Global warming - let's settle this once and for all!

[Rodion Romanovich]

You guys keep claiming this yet you have nothing to back it up. I can provide as many scientists who say its all BS as agree with you. The facts are we cant even predicted or control the weather for tommorow nevermind such a complicated system as our atmosphere. Imagine the polution if we still all used horses.

Those who say it's BS that pollution results in increased temperatures are not saying pollution is harmless, unless they're bribed, fanatical dogmatics. I doubt you can mention that many scientists that completely disagree that the uncontrolled pollution is harmful.

What scientists disagree about isn't whether wrong atmosphere composition results in an increase of thermal energy inside the atmosphere, but how that energy will be distributed. The point is, if the temperature increases too much we'll need an absurdly uneven distribution of the heat in order to make as much of earth inhabitable for humans as is the case today. Similarly, a too great decrease in thermal energy on earth is dangerous for the very same reasons. We humans can control the average thermal energy, and past experience has shown us approximately how unevenly distributed the thermal energy in the atmosphere usually is, so we know which average earth temperatures to stay within.

The average temperature is controllable, but there are other factors which can increase or decrease temperature by up to 5-10 degrees. We therefore need to keep the average temperature well controlled, in order to have marginals for these events.

[Rodion Romanovich]

People who preach global warming and that it's all our fault and that it'll kill us all is just a modern version of the flaggellant doomsayer of days past who preached precisely the same thing except that they threw god in the equation.

"The end is nigh! You have all sinned! Mend your ways before it's troo late!"

The mantra is exactly the same, and their argument in both cases has precisely the same validity, non-whatsoever.

Well, the black death was very much caused by human lifestyle. Free trade and crowded city life caused it to spread quickly. Bad sewage conditions made it lovely for the rats, who indirectly carried the plague. The flagellants didn't know the cause, but they were actually right in that humans had caused it. Later improvements of conditions that created the plague successfully destroyed it: better sewage, Poland for instance cut off all trade connections and that way avoided getting the plague, and better hygiene overall in cities led to less spreading despite fairly heavily crowded cities.

Finally, global warming is a bigger threat to capitalism than actions against it are. Imagine climate refugees from the equatorial regions. A majority of all humans live around the equator. When that region becomes uninhabitable, you'll be swarmed by refugees. That will certainly create an economical chaos much worse than that caused by a few, minor restrictions of the free trade.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Those who say it's BS that pollution results in increased temperatures are not saying pollution is harmless, unless they're bribed, fanatical dogmatics. I doubt you can mention that many scientists that completely disagree that the uncontrolled pollution is harmful.

And you wont find me or any oter conservative here claiming that either.

We humans can control the average thermal energy

Now thats total BS. We cant even make it rain. When the next Ice Age approaches I want to know how your going to turn the heat back up.

What scientists disagree about isn't whether wrong atmosphere composition results in an increase of thermal energy inside the atmosphere, but how that energy will be distributed.

What scientists disagree about is whats causing it.

The average temperature is controllable,

Oh please my stomachs hurting. Stop with the jokes.

Finally, global warming is a bigger threat to capitalism than actions against it are. Imagine climate refugees from the equatorial regions. A majority of all humans live around the equator. When that region becomes uninhabitable, you'll be swarmed by refugees.

Its gonna happen over and over and theres not a damned thing that you can do about it. Man is not god and its time some of you learned that.

[Ja'chyra]

Its gonna happen over and over and theres not a damned thing that you can do about it. Man is not god and its time some of you learned that.

It's also time man stopped raping this planet, maybe we'll finally figure that out when we're dead.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's also time man stopped raping this planet, maybe we'll finally figure that out when we're dead.

Nah lets rape it while we can. You think anyone who doesnt agree with you is an idiot apparantly.

[Ja'chyra]

Nah lets rape it while we can. You think anyone who doesnt agree with you is an idiot apparantly.

Where did I say that?

