete.) Conventional coal plants today burn their exhaust before release which breaks down much of to agreeable levels which don't dirty up the air nearly as much. Unfortunately, the Chinese are only begining to get on this practice so their plants cause much more pollution at a local level.

As for nuclear energy, that is incredibly more expensive to design, build, and maintain, and it isn't like the waste from such plants are all that clean or easy to dispose of. I agree that long-term it's the best way to go, but it's certainly not something that can be afforded by many developing nations to supply a majority of energy at the moment (if at all), especially those of mammoth population.


Just because some people employ scare tactics and make over the top assertions doesn't mean there isn't a serious problem.

So how about we wait a decade or two before throwing out the cheapest, most accessible forms of energy (and the only ones truly available to the poorest countries in the world) and go on a campaign that...has next to no chance of accomplishing anything truly meaningful anyway. Feel free to explain how we get the Chinese to stop building coal-fired power plants at a quickening pace.

I would like to see transportation change significantly in this country at least, but again for much more selfish reasons than glacier levels.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Maybe so but this doesn't actually mean that we should stop trying nor does it mean that we should stop with the shift to sustainable ways of living / energy.

Um, what?

Maybe I don't get you, but from what I understand of the man-made GW argument, it's not a local problem. As in, when they release carbon way over there it's not just going to stay way over there but cause problems everywhere.


Well to be honest this is unlikely but it is not extinction that would be the problem, with a 10 degree increase in temperature it would be difficult to sustain any international system or for that matter any large scale society that we recognise today.We are not debating whether there will be a rise in temperature, whether it is mankind which is causing it, whether we can really stop it, and whether or not it would truly be beneficial to do so.

Oh, and I have some honest questions about the science of GW once I sober up. I;m not going to even attempt at the moment.

[Picky Bugger]

Maybe I don't get you, but from what I understand of the man-made GW argument, it's not a local problem. As in, when they release carbon way over there it's not just going to stay way over there but cause problems everywhere.

What I said has nothing to do with locality but sustainable living is preferable to the wasteful consumerism we have now and it certainly releases less C02 into the environment. For instance if you use sustainable building materials instead of cement which as an industry releases more CO2 than all aviation the affects upon the environment are smaller therefore the affects of global warming are reduced somewhat. So using it on a local sense does help on a global sense even though this was not what I was referring to.

As Jazzratt said it is preferable to use nuclear energy over coal and countries such as India and China certainly have the capability as well as having the capacity to produce large volumes of electricity using hydroelectric..


We are not debating whether there will be a rise in temperature, whether it is mankind which is causing it, whether we can really stop it, and whether or not it would truly be beneficial to do so.What... you said
I find the whole "Humans will be extinct!" scare tactics pathetic. And I replied that this was unlikely and gave a response showing what is more likely so yes we were debating what you said we were not....

[Jazzratt]

c. Sure did. Got my PhD from the same place Al Gore did.

Al Gore is a failed politician turned media darling. Attacking him in a discussion on global warming is a massive red herring.


I have. I am using a computer powered by that black stuff.
Something 19th century Britain was very slow on getting at: Filters (though those ugly black skies were caused more by massive amounts of sulfur, not carbon, which was burned and released. A problem which, thanks to technology, is now obsolete.) Conventional coal plants today burn their exhaust before release which breaks down much of to agreeable levels which don't dirty up the air nearly as much. Unfortunately, the Chinese are only begining to get on this practice so their plants cause much more pollution at a local level.

This ignores a lot of other problems with coal. Talk to a miner one day for problems at the beginning of the coal life cycle and then talk to people around your power station about things such as radiactive by-products released in coal smoke (radon gas, for example). "Clean coal" is a dead end.


As for nuclear energy, that is incredibly more expensive to design, build, and maintain, and it isn't like the waste from such plants are all that clean or easy to dispose of. I agree that long-term it's the best way to go, but it's certainly not something that can be afforded by many developing nations to supply a majority of energy at the moment (if at all), especially those of mammoth population.

Picky has this covered, hydroelectricity is viable in quite a few countries and nuclear is far cheaper in the long term. Short term fixes aren't going to do anyone any good - getting the ostensibly cheaper coal infrastructure, winding it down and then building nuclear power plants is far more expensive, energy-consuming and pointless than simply building the nuclear plants. Of course it doesn't help that the USA (home of many Oil companies and allies of some major Oil exporters) cracks down on anyone enriching uranium using the nuclear weapons bugbear as an excuse.


So how about we wait a decade or two before throwing out the cheapest, most accessible forms of energy (and the only ones truly available to the poorest countries in the world)

Really? You've done a comprhensive study of available fuels?


and go on a campaign that...has next to no chance of accomplishing anything truly meaningful anyway. Feel free to explain how we get the Chinese to stop building coal-fired power plants at a quickening pace.

Simply saying that people will continue being stupid is not an argument that their actions aren't stupid.


I would like to see transportation change significantly in this country at least, but again for much more selfish reasons than glacier levels.

You mean:
b. No, and I want Hummers banned for other reason much more selfish than polar bears. which illustrates you know jack shit about why glaciers are important. Think of ice in a full glass, might help by way of analogy.

[Yazman]

I don't think that humans are capable of causing global warming on their own. They may contribute to it, however.

The idea that this current global climate change is anthropogenic, however, is quite a silly one. Anything we do cause, is reversible for the most part.

