Global warming

[Byzantine Mercenary]

during the course of another disscussion in the forums i saw the subject of global warming (very briefly) come up, and i wanted to get some opinions, i personally have always held that it is real and very threatening and it was more a matter of establishing how much will change will occur and how best to prevent it,

is there anyone out there that doesn't agree?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Somebody make it go away . Not again please dont get me started

[Byzantine Mercenary]

what do you mean?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I mean this should be a sticky. Its one of the most debated topics in the history of these boards along with Israel - Palestine and Christianity and Islam.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

i agree,

it is a far reaching topic,

but i think that as a scientific disscussion views (should) change as the data does, so a disscussion may well be more fruitful on this topic then a disscussion on politics and religion?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

so a disscussion may well be more fruitful on this topic then a disscussion on politics and religion?

Since all three are intertwined I doubt it. Obviously youve never seen this disscussion. I will fight you tooth and nail

[JR-]

during the course of another disscussion in the forums i saw the subject of global warming (very briefly) come up, and i wanted to get some opinions, i personally have always held that it is real and very threatening and it was more a matter of establishing how much will change will occur and how best to prevent it,

is there anyone out there that doesn't agree?

The earth is certainly warming naturally. The earth has always fluctuated greatly in temeprature.

We are certainly having an impact on this fluctuation. Though what percentage this forms of the total is unknown.

The real question for me, is whether it is better to spend human wealth on accommodating humans to this new environment, or whether that wealth should be spent trying freeze the world in its current climatic state?

The first option represents what we, and every other successful species, have always done in the face of climactic adversity; evolved ourselves and our way of living to fit the new reality.

The second option represents what every failed civilisation in history has tried in the face of its decline; it has tried to reinforce against its failing and is in essence similar to extinct species.

Of course we should continue to enact environmental legislation that prevents us poisoning the land we live on, and yes we should encourage clean industry because efficiency is something to be desired from an economic standpoint as well as an environmental one, but most of all we should promote efficient consumption that reduces the necessary level of production.

However for me, the idea of trying to halt climate change on earth is very akin to attempting to air-condition your car whilst having the windows open, you are in essence trying to air-condition the entire world which is:
a) impossible - much like ignoring the impact of the sun/universe on our little earth. *
b) grossly inefficient in achieving its aims - money would be better spent providing weather-safe housing and infrastructure, clean water, and medical care. **
c) unethical - who determined that our present global climactic state is the optimum level ever achieved in earths history, and for whom? ***

* Q - "ah, but what about the scientific consensus?" A - this is foolish, we know too little to form any consensus in any direction.

** Q - "ah, but why don't we build houses and reduce CO2?" A - this is foolish, high public spending damages growth, and growth lifts people out of poverty.

*** Q - "ah, but thinking you know better is very arrogant is it not?" A - this is foolish, some people will benefit, some people will suffer, those people who are not given the opportunity to adapt will die, those who won't adapt in spite of the ability to do so will deserve to die.

This is of course a greatly simplified view, i too would like to see broadly stable global climate (after all, not having to adapt to a new reality is nice and easy), but for me it boils down to this:
Will humankind see greater future benefit were we to spend 0.5% of World GDP for the next 100 years from either; halting CO2 level change, or; improving the human condition?
I would argue for the latter, after all the earth is in constant fluctuation, and we will always have to adapt to meet it.

What happens when we get the next magnetic reversal and thus have no mechanism to protect us from solar and galactic radiation? It could happen any time from tomorrow onwards, but it is overdue and will result in roughly one thousand years of earth's irradiation.
Judging by the current response, we will have thousands of scientists claiming a unanimous consensus that we should spend the totality of human wealth digging to the centre of the earth whereupon we will install moon sized paddles to force circulation of the outer core, thus generating a new artificial magnetic field!

It is also (IMO), an act of staggering hubris, that we might imagine we have enough knowledge and power to control global climate at will.

So there you are, my views in brief.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The first option represents what we, and every other successful species, have always done in the face of climactic adversity; evolved ourselves and our way of living to fit the new reality.

The second option represents what every failed civilisation in history has tried in the face of its decline; it has tried to reinforce against its failing and is in essence similar to extinct species.

Slaves adapt to their environment. Masters adapt the environment to themselves. Successful species don't settle with adapting themselves to what exists, but make sure that what exists remains: population sizes in animal herds are regulated so they don't extinct their food sources. Successful predators don't extinct their prey, successful herbivores don't create deserts out of the fertile land.

By the way, no animal species is adapting itself to a new environment. It's the environment that brutally kills loads of animals who can't stand the new environment, until only a small number of animals, which may be an entirely different species, are still alive.

Not to mention the fact that all methods for adapting mankind to living in higher temperatures involve increased pollution which increases temperature even further. Air conditioning only contributes to more global warming. Only way to turn the tide is to 1. halt emissions and imposing population growth limitations, or 2. global mass death of human beings by war, starvation, overheating and genocide, or 3. hope that through some miracle we can learn to improve our technology about 10-1000 times faster than we've ever improved technology before in history.

I prefer option no. 1.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Slaves adapt to their environment. Masters adapt the environment to themselves.

And this is the big problem with all you global warming guys. We are not the masters of the earth. Just look at all those jerks who live near volcanoes. Nothing you can do when mother nature raises her wrath. Nature is the master not man. 99% of every species that has ever been is now extinct.

No, pollution supporters are trying to barbeque the entire world.

There are no pollution supporters.

[Rodion Romanovich]

And this is the big problem with all you global warming guys. We are not the masters of the earth.