You making stuff up again?

[Husar]

Which is why, I suppose, America is reducing emissions, whereas Europe is not.

Very funny, and probably the reason you all drive around with 20litre pickups.

[Ironside]

Hyu-uck! Why, you done gone and done nailed that ther nail wit dat ther hammer! We jus be a bunch o stopid rednecks!

Which is why, I suppose, America is reducing emissions, whereas Europe is not.

Huh. For all their 'enlightened' thought, they aren't much good at getting results.

Crazed Rabbit

So your economy have shrunken in recent time?

And any link to that study? If it's recent it would be interesting to compare that to the prices on gasoline for the US.

[doc_bean]

For the enlightened, which seems to be pretty universal outside the USA,

Please, there are many people outside of the US who don't subscribe to the popular theory of global warming caused by CO2 emmissions.

Which is why, I suppose, America is reducing emissions, whereas Europe is not.

Now, i've already explaiend this somewhere else, we started reducing emmissions earlier and have hit a plateau.

Those who say it's BS that pollution results in increased temperatures are not saying pollution is harmless, unless they're bribed, fanatical dogmatics. I doubt you can mention that many scientists that completely disagree that the uncontrolled pollution is harmful.

That's a completely different issue. CO2 isn't even traditionally thought of as pollution afaik.

[Rodion Romanovich]

We humans can control the average thermal energy

Now thats total BS. We cant even make it rain. When the next Ice Age approaches I want to know how your going to turn the heat back up. [...] Oh please my stomachs hurting. Stop with the jokes.

Well, here are some more jokes:
- we can control the flow in rivers by using ponds!
- we can make dry desert areas wet so we can grow things there, by water pipe irrigation
- we can create vaccines that prevent people from catching diseases
- we can create pennicilline that cures most disease caused by bacteria

it's called science

[Rodion Romanovich]

That's a completely different issue. CO2 isn't even traditionally thought of as pollution afaik.

That's why I said pollution as a general concept, and not CO2 only. We have CH4, CO, CO2, N2O, NO2, SO2, SF6 (really dangerous thing), for instance.

N2O is probably the most interesting thing. It's also known as laughing gas, which is why some people just lean back and laugh while the other polluted chemicals are destroying earth.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

there is a simple mathmatical principle that can be applied to this whole situation to decide what the best course of action is simply balance out the resulst of taking either action.

there are two main possibilitys about global warming, either we are right or we are wrong, if we lower emmisions and put funding into renewable energy sources then there are two possible results

1. we are wrong the world is compleatly unaffected by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and is in fact being heated by the sun rather then man, if this is the case then we would have spent a lot of money lowering emmisions and developing renewable resourses but will be less reliant on fast depleating fossil fuel resourses and will have cleaner air due to less polution, this would slightly balance out the cost aspect and so would be quite good.

2. we are right and manage to slow down and eventually stop global warming and possible disaster is averted, as a bonus we are also less relient on fossil fuels.

If we do nothing:

1. we are right global warming is not happening and the earth is actually being heated up by the sun. money is saved by companys and the economy is more healthy, untill oil and other fossil fuel reserves run out which will probably cause just as big a problem if not more so then emmision restrictions

2. we are wrong, the earth heats up, there are thousands of refuges that flood the cooler parts of the world at the same time as they are struggleing to adapt to the lact of fossil fuels.

In conclusion in my opinion we should try and lower emmisions and should develop renewable energy resources as this is the option that brings the best results.

[doc_bean]

In conclusion in my opinion we should try and lower emmisions and should develop renewable energy resources as this is the option that brings the best results.

No one is really argueing this, the problem is, to what level should we lower emissions, at what cost ? How much do we invest in renewable energy ?

It's an economics problem really.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Byzantine Mercenary: Well said!