This however doesn't mean we shouldn't still move towards clean, efficient energy and work to eliminate waste.

[butterfly]

yess all those silly climatologists:rolleyes:

[Picky Bugger]

I don't think that humans are capable of causing global warming on their own. They may contribute to it, however.

The idea that this current global climate change is anthropogenic, however, is quite a silly one. Anything we do cause, is reversible for the most part.



Whilst it is true that the earths climate changes by it's own accord it is the speed at which anthropogenic activity is affecting it that is a major part of the problem. It is entirely possible that the earth would be warming up without human interference but it would not happen at this rate. A gradual climate change is no issue but a swift change has drastic affects on every aspect of climate, weather and habitat.

The CC may be reversible in the long run but as with past events a trigger point usually occurs from which the change in climate escalates. We are not at this point yet but if we do reach it dealing with the problem will be infinitely more difficult.

[Coggeh]

Whilst it is true that the earths climate changes by it's own accord it is the speed at which anthropogenic activity is affecting it that is a major part of the problem. It is entirely possible that the earth would be warming up without human interference but it would not happen at this rate. A gradual climate change is no issue but a swift change has drastic affects on every aspect of climate, weather and habitat.

The CC may be reversible in the long run but as with past events a trigger point usually occurs from which the change in climate escalates. We are not at this point yet but if we do reach it dealing with the problem will be infinitely more difficult.
Why is it that temperature increases before CO2 increases ? judging by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the human contribution to that amount . I don't think its anthropogenic.

However I may be wrong or right , , but i do believe the jury is still out and right now I'm defiantly leaning on the verdict that no it isn't anthropogenic

[Picky Bugger]

Well it could be various reasons, there are worse things than Co2 for the atmosphere it's just that Co2 is the most abundant of the GHG and has had the most press coverage. It may be that climate is changing by itself but like I said the masses of Co2 added every second do not help, if it is not caused by humans were are certainly agitating it.

The Earth is a massively complicated system and I feel that sometimes we are over simplifying the issue, what I can say for certain is that it is happening.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

This ignores a lot of other problems with coal. Talk to a miner one day for problems at the beginning of the coal life cycle and then talk to people around your power station about things such as radiactive by-products released in coal smoke (radon gas, for example). "Clean coal" is a dead end.

First, most contemporary mines in the US, at least, don't involve miners getting down in a hole at all. Though hated by enviroloons, I believe that "mountain-stripping" should be the main process, though most problems we experience with the process of in-ground mining is due to corporate cheapness on safety and, unfortunately, the GOP-controlled govt allowing them to cut safety measure by huge margins.

Secondly, yes, coal will always release pollutants. However, to say that it's a dead-end because of this ignores the enormous amounts of progress made in the last few decades alone. It is a lot cleaner than it was, and the same goes for the refining process of gasoline, for example.

And I don't see what you mean about Radon. The EPA estimation of Radon contamination shows no correlation to coal-burning areas:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/US_homes_over_recommended_radon_levels.gif


Picky has this covered, hydroelectricity is viable in quite a few countries and nuclear is far cheaper in the long term. Short term fixes aren't going to do anyone any good - getting the ostensibly cheaper coal infrastructure, winding it down and then building nuclear power plants is far more expensive, energy-consuming and pointless than simply building the nuclear plants. Of course it doesn't help that the USA (home of many Oil companies and allies of some major Oil exporters) cracks down on anyone enriching uranium using the nuclear weapons bugbear as an excuse.Yes, I see your point regarding the US not allowing anyone who doesn't already have nuclear tech to get any. However, I don't see how that relates to the Oil business. Are there places, outside of Iran, in which nuclear energy is going to replace oil burning? Any place where nuclear is slated to replace internal combustion?

Secondly, a nuclear power plant takes perhaps 5-7 years to construct, following, in many cases, decades of of planning, approval, re-approval, and then yet more approvals needed. In the US, that translates to about 40 years between conception and the first megawatt created. A conventional, non-nuclear plant can be set up in a fraction of that time.

If we're talking about the third world, perhaps that time could be much shorter. But then you're getting into whether the thing will break or not, and unlike a conventional plant that is quite a sticky issue.

Also, the cost is not merely regarding the plants cost themselves, but the quicker time of generating electricity. If energy can be supplied, for the first time, in a comparatively miniscule amount of time by using a conventional plant it is doubtless that the economic viability of the region will increase exponentially, making a switch to another form of energy supply for the region a much easier burden to bear than the initial one is. Think of it like getting a $2,000 automobile which allows you to get a job paying fifty times the amount you got when commuting by bicycle. After a while, you'll be in a lot better position to purchase a more efficient and much, much more expensive ride.

Finally, the only infrastructure cost is the plant itself because the power grid would remain the same regardless of source of energy (as long as it's in a plant of some sort, of course).

Oh, and I have nothing against hydroelectric and I don't know how it came to appear that I was. Sure, millions of people have been displaced in many projects and river flows have been disrupted (which isn't necessarily a bad thing at all, of course), but no I like the projects quite a bit. The question is how many massive dams can be built. There's only one Nile and it's already been plugged up, for example.


Really? You've done a comprhensive study of available fuels?
What do you mean by available fuels? I was largely referring to coal, which there are massive amounts of. That's why it is so cheap and readily used all over the world, for a short explanation. But I guess that can also apply to oil, natural gas, methane, propane, butane, or just all hydrocarbons in general?