Perhaps then, if we're not masters of it, we should stop trying to barbeque it and adapt to it, instead of changing it significantly.

Nature is the master not man.

Good that you're finally realizing this.

There are no pollution supporters.

How can you support continued pollution without being a pollution supporter?

[R'as al Ghul]

Only way to turn the tide is to 1. halt emissions and imposing population growth limitations, [..]
I prefer option no. 1.

Well, if we stop the emissions the effect of Global dimming (darkening of the atmosphere by pollution) will decrease, the warming will accelerate and the effect on the earth will be even stronger than today.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well, if we stop the emissions the effect of Global dimming (darkening of the atmosphere by pollution) will decrease, the warming will accelerate and the effect on the earth will be even stronger than today.

No. Incoming light has shorter wavelengths than outgoing light. Getting rid of gases that are better at stopping long wavelengths will lower temperatures. I don't think you've understood the principle behind global warming.

[R'as al Ghul]

No. Incoming light has shorter wavelengths than outgoing light. Getting rid of gases that are better at stopping long wavelengths will lower temperatures. I don't think you've understood the principle behind global warming.

So, you dispute the idea of Global Dimming or why do you think I've not understood?

[Rodion Romanovich]

you are in essence trying to air-condition the entire world

No, pollution supporters are trying to barbeque the entire world.

[Rodion Romanovich]

It is also IMO an act of staggering hubris, that we might imagine we have enough knowledge and power to control global climate at will.

http://www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu....pollution.jpg
http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/medi..._pollution.jpg
http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/Coastal-E.../pollution.gif
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ollution_1.jpg
http://www.lizasreef.com/HOPE%20FOR%...ollution_1.jpg
http://www.destinationchine.com/dala...-pollution.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculu5
It is also IMO an act of staggering hubris, that we might imagine we have enough knowledge and power to control global climate at will.

http://www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu....pollution.jpg
http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/medi..._pollution.jpg
http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/Coastal-E.../pollution.gif
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ollution_1.jpg
http://www.lizasreef.com/HOPE%20FOR%...ollution_1.jpg
http://www.destinationchine.com/dala...-pollution.jpg

Maybe I should post some pictures of the antartic or Alaska

This is my biggest gripe with global warming

* Q - "ah, but what about the scientific consensus?" A - this is foolish, we know too little to form any consensus in any direction.

We dont have near enough knowledge and the cure could be worse than the disease. Its not like it threatens to end the world or man kind. Better to learn to adapt than play god. The earth will change drasticly no matter what we do.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Maybe I should post some pictures of the antartic or Alaska

I can do that for you:
http://environment.about.com/od/heal...laskawaste.htm

This is my biggest gripe with global warming

We dont have near enough knowledge and the cure could be worse than the disease. Its not like it threatens to end the world or man kind. Better to learn to adapt than play god. The earth will change drasticly no matter what we do.

We're doing something actively to increase global temperatures. I find it odd that you can at the same time say we don't know anything about it, and that we still should continue to actively work to do something we don't know if it will increase temperatures by 5 degrees or 30 degrees in the coming 10 years of the coming 30 years.

[JR-]

http://www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu....pollution.jpg
http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/medi..._pollution.jpg
http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/Coastal-E.../pollution.gif
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ollution_1.jpg
http://www.lizasreef.com/HOPE%20FOR%...ollution_1.jpg
http://www.destinationchine.com/dala...-pollution.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

thanks for the vast pile of irrelevance.

[Rodion Romanovich]

thanks for the vast pile of irrelevance.

You're welcome

[Slyspy]

Global warming is, on balance, happening. It may or may not be influenced by mankind.

Thats about it.

The only real argument is that since we can't tell whether we are influencing it should we (a) stick our heads in the sand and take whatever happens as it comes or (b) take expensive action to limit our impact, a course which may well be futile anyway.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

The earth goes through natural changes, but I do think human activity has had a very negative impact on the atmosphere.

Scientists from 113 UN nations colaborated on a paper about humans effecting global warming. I would trust their judgement.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Scientists from 113 UN nations colaborated on a paper about humans effecting global warming. I would trust their judgement.

Except its agenda driven and not wriiten by the scientists but the politicians. As Ive said many trust the judgment of their priest. Your taking this matter on faith.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Except its agenda driven and not wriiten by the scientists but the politicians. As Ive said many trust the judgment of their priest. Your taking this matter on faith.

I do believe it was written by the scientists. Why do you say otherwise? Speculation or you have seen that somewhere?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Speculation or you have seen that somewhere?

Ive seen it and its a fact. I mean f your talking about the IPPC report.

Heres just one link

IPPC: Fraud

The recent IPPC report on climate change is a fraud. The recent report was just a "Summary for Policymakers" document, written by politicians for politicians. The real science will follow shortly - some 3 months after the summary document. This is not using sound methodology, as one should not publish conclusions before their justification. Nonetheless, this in itself is not fraud. However, it is when combined with the scientific report guidlines:

Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

Source (Page 4)

In other words, the politicians have made their assertions independent of the evidence, and will doct the scientific case to suit their own means. For those interested, the draft report has been published (without permission) here, so that it can be compared to the edited version due to be published soon.

As a research scientist, I find this behaviour abhorant. Only way to stop such fraud is to raise awareness - only then might the IPPC be forced into changing its policy of doctoring science for its own political agenda.

LINK

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Thank you. I still believe CFC's are harmful to our atmosphere and it is a fact we're letting off plenty into the air.