@doc_bean: "No one is really arguing this"
Ok, that's nice to hear. I was a little worried this thread would turn too political, and include heavy for and against American-bashing arguments etc. While it's true the USA refuses to take part in most deals for limiting pollution, it's also true that the pollution rights the Kyoto protocol suggested for the USA was a little tougher than for other countries, which was unfair. It's a two-edged sword.

I was mainly intending a discussion about the scientific parts of it, a discussion about how dangerous the problem was. But now it's turned political, I'll respond to the political parts too (building on from some of what Byzantine Mercenary said but focusing on another part):

If we don't lower emissions until the last minute, we get a shock, which will shake the market and create economical chaos worse than the 1930ies depression.

If we don't lower emissions until it's too late, we're doomed.

If we lower emissions gradually, by passing laws on which pollution levels certain products may have, and give the market a hint some years in advance as to how these levels will develop, we create a safe, stabile market which will slowly adapt itself to the conditions reality imposes.

It's claimed that if we'd put as much money into solar power as we're every year giving to the coal mines for them to carry on their work, we'd have developed a solar energy able to replace most of the fossile fuels in 10 years, for instance. So the cost of developing solar energy isn't really a problem. The one problem is that economists and politicans underestimate how dangerous the problem is.

[doc_bean]

@doc_bean: "No one is really arguing this"
Ok, that's nice to hear. I was a little worried this thread would turn too political, and include heavy for and against American-bashing arguments etc.

This IS the backroom, someone is bound to take a stance like that, if only to see if they can defend it. But few if any people actually involved in the real life pollution/emission/green house debate will claim that reducing pollution/emission is not better than not doing that (if the costs were the same).

While it's true the USA refuses to take part in most deals for limiting pollution, it's also true that the pollution rights the Kyoto protocol suggested for the USA was a little tougher than for other countries, which was unfair. It's a two-edged sword.

A lot of countries want a per capita regulation, is it surprising then that the Us refuses to take part ? It's one of the thinnest populated countries in the world.

I was mainly intending a discussion about the scientific parts of it, a discussion about how dangerous the problem was.

Hard to say, cuurent theory seems to involve a 'turning' point at which the climate of earth will inreversibily change about 100 years in the future. What will happen after the turning point seems to be pretty unclear, although it probably isn't good.

If we don't lower emissions until the last minute, we get a shock, which will shake the market and create economical chaos worse than the 1930ies depression.

The last point is at least 50years into the future, even by optimistic estimates our oil supplies won't let us rely on fossil fuels that long in the same way we do now.

If we don't lower emissions until it's too late, we're doomed.

That's assuming it ever gets to be 'too late'.

If we lower emissions gradually, by passing laws on which pollution levels certain products may have, and give the market a hint some years in advance as to how these levels will develop, we create a safe, stabile market which will slowly adapt itself to the conditions reality imposes.

Funny thin is, it isn't Kyoto that is driving the market away from 'polluting' tech. It's the volatility of the oil price, the high energy prices and, for countries, the need to have some control over the energy market themselves.

It's claimed that if we'd put as much money into solar power as we're every year giving to the coal mines for them to carry on their work, we'd have developed a solar energy able to replace most of the fossile fuels in 10 years, for instance. So the cost of developing solar energy isn't really a problem. The one problem is that economists and politicans underestimate how dangerous the problem is.

Claimed...

Currently, for households in belgium, the payback term for photovoltaic cells if they weren't subsidized would be 60 years (assuming stable energy prices). Photovoltaic cells last about 30years...

Alternative energy isn't magic, it has its own specific costs and disadvantages. The oil industry, rich and powerful as it may be, isn't the only thing keeping us using oil. Oil and gas have simply been the most practical and cost-efficient source of energy in the last 50years (along with nuclear power).

[Rodion Romanovich]

A lot of countries want a per capita regulation, is it surprising then that the Us refuses to take part ? It's one of the thinnest populated countries in the world.

True, it's hard to tell which system should be used

Hard to say, cuurent theory seems to involve a 'turning' point at which the climate of earth will inreversibily change about 100 years in the future. What will happen after the turning point seems to be pretty unclear, although it probably isn't good.