Simply saying that people will continue being stupid is not an argument that their actions aren't stupid.It is an argument that putting taxes on people who don't buy new light bulbs is a scam and waste of everyone's time.


You mean: which illustrates you know jack shit about why glaciers are important. Think of ice in a full glass, might help by way of analogy.Now, I understand what you said about Al Gore.

But, correct me if I am mistaken (which has occurred, if only very rarely), what you are saying here is that glacial meltdown will cause the sea levels to rise and potentially displace millions. This is what Gore claims and all his adoring fans tell me that manhattan and florida will drown.

However, can you please point me something that actually backs this up?

In 2005, a joint statement by western nations said sea levels would most likely rise by 4 to 35 inches this century, and thsi is taken as scientific consensus. While that will certainly displace some South Pacific islanders, it's nothing that a little sand won't overcome in most coastal areas. Antarctic ice meltage, the largest source if I'm not mistaken, is measured at the rate of (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5768/1754) .4mm/year, give or take .2mm.

Also, Ocean Levels were several meters higher than they are today 130,000 years ago, so it isn't as though we are heading into uncharted territory. The only question is can we adapt to those conditions once the Earth recovers from the last ice age. I think we can manage when that eventual reality sets in, but unless a few nukes are detonated on both poles it's not going to be a major problem for all of humanity at any one time.

Honestly, I am much more concerned with the reserves of fresh water being depleted, but warming temps do mean more rain and technology has conquered de-salinisation.


By the way, sorry for the delay. I forgot about this thread, honestly.

[Picky Bugger]

Oh, and I have nothing against hydroelectric and I don't know how it came to appear that I was. Sure, millions of people have been displaced in many projects and river flows have been disrupted (which isn't necessarily a bad thing at all, of course), but no I like the projects quite a bit. The question is how many massive dams can be built. There's only one Nile and it's already been plugged up, for example.

It's not a question of how many rivers can be dammed as creating electricity from barrage projects is only a small part of how hydroelectric power is produced. Damming and flooding valleys to create reservoirs only requires a relatively small input of water so a river the size of the Nile is not necessary, the majority of hydroelectric power production is from reservoirs. China has an extensive system in production namely the Three Gorges Damn which when finished will be the largest hydroelectric plant in the world. The potential for hydroelectric in mountainous regions is vast so areas such as the Himalayas and Alps could be exploited a great deal.



Now, I understand what you said about Al Gore.

But, correct me if I am mistaken (which has occurred, if only very rarely), what you are saying here is that glacial meltdown will cause the sea levels to rise and potentially displace millions. This is what Gore claims and all his adoring fans tell me that manhattan and florida will drown.
In 2005, a joint statement by western nations said sea levels would most likely rise by 4 to 35 inches this century, and thsi is taken as scientific consensus. While that will certainly displace some South Pacific islanders, it's nothing that a little sand won't overcome in most coastal areas. Antarctic ice meltage, the largest source if I'm not mistaken, is measured at the rate of (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5768/1754) .4mm/year, give or take .2mm.
If all ice sheets were to melt then areas such as Manhattan would probably be destroyed but this will not happen. Whilst the Arctic ice is melting fairly rapidly Antarctica is thought to be growing in central regions of the continent. There are outer areas that are melting but as far as I can remember the majority are sea ice meaning the sea levels will not increase. The internal processes of Antarctica are vast, it’s impossible to predict how the sheets will react to warming but they certainly won’t melt away.

[butterfly]

If all ice sheets were to melt then areas such as Manhattan would probably be destroyed but this will not happen. Whilst the Arctic ice is melting fairly rapidly Antarctica is thought to be growing in central regions of the continent. There are outer areas that are melting but as far as I can remember the majority are sea ice meaning the sea levels will not increase. The internal processes of Antarctica are vast, it’s impossible to predict how the sheets will react to warming but they certainly won’t melt away.
It is true that in East Antarctica the ice is thickening in some regions, however this is due to the hole in the ozone layer which is producing stronger surface winds and more frequent storms. The hole is expected to close however by the end of the century after the banning of CFCs and this will result in more rapid melting.

In the Western regions of the Antarctic, ice is melting at a rate of approx 50-137billion tonnes per year. A total of 212 of the 244 glaciers on the peninsular are in retreat.
According to a British study, the loss is the West far offset the increase in the East.

On third of the sea ice is likely to have melted by the end of the century.
Almost 9 out of 10 scientists believe that due to lack of political effort a rise of 4-5 degrees by the end of the century is a more probable outcome.
Under this scenario all sea ice is gone from both poles and all mountain glaciers gone from the Andes, Alps and Rockies.

As sea temperatures increase water expands. Sea levels rises will not be subtle under this scenario.

[Picky Bugger]

It is true that in East Antarctica the ice is thickening in some regions,

Yes


However this is due to the hole in the ozone layer which is producing stronger surface winds and more frequent storms. The hole is expected to close however by the end of the century after the banning of CFCs and this will result in more rapid melting. No


In the Western regions of the Antarctic, ice is melting at a rate of approx 50-137billion tonnes per year. A total of 212 of the 244 glaciers on the peninsular are in retreat.
According to a British study, the loss is the West far offset the increase in the East. Indeed but there is a lot of sea ice in the west and it contains only a tiny portion of the Antarctic ice. It is a worry but not massively so.