Any link?

The last point is at least 50years into the future, even by optimistic estimates our oil supplies won't let us rely on fossil fuels that long in the same way we do now.

Yes. The key is whether we'll keep using the coal or not. The oil will probably run out much faster than the coal. There's not too much oil, but there's too much coal. If we use it all up things will look really bad.

That's assuming it ever gets to be 'too late'.

Of course

Funny thin is, it isn't Kyoto that is driving the market away from 'polluting' tech. It's the volatility of the oil price, the high energy prices and, for countries, the need to have some control over the energy market themselves.

Exactly, Kyoto isn't the solution, merely a first attempt at something. I have higher hopes for any treaties that may come in the future.

Claimed...

Actually, quite a few scientists argued that that would be the case, including several economists. The strange thing is that the EU gives support to coal industry in Germany and Poland. That support money should have been invested in solar energy instead, or another promising energy type: fossile fuels with greenhouse gas capture. These mechanisms involve capturing the emissions below earth's surface. There's a risk of leakage which may become dangerous, but it's quite good as it simulates the coal being bound in the earth again. Lack of binding in the earth is one of the main causes of the greenhouse effect.

Currently, for households in belgium, the payback term for photovoltaic cells if they weren't subsidized would be 60 years (assuming stable energy prices). Photovoltaic cells last about 30years...

This is why more science is needed. According to most scientists, it isn't impossible to improve the solar cell qualiy and cost efficiency enough.

Alternative energy isn't magic, it has its own specific costs and disadvantages.

Indeed. Wind power and water power is for instance quite ridiculous, and actually harms nature more than some fossile fuels, while providing less energy.

The oil industry, rich and powerful as it may be, isn't the only thing keeping us using oil. Oil and gas have simply been the most practical and cost-efficient source of energy in the last 50years (along with nuclear power).

That's correct. The oil isn't the main problem, but the coal is. When oil runs out, people will most likely switch to coal unless there's non-natural, i.e. law-based, restrictions added. It's quite sad that oil is used for energy btw, when it's useful for asphalt, lubricants, creation of plastic etc.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, here are some more jokes:
- we can control the flow in rivers by using ponds!
- we can make dry desert areas wet so we can grow things there, by water pipe irrigation
- we can create vaccines that prevent people from catching diseases
- we can create pennicilline that cures most disease caused by bacteria

Pretty easy stuff compared to controlling the atmosphere, We dont even really know how it works and were going to control it. Again men are not gods. We have limited power and intellect. There are millions of things we will never know or understand. I think Doc pretty much sums it up. No one questions we should try to limit emmissions. Its a matter of how much is really needed. All this doom and gloom is just a scare tactic as far as I can see.

[Viking]

What people seem to ignore is that greenhouse gases are called greenhouse gases beacuse...oh wait, because they make things greener, right?
Without the greenhouse gases the average temperature on Earth would have droped far below zero while it`s now almost 20 C. If we contribute with more greenhouse gases, it gets watmer; now matter what the amount is.
A recent study of ice cores from the north pole showed us that it hasn`t been as much CO2 in the atmosphere as it is today, before you go more than several hundred thousand years ago. Cope with that.

It`s getting warmer, and man is contributing to it. That is fact. Hence we can brake the warming now observed, almost totally or by a percentage.

We dont even really know how it works and were going to control it.

We don`t know how it works? Ever seen a weather forecast?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Pretty easy stuff compared to controlling the atmosphere, We dont even really know how it works and were going to control it. Again men are not gods. We have limited power and intellect. There are millions of things we will never know or understand.

That's the very point - we have limited power and intellect. What I'm saying is that if we do something that seems to lead us to death and destruction, we're not exactly compensating for our lack of knowledge and divinity by keeping up that movement and even accelerating it.

I think Doc pretty much sums it up. No one questions we should try to limit emmissions. Its a matter of how much is really needed. All this doom and gloom is just a scare tactic as far as I can see.

I'm not trying to use scare tactics. I'm intending a scientific discussion, and it looks like one thing has at least been settled - uncontrolled pollution is bad. I wish it would be false, but it isn't. Therefore, this topic has IMO served the purpose I intended for it, as we've settled the most important fact - that the greenhouse effect exists, and is human caused to some part. The political discussion is also interesting, but it was my idea to keep it out of the debate until the scientific parts were settled, so that people didn't refuse to admit scientific facts because they thought these facts could be used against their political ideology. Now, then, that there is at least some science to base the politics on, I too think debating the politics is of interest.

So, as the part we're not agreeing about is how much restriction of emission is needed, the next sensible question is how should we find out where the limits are, who should carry out the necessary scientific work for that, who should finance it, and who should have the power to decide about where law would put the emission limits? It's of course in the interest of everyone to make better and more exact estimates in this field of science.

[cunobelinus]

Global warming makes the earth unpredictable people are scared because of this and the day after tomroz is just one way it could go .Global warming will kill us by 2099 if we dont stop soon.But we wont stop until it is 2 late as humans all ways do .We never stop until we can see a huge problem with what we are doing.

[m52nickerson]

Global warming is not going to kill us. It may bring about the next ice age a few hundred years sooner, but it is not going to couse the planet to heat up to a life ending tempature.

Should we be concerned about pollution, yes. Should we look at the slightest bit of odd weather and say "Its because of global warming", no.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

It's also time man stopped raping this planet, maybe we'll finally figure that out when we're dead.

That would require having sex with the plannet, and since the plannet cannot say no, we can't rape it.

[Ja'chyra]

That would require having sex with the plannet, and since the plannet cannot say no, we can't rape it.

Lol.

[doc_bean]

Actually, quite a few scientists argued that that would be the case, including several economists.
The strange thing is that the EU gives support to coal industry in Germany and Poland.

The EU also supports tabacco farmers yet supports emasures to reduce smoking. It's all quite absurd, but they are supporting different things. The support to the coal industry is economical support, which they are probably entitled to according to EU rules (amount of unemployed, reconversion area, etc.)

Politics

That support money should have been invested in solar energy instead,

They seem to prefer 'sexier' solutions like fusion. Which, incidentally, also means France can get a lot of money (back) from the EU.

More seriously though, solar energy has its disadvantages, certainly in Europe. It isn't very sunny here, and when it is it's usually too hot (solar cells don't function well if it's too hot, ironically). Fall and spring would probably be the best seasons for solar power, but then it tends to be cloudy all day.

Which brings us to the big problem of alternative energy; it's (relatively) unpredictable. A nucealr power station supplies a constant amount of power, fuel stations can be used to supply additional power and can be started up really fast, when they are needed. Solar cells work when the weather is good, which you can't really say far in advance. Which is a problem, since in the energy market as it is today, a company can 'order' energy and the supplier needs to supply it, they need backup if they were to rely mainly on alternative energy.

Windmills are a whole different league of trouble altogether though, yet they seem to be very popular in Europe now. Politics...

or another promising energy type: fossile fuels with greenhouse gas capture. These mechanisms involve capturing the emissions below earth's surface. There's a risk of leakage which may become dangerous, but it's quite good as it simulates the coal being bound in the earth again. Lack of binding in the earth is one of the main causes of the greenhouse effect.

I've only vaguely heard about this so I can't really comment, it sound like a good idea, but pretty expensive.

Indeed. Wind power and water power is for instance quite ridiculous, and actually harms nature more than some fossile fuels, while providing less energy.

Norway and a few other countries can get away with water power, it certainly damages a big area, but it's pretty clean for the rest of the world. Wind energy is a fad

That's correct. The oil isn't the main problem, but the coal is. When oil runs out, people will most likely switch to coal unless there's non-natural, i.e. law-based, restrictions added. It's quite sad that oil is used for energy btw, when it's useful for asphalt, lubricants, creation of plastic etc.