On third of the sea ice is likely to have melted by the end of the century.Almost 9 out of 10 scientists believe that due to lack of political effort a rise of 4-5 degrees by the end of the century is a more probable outcome.Under this scenario all sea ice is gone from both poles and all mountain glaciers gone from the Andes, Alps and Rockies.

As sea temperatures increase water expands. Sea levels rises will not be subtle under this scenario.

If sea ice melts nothing happens as it already displaces the volume of water it would add. The ice will most likely go from the Alps and Andes not sure about the Rockies.

[butterfly]

However this is due to the hole in the ozone layer which is producing stronger surface winds and more frequent storms. The hole is expected to close however by the end of the century after the banning of CFCs and this will result in more rapid melting. No


Yes; Why Antarctic ice is growing despite global warming. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-antarctic-ice-is-growing-despite-global-warming.html)



It's the southern ozone hole whatdunit. That's why Antarctic sea ice is growing while at the other pole, Arctic ice is shrinking at record rates. It seems CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8475-illegal-cfcs-imperil-the-ozone-layer.html) have given the South Pole respite from global warming.
But only temporarily. According to John Turner (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/staff-profiles/template.php?user=jtu) of the British Antarctic Survey, the effect will last roughly another decade before Antarctic sea ice starts to decline as well.
Arctic sea ice is decreasing dramatically and reached a record low in 2007 (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12724-arctic-ice-shrinks-to-record-low.html). But satellite images studied by Turner and his colleagues show that Antarctic sea ice is increasing in every month of the year expect January. "By the end of the century we expect one third of Antarctic sea ice to disappear," says Turner. "So we're trying to understand why it's increasing now, at a time of global warming."
In a new study, Turner and colleagues show how the ozone hole has changed weather patterns around Antarctica. These changes have drawn in warm air over the Antarctic Peninsula in West Antarctica and cooled the air above East Antarctica.
The Southern Ocean is home to some of the strongest ocean winds on the planet. The region between 40° and 60° South is well-known to sailors who call it the "roaring forties" and "furious fifties".

[Picky Bugger]

This is just based on modeling which is often inaccurate, whilst it does appear that the ozone hole is having an affect, the way the climate and weather patterns react one the hole is closed is not and can not be know at this moment. The build up of the ice in itself will change weather patterns so the results of the ozone closing are not known.

Whilst modeling is a useful aid it is only a guide to activity and the same model done by different people or factoring in different actions will produce vastly different affect. Let us not forget it is these models that predict much of the theory of sea level increase and ice melt, where they are often wrong.

[butterfly]

Still doesn't offer an explanation regarding thermal expansion; when the climate temperature increases the ocean expands.
I understand modelling can't be precise when the variables are constantly changing, however the research is being conducted by fully trained and qualified scientists collaborating on a global scale, (Who happen to be expressing a great deal of concern at present.)
I put my trust in these people, certainly over anything said on an Internet forum.
We cannot afford to ignore these models or spend our time procrastinating about their exact precision, when a global consensus tells us we need action now.

If someone you loved were seriously ill, you'd have to be insane to treat them or to ignore modern medical science, even if it is not always flawless. You put their life in the hands of these doctors because, quite simply, they know what they're doing, whilst you do not.

[Picky Bugger]

Still doesn't offer an explanation regarding thermal expansion; when the climate temperature increases the ocean expands.

No it doesn't because I don't know enough about the exact subject to make a conclusion nor has the relevant research gone into the topic to a deep eniugh depth.


I understand modelling can't be precise when the variables are constantly changing, however the research is being conducted by fully trained and qualified scientists collaborating on a global scale, (Who happen to be expressing a great deal of concern at present.)
I put my trust in these people, certainly over anything said on an Internet forum.
We cannot afford to ignore these models or spend our time procrastinating about their exact precision, when a global consensus tells us we need action now.

You say this but there is much disagreement between the leading experts in the field. Fairly recently (can't remember exactly) a collection of the top scientists in the field were collected together, they were asked to make predictions on the West Antartic Ice Sheet and it's rate of decline as well as the rate of sea level rise. The answers from these experts were rather divergent which shows the uncertainty in the field. For instance when asked how long until failure there was a range from about 100 years to 100,00 years now if we are so certain of what will happen how come the top experts do not agree. The truth of the subject is that we do not know enough about something as relatively straight forward and main stream as the WAIS collapsing so there is an even smaller consensus on internal growtha dn melting of the EAIS. It is like measuring the size of an emperors nose by polling people who have not seen it...

Ref: (Climate Change Journal 2002)


If someone you loved were seriously ill, you'd have to be insane to treat them or to ignore modern medical science, even if it is not always flawless. You put their life in the hands of these doctors because, quite simply, they know what they're doing, whilst you do not.Indeed but modern medicine is proven to work in a number of cases this is not and the likeness is dumbfounded.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Check this out:


Climate lobbying group ignored its own science advisors

A leaked memo reveals that one of the primary lobbying groups that industry and energy interests used to foster public doubt about climate change should have been aware that some of its claims were off base: its own scientific advisory panel told it so.

By John Timmer | Last updated April 26, 2009 3:20 PM CT

One of the major players in last decade's arguments over anthropogenic climate change and its policy implications was the Global Climate Coalition, which received funding from both individual companies and industry groups. Now, documents from that era have come to light thanks to the involvement of one of the GCC members, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, in a suit that has attempted to block California's efforts to regulate automotive greenhouse gas emissions. During discovery for the suit, a memo came to light in which the GCC's scientific advisors suggested that certain aspects of climate science simply weren't controversial; that memo was leaked to The New York Times, which has placed it online.