I don't see us going back to coal unless we absolutely have to. It requires transport of large quantities of coal (a few full trains a day per nuclear reactor), mining it is dangerous (see China) and unpopular work (we used immigrants back in the day) and it's quite pollutive (that may be solvable).

What is really needed is a good and efficient way to STORE power, that would solve a ton of problems with alternative energy. Currently superconductors can be used for quite efficient storage, but too bad they require Helium, which is a 'tactical resource' according to the US, which keeps the average company from using it.


PS: sorry for any spelling mistakes, spell check is acting up again

[Rodion Romanovich]

What is really needed is a good and efficient way to STORE power, that would solve a ton of problems with alternative energy. Currently superconductors can be used for quite efficient storage, but too bad they require Helium, which is a 'tactical resource' according to the US, which keeps the average company from using it.

The hydrogen fuel cells sound promising. But people are scared of hydrogen being explosive, for instance if used in cars. Ironically, they fail to realize that the fuel they put in their cars now is quite explosive too, especially if ignited, as is the case several hundred times per minute in a combustion engine

[Prodigal]

I'm a tad sensitive about this whole subject so I haven't read any of the posts on this thread. I think the real crux of the issue that everyone should consider is that whether global warming is true or not, it seems that something's not quite right, and that if there is someway of helping remedy the situation then its got to be worth a try.

You see the very simple totally unavoidable fact of the matter, (whether people like it or not), is that there isn't any other planet to go and live on if this one gets too ****** up, & the planet won't stop turning just because it no longer provides the things that humans require to live, it won't care anymore than a house would if you set it on fire.

So global warming fact or fancy? One way or another we're going to find out, and I really hope that global warming's a bunch of BS, course if it isn't...Then what?

[Kommodus]

I'm not an environmental scientist and haven't put much serious effort into studying how much of the global warming trend is the result of man's activities, so I won't comment on these points.

I will say this, however - and this is just my opinion - it seems unlikely that imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions will have a very big effect on climate. If any truly significant payoffs are to be had, they will only come when alternative energy sources are sufficiently developed and adopted widespread. For example, automobiles are among the big contributors of greenhouse gasses and other pollution, and we could eliminate most of this problem by using something other than fossil fuels to power them. Therefore, we should be focusing on research and development of better energy technologies, rather than treaties like Kyoto.

Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels would go a long way towards solving quite a few of the world's problems, not just global warming. To me, the big debate over whether or not the US should join Kyoto is pointless - it's just a lot of hot air (no pun intended). For the time being, we can try to be responsible in our fossil fuel consumption, but not at the cost of excessive economic harm when the possible benefits are so dubious. As I said, the real payoffs are down the road, when better energy sources become available.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

For example, automobiles are among the big contributors of greenhouse gasses and other pollution, and we could eliminate most of this problem by using something other than fossil fuels to power them. Therefore, we should be focusing on research and development of better energy technologies, rather than treaties like Kyoto.

Indeed, you can run diesel cars on vegetable oil, (with a few adjustments) although this in itself has a few problems as we would need to increase vegetable oil production quite a lot.

[m52nickerson]

Bio diesel looks very good. Stepping up oil production would not be that much of a problem, that and you can produce the fuel from recycled cooking oil as well.

The problem is that it still produces C02 gas.

[Marcellus]

Bio diesel looks very good. Stepping up oil production would not be that much of a problem, that and you can produce the fuel from recycled cooking oil as well.

The problem is that it still produces C02 gas.

Yes, but it's production (via plants etc.) removes CO2 from the atmosphere (in photosynthesis). So the amount of CO2 it releases is negated by the CO2 removed as the plant was growing. This is in contrast to fossil fuels, where the carbon was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago, not in the present day.