The documents include a few introductory memos, followed by a primer on climate science prepared by the GCC's in-house scientific advisory committee. The goal of the primer appears to be to bring everyone who would be speaking on the issue up to speed on the state of climate science; it apparently dates from late 1995, about the time when the IPCC published its second assessment of climate science. It appears to have been prepared by members of the industries represented by the GCC; the accompanying article in The Times indicates that the advisory committee was chaired by someone at Mobile, while two of the people listed as commenting on it appear to have worked for an oil company and an electric utility group.

Not surprisingly, the group wasn't entirely sold on the concept of anthropogenic climate change. At the time, given the state of scientific knowledge, the IPCC's analysis was far more tenuous than it is currently, and the GCC's advisors didn't even buy that. The primer quotes the IPCC as concluding "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate," but the GCC advisors suggest that this statement, "goes beyond what can be justified by current scientific knowledge."
The report reserves its most striking language for attempts to deny the eventual impact of continuing greenhouse gas emissions.

Part of the problem, in the view of the primer's authors, is that computerized climate models weren't yet sophisticated enough to separate anthropogenic causes from natural variability. At the time, they felt, scientists lacked sufficient raw data to build good models, and lacked the computing power to run them.

Nevertheless, the authors recognized that "improvements in both are likely, and in the next decade it may be possible to make fairly accurate statements."

From there on out, however, things don't exactly toe the GCC's party line. There are two striking things about the remainder of the primer: one is how little the arguments have changed in the past decade and a half, and the second is how badly off the GCC's message is compared to that advocated by its own scientific advisors.

The primer dismisses a wide series of arguments that are still widely in use today. "The scientific basis for the greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gasses such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied," it concludes, noting elsewhere that the basics of this, "can be demonstrated in a laboratory." Although there are some uncertainties about individual temperature records, the authors conclude that global average temperatures have risen over the last century. They also leave no room for doubt regarding the trajectory of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels or its cause: "human activities have raised the concentrations of CO2 by more than 25 percent."

Several pages of the primer are also spent on what it calls "contrarian" theories, such as solar variability and ideas promoted by Richard Lindzen. Although these are considered interesting, the GCC's advisors conclude that none of them are actually consistent with the available data, and "they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change." Apparently, this section was deleted from the final memo, although nobody that The Times could find was willing to identify who did so or why.

The report reserves its most striking language for attempts to deny the eventual impact of continuing greenhouse gas emissions. "The potential for a human impact on climate is based on well-established scientific fact," the primer reads, "and should not be denied." Elsewhere it states, "neither solar variability nor anomalies in the temperature record offer a mechanism for offsetting the much larger rise in temperature which might occur if the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases were to double or quadruple."

The fact that the GCC was out of touch with the science became ever more obvious as time went on; by 2000, many of its most significant industry backers had abandoned ship; shortly afterwards, the group shut down, leaving its site preserved in the web archive.

It's tempting to make comparisons to the cigarette lobby—indeed, the comparisons are made in The Times, but the issue is probably more subtle than that. The GCC's advisors were pointing out that some areas of climate science were actually quite certain, while others remained open to scientifically valid scepticism; the GCC ignored its science advisors only in that it treated everything as equally uncertain.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/climate-lobbying-group-ignored-its-own-science-advisors.ars

Links to the original articles can be accessed at the above link.

[Picky Bugger]

Interesting,

It shows to some extent the confusion within the field especially when capitalism convolutes the argument for its own gain. This confusion travels deep into the profile of the CC problem resulting in many people dismissing the issue altogether. The problem is indeed complex and many areas aren't understood but the bases have been proven and we should really start adaptation.

Recently the BBC reported on a decline in solar activity which could offset an increase in temperature. Now whilst a prolonged decline (100 years or so) may help there is little indication the current low will last that long and by all probability it won't but research such as this can easily be used against the issue by people or companies who are not willing to accept change, the subject is difficult indeed.

[Melon]

You haven't won me over but I thank you for your thorough response :thumbup1:

I'm just going to have to keep ploughing through websites until I find the science that satisfies me.

HAVE A READ OF THE STERN REVIEW (it's similar to the IPCC review and focuses on mitigation and why we need to focus on such specific policies and what is required):
(sorry i can't post links but you'll have to google search it and you'll come across the official stern review website)

[Melon]

I think the sceptics on here should read:
THE ROUGH GUIDE TO CLIMATE CHANGE (The symptoms, the science and the solutions) by Robert Henson

[Il Medico]

Does anyone outside of OI really not believe that humans are causing global warming?:confused:

[Melon]

You haven't won me over but I thank you for your thorough response :thumbup1:

I'm just going to have to keep ploughing through websites until I find the science that satisfies me.

Just to help you out a bit below are some of my important points taken from the Stern Review:

The first chapter of the stern review discusses how human activities can impact the environment and influence the climate as well as the implications of climate change if this situation is not considered properly and no action is taken. Also this chapter focuses on the ethics, social choice and economic theory regarding climate chage and the future impacts. For example how people from different countries and living conditions should be examined in creating judgements on policies for climate change and their impacts.
The following points below are important and extracted from the stern review:

· Much economic activity involves the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs). As GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere, temperatures increase, and the climatic changes that result impose costs (and some benefits) on society.
· There are uncertainties associated, for example, with future rates of economic growth, with the volume of emissions that will follow, with the increases in temperature resulting from emissions, with the impacts of these temperature increases and so on. Similarly, there are uncertainties associated with the economic response to policy measures, and hence about how much it will cost to reduce GHG emissions.
· as the damages from climate change accumulate, growth on the ‘path without mitigation’ will slow and income will fall below the level on the other path.
· Another mitigation policy is to promote research, development and deployment such as the creation of new low-emission technologies that can affect how much emissions are reduced.
· Climate change shares some characteristics with other environmental challenges linked to the management of common international resources, including the protection of the ozone layer and the depletion of fisheries.
· Some parts of the world would benefit from modest rises in temperature, at higher temperature increases, most countries will suffer heavily and global growth will be affected adversely.
· On current trends, average global temperatures could rise by 2 - 3°C within the next fifty years or so,1 leading to many severe impacts, often mediated by water, including more frequent droughts and floods melting glaciers, declining crop yields, ocean acidification, rising sea levels, ecosystem extinction
· As the water cycle intensifies, billions of people will lose or gain water.
· Ocean acidification, a direct result of rising carbon dioxide levels, will have major effects on marine ecosystems, with possible adverse consequences on fish stocks.
· Climate change is likely to occur too rapidly for many species to adapt. One study estimates that around 15 – 40% of species face extinction with 2°C of warming.
· Millions of people will potentially be at risk of climate-driven heat stress, flooding, malnutrition, water related disease and vector borne diseases. For example, dengue transmission in South America may increase by 2 to 5 fold by the 2050s.
· The poorest will be the most vulnerable. People on lower incomes are more likely to live in poorquality housing in higher-risk areas and have fewer financial resources to cope with climate change, including lack of comprehensive insurance cover.

If you wish to find the scientific journal paper references for the information mentioned in the points above just let me know i'll post them on here or i'll email them to you since I can gain full access to scientific journals.........or just look them up in the Stern Review :)

[Comrade Anarchist]

it will be catastrophic and irreversible. all we can do is try to soften its effects.

[swampfox]

I believe mankind still has the ability to right the ship. But we can't stop skirting the issues on climate change. If other countries are taking action, why is the United States lagging behind?

[butterfly]

Actually believe it or not the US is by no means lagging behind on a global scale. The targets there are impressive in contrast to Australia and the EU for example.

[swampfox]

Actually believe it or not the US is by no means lagging behind on a global scale. The targets there are impressive in contrast to Australia and the EU for example.

Still, the government could force tighter regulations and take control of the issue if they wished. Instead, they leave it to the states to decide.q

[butterfly]

We have a federal system of emmissions reductions here and all it has done is ended up exploiting State action in turn to provide concessions to high-polluting industry:(.

[Yazman]

Actually believe it or not the US is by no means lagging behind on a global scale. The targets there are impressive in contrast to Australia and the EU for example.

Australia actually has quite a lot of projects investigating and building renewable energy sources and is reducing its emissions, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Especially considering Australia's impact is pathetically small anyway.

[butterfly]

Yep that why the majority of the $3.5bn set aside for renewable projects in the budget is going towards geosequestration, whilst the Cabinet has managed to continue pumping 100s of billions of dollars into out-dated defence spending.

Australia's impact per-capita is one of the largest worldwide.

[Yazman]

Yep that why the majority of the $3.5bn set aside for renewable projects in the budget is going towards geosequestration, whilst the Cabinet has managed to continue pumping 100s of billions of dollars into out-dated defence spending.

Australia's impact per-capita is one of the largest worldwide.

But its impact is negligible because the population is ridiculously small. Statistically it might look huge but in reality its nothing on a global scale.

[butterfly]

Well if we started counting from the industrial revolution then our impact may not seem so negligible. In any case developed states must take the forefront, no matter how small their impact. You can't expect a state with half the population living in destitution to do so.

[Yazman]

Well if we started counting from the industrial revolution then our impact may not seem so negligible. In any case developed states must take the forefront, no matter how small their impact. You can't expect a state with half the population living in destitution to do so.

Australia wasn't really a part of the industrial revolution, though. I'm not saying they shouldn't do as much as they possibly can, but what I am saying is that I think its ridiculous for a country with such a low population and such a negligible impact to be held as responsible as a country like the US, which has 300 million people and a very dense population and really SHOULD be at the forefront.

As of 2005 Australia is in the top 10 countries by lowest population density. What I'm saying here is that even if they went "completely green" it would still be a negligible impact. The benefit it would provide would be as an "existing workable model" for other countries.

[butterfly]

Australia was part of the industrial revolution but apart from that, precisey.
The 'existing workable model' is important. It also holds alot of symbolism.

[GatesofLenin]

I voted that it doesn't exist.

After twenty years of scientists waffling on this issue, it's pretty clear to me that there is little to no evidence that we are causing climate change, I believe it has more to do with the sun than anything else. We're in a period of high solar storm activity on the sun, and I'm pretty sure that it's what is causing the fluctuating temperatures.
Yup, funny how the alarmist have no answer to why the Earth has been cooling for the past 5 years and even go as far as hiding/altering data to hide this fact. I'm believing more and more that AGW is nothing more than another way to tax the poor and make the top 1% of the worlds richest people RICHER! Funny how we commoners need to mend our polluting ways but the top 1% don't have to and won't!

[Jacobinist]

Yup, funny how the alarmist have no answer to why the Earth has been cooling for the past 5 years and even go as far as hiding/altering data to hide this fact. I'm believing more and more that AGW is nothing more than another way to tax the poor and make the top 1% of the worlds richest people RICHER! Funny how we commoners need to mend our polluting ways but the top 1% don't have to and won't!

A couple years of cooling (not 5, if you insist, cite plz) does not, or rather should not obscure the fact that the earth has warmed since the industrial revolution. The overall general trend is upwards, despite these occasional and normal 'cooling trends.' If you dont believe CO2 is greenhouse gas, then you've probably spent no time in a chemistry lab. Subsequently what you say in reference, should be mostly dismissed.

CO2 and other ghg's are not the only source of warming temperatures. Industrial civilization has devastated large swaths of earth, and continues to do so. Carbon sinks are disappearing. With monocropping and deforestation, entire ecosystems are losing their ability to cope with the changing climate. These and other factors should point to the obvious fact that the current methods of production are unsustainable.



http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x219/rasmekpeace/hansen20with20hadcrut.jpg

[Klaatu]

Probably the main reason for the cooling in the past decade has been a drop in solar output.
This might be offsetting the warming effect of greenhouse gases (temporarily though)

Deep Solar Minimum
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/03/31/01apr_deepsolarminimum_resources/irradiance_strip.jpg

[anticap]

I can't vote without knowing what exactly is meant by "reversible."

But more importantly, I'd like some advice on what to do with this T-shirt that a science-denialist gave me as a joke a few years ago:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/8969/foolaid.jpg

It's hung in my closet unworn, but I sometimes think about wearing it just to spark conversation with denialists, who are rampant here in the U$. (I'd explain to the non-kooks what I was up to, if I spotted any scowling at me. :lol:)

What do you think?

[Jacobinist]

I can't vote without knowing what exactly is meant by "reversible."

But more importantly, I'd like some advice on what to do with this T-shirt that a science-denialist gave me as a joke a few years ago:

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/146/foolaidr.jpg

It's hung in my closet unworn, but I sometimes think about wearing it just to spark conversation with denialists, who are rampant here in the U$. (I'd explain to the non-kooks what I was up to, if I spotted any scowling at me. :lol:)

What do you think?

Wear it. Who knows, maybe someone like Sarah Palin might hit on you! You lucky fucker you!

[NGNM85]

It's really a testament to the stupidity of the American public that climate change is still a lightning rod for controversy. (Just like evolution.) With the ever-increasing mountain of availible data people who propogate this idea that it's all made up are perpetuating a falsehood of holocaust-denial proportions.

[RedLaw]

I voted that it doesn't exist.

After twenty years of scientists waffling on this issue, it's pretty clear to me that there is little to no evidence that we are causing climate change, I believe it has more to do with the sun than anything else. We're in a period of high solar storm activity on the sun, and I'm pretty sure that it's what is causing the fluctuating temperatures.

I tend to agree because many of the so-called facts of the global warming
issue are rather unconvincing to me.
Weather patterns do seem to be changing somewhat but that may well be
perfectly normal as there are always fluctuations when it comes to weather.
There is no question, however, about the rapidly diminishing ice in the north
but,again,what are the actual causes of this?
Storms,earthquakes,and other natural disasters also seem to be increasing
in both frequency and severity and could tie-in to whatever may be happening.
The earth itself is perhaps going through a cycle of some manner and that's
the simple explanation.
Humans are not helping matters in their treatment of the environment,that's
for sure,but to say conclusively we are causing a change has not been proven
that I can see.

[bcbm]

i think it is a bit odd to believe that the tons of co2 that has been put into the atmosphere since the beginning of industrialization, in addition to the massive environmental damage to forests and ocean o2 producing plant forms has had no effect on the earths climate.

[Ovi]

How can it be reversible? I don't see how the carbon released into the atmosphere by the burning of billions of tons of fossil fuel will go back underground any time soon.

[bcbm]

strengthening the natural systems that recycle co2 into o2 instead of destroying them might be a start.

[Ovi]

strengthening the natural systems that recycle co2 into o2 instead of destroying them might be a start.
It's not about the carbon cycle, but about carbon sequestration. It took millions of years of organic matter burial for the oil that we use today to exist. It will probably take just as long for nature to sequester the same amount of carbon that we burned off into the atmosphere.

[Ocean Seal]

Reversible, but ultimately catastrophic.

[Klaatu]

The Great Lakes are mere puddles compared to the world's oceans. If the ocean warms one degree,
the lakes are going to warm 10 degrees. What is causing this? Human-created CO2 perhaps?

Great Lakes warm up, may hit new highs
http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=3799

World Population vs Atmospheric CO2 Level
http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=3529

[DWI]

Anything is reversible with sufficient application of energy. Which thermodynamically is the definition of irreversible, but not the one being used here I think.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Climate Change due to man's pollution is a given. And it's effects are a given. It has a delayed effect. Even if we stop all pollution right now, the temperature is going to continue to rise for some time (50-100 years). It will then continue to rise in an asymptotic fashion, and then gradually lower until it returns to normal, but that could take centuries, due to the self-reinforcing effects of ice and glacier loss.

[CommunityBeliever]

Has anyone read comrade Castro's work on global warming from an anti-imperialist perspective?

Fidel Castro on Global Warming, Biofuels and World Hunger (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:VpxAZq5Kx1oJ:www.readingfromtheleft.com/PDF/Castro-Warming.pdf+castro+global+warming&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjdT_2xv0HdwO44IaqPP21FmSR4hJOyeFbR7Pfl OQCVT2RPz4i_4yuFNpmbD8r7_k6PTb6z65f_ILR-YkJbbwAyLKbghJ6mEnsSfhF8V-8MzZZhJL-Dpa-j0_BfFHNtjl99va6m&sig=AHIEtbRXgvdXq8lunWrqgHvJb8PBSvnLRQ)

Much has been written about health care and education in Cuba - but their fight against capitalism's destruction of the environment is equally remarkable.

[ianz]

edit. Sorry, new here, thought my original post didn't go through

[ianz]

I take great issue with the choice of the words "reversible and irreversible" in regards to potential outcomes w/r/t anthropogenic global warming.

The Earth does not have some kind of natural state that we can return to. It has been constantly changing and evolving for billions of years. Time only moves in one direction (or at least we are unable to alter our own perception in such a way that it can move in another direction) and change is inevitable.

What we're looking at now are the natural consequences to the actions of the human species post-industrial revolution. People then didn't understand the long term consequences of their actions but we are gaining a greater understanding every day. There is no avoiding the consequences of our actions, there is no reversing. We simply do not have the technology to reduce the CO2 PPM by any meaningful amount (arguably the most significant driver of rapid climate change).

Beyond that, it is much less technology restricting us from mitigating climate change and much more the structural issues with first world (global capitalism) society.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

global warming is a myth, it got hotter when the dinosaurs where around that it is now.
and if we dont stop doing what we are doing now, we will die, but something will live on in our footsteps

[ianz]

global warming is a myth, it got hotter when the dinosaurs where around that it is now

Maybe you could go into depth about why it matters if the Dinosaurs environment was warmer than ours? There are other things that can warm the Earth other than humanity pouring CO2 into the atmosphere, and pretending like that invalidates the literal mountains of evidence (not to mention nearly universal scientific consensus among climatologists) that support anthropogenic global warming is disingenuous at best.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

oh i dont know, but maybe history decides to repeat itself, and looking at the past can predict the future.

[ianz]

oh i dont know, but maybe history decides to repeat itself, and looking at the past can predict the future.

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at. History doesn't "repeat itself" ever. Similar phenomenon take place but ultimately every moment of the universe is unique to itself. We can study historical events in order to gain insight into how natural systems might react to currently unfolding events but you need to do a lot more analysis other than

"The dinosaurs existed in a climate warmer than ours, ergo anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist"

Don't let me discourage you and I don't mean to bring you down, only to encourage you to dig deeper and try to understand the science behind it. A good start would be trying to analyze your own logical process which leads from

Dinosaurs were in a warmer climate -> ? -> global warming is fake

I think if you attempt to fill in that ? with an actual explanation I'll be better able to help you understand why the conclusions you're drawing may be faulty.

[freethinker]

Apparently, global warming equals socialism. It's our Trojan Horse. In that case, yay global warming!

dont forget peak oil dear comrade!

[Killforpeace]

Wouldn't mind seeing this poll again, curious to see if some of the voters have changed their mind.

[NewLeft]

Wow, there's actually leftists that believe that anthropogenic global warming does not exist?? Keep reading that Paul Driessen..

[Max]

Actually, the use of unsustainable arming methods by the buorgise is the main contributor of emissions to the environment. The use of gas consuming cars, although it is still bad, does not contribute as much to global warming as the use of unsustainable farming methods.

[The Ben G]

Hate to break it to you guys, but climate change is irreversible. The emissions stay up in the atmosphere, and there are no where near enough the amount of plants to offset carbon emissions.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

catastrophic but reversible

note, however, that by "reversible" I don't necessarily mean by purposeful intervention or that it would happen any time soon. The catastrophe will kill off many, many humans leaving an environment nearly free of combustion. Overtime, forests would reclaim farms and other human areas, causing CO2 to be sucked out of the air and put back into the ground. In half a million years, the warming would be halted.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Hate to break it to you guys, but climate change is irreversible. The emissions stay up in the atmosphere, and there are no where near enough the amount of plants to offset carbon emissions.

This. Although is it possible, perhaps, that some effects of climate change will be reversible and others won't? I don't think the reversibility is "all or nothing". Maybe some endangered species can be rescued, or that sort of thing.

[exeexe]

If global warming kills all (insert species here) let say all turtles, the effect of global warming would be irreversible.
If global warming would generate ultra stormsystems that would change how the shore is outlined then the effects of global warming would be irreversible.

Some biosystems only exists because of the Topographic properties of the surrounding land.

If global warming would kill enough green vegetation there wouldnt be enough photosynthesis to get the CO2 out of the air. And then the effects of global warming would be irreversible.

If global warming made a nuclear power plant overheat because there isnt enough cooling from the surroundings then the effects of global warming would be irreversible.

If global warming melts all the ice on mountains which normally would only melt partially and sustain biosystems in lower altitudes, but then because there would be no water the biosystem would die out and then the effects of global warming would be irreversible.

If global warming would stop the global deep sea currents like the gulf stream, then the effects of global warming would be irreversible.

If i get a child one day in the future and that child dies from global warming then then effects of global warming would be irreversible.