Climate Change

[NeonSamurai]

That's why you should ignore the so called experts such as Al Gore, other mouthpieces, and outlier scientists. Certain interest groups are trying hard to throw mud all over the issue to obscure and diffuse it so people don't care, or come to faulty conclusions based on biased (or false) sources.

What matters most is what the general scientific community thinks on the issue, and the science and data itself.

Wikipedia does a pretty good job of offering all the evidence, best of all it has a 126 item reference list with all the research and papers that went into the wiki entry if you want to look over the research yourself (its only a small fraction of the total body of evidence though). It also has a lot for further reading, and many links too.

Skepticism is very important in science, a good scientist should always retain a degree of skepticism about any topic or theory, but that skepticism needs to be followed by investigation to verify if the skepticism is valid or not. Just saying you are skeptical is not enough, it needs to be backed up.

[August]

Originally Posted by Lionclaw

It's a bit frustrating when it's going back and forth with "there's global warming", "there's no global warming" by so called "experts", my skepticism for the whole thing grows as time goes.

That's not exactly the debate though. Neither side questions that there is climate change. The world constantly warms and cools, get's wetter, dryer and always has. The debate is whether the recent changes are:

A. Abnormal
B. Caused by man (and how)

...and most importantly:

C. What can and should we do about it, if anything.

And in the end I only feel like: F**k 'em, let those people battle it out while I try to live my life.

Quite understandable and you certainly wouldn't be alone in doing just that, but just remember that you still have a stake in the argument as your cost of living that life will be directly and majorly affected by which ever side ultimately prevails.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by August

Quite understandable and you certainly wouldn't be alone in doing just that, but just remember that you still have a stake in the argument as your cost of living that life will be directly and majorly affected by which ever side ultimately prevails.

The side that prevails isn't that important. Fact is there will be costs no matter who "wins" in the end (I don't think that any side will win, simply because the members of the other simply will ignore all the evidence presented to them). In the end you might end up spending for "saving the planet" in advance (now) or you will end up spending for cleaning up the mess of pollution later (not just because of global warming but because of pollution in general and excessive fossil energy consumption throughout the world).

So either way we will have to change something and it will cost us. There simply is no keeping status quo, at least not unless someone finds a way to power our cars and planes with an endlessly available, clean and cheap fuel.
We will have to adopt to new technology to get away from oil before it gets unaffordable no matter whether you believe in Global Warming or not. It will also make us more independent from some rather unstable regions in the world that are making fortunes in delivering oil to us right now.

[Lionclaw]

Originally Posted by August

That's not exactly the debate though. Neither side questions that there is climate change. The world constantly warms and cools, get's wetter, dryer and always has. The debate is whether the recent changes are:

A. Abnormal
B. Caused by man (and how)

...and most importantly:

C. What can and should we do about it, if anything.

Ah yes, sorry about that. In my frustration of the subject, I failed see the whole picture.

It's quite difficult to comprehend really about the impact we humans make on the climate. As long as the earth has existed, mankind has only existed for a very brief moment. But in that brief moment we have done quite much. But whether we're to blame for the change of climate, I have no idea.

That's all for me, I'll try to stay clear from debates since I'm not very good at it. I'll continue reading though as I usually do.

[NeonSamurai]

Its not actually that hard to understand.

The basic science goes like this. We (and nature) produce massive amounts of CO2 gas. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means that it lets light in, but reflects heat (this is a scientific fact). So the light comes in, hits the planet, some of it gets turned into heat (depending on the color of the surface, dark colors = more heat) and the rest of the light gets reflected back into space. Heat also radiates out from the planet, the problem though is when there is more CO2 it reflects more heat back towards the planet, which increases the temperature.

This has other side effects such as melting the ice on the planet (north and south poles in particular) which increases the surface area of liquid water on the planet, which being dark and semi transparent converts a lot of light into heat energy, which starts a snowball effect, because as the oceans warm up they tend to release even more CO2, which warms up the planet even more, melting more ice, etc.

This is the very basic science behind global warming. Obviously it doesn't cover all the finer details. As for how much CO2 we as a species are releasing into the environment, many estimates put it on par or exceeding the amount nature is estimated to produce on its own (before it is converted back by plants). Add to that the rapid deforestation of the planet by man (forests are a key part in reabsorbing and trapping CO2), and we have a big problem.

So to me I don't possibly see how we are not largely responsible for what is happening (beyond the usual fluctuations of nature). If some scientific predictions are right, we are heading towards very big trouble indeed (and I mean mass extinction on a global scale), which might even cause our own extinction (or near extinction).

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Skepticism is very important in science, a good scientist should always retain a degree of skepticism about any topic or theory, but that skepticism needs to be followed by investigation to verify if the skepticism is valid or not. Just saying you are skeptical is not enough, it needs to be backed up.

Bravo!

[krashkart]

^^ Yes I second that.

[Lionclaw]

D'oh... I've managed make a fool of myself again.

I hate making mistakes... I shouldn't have posted in this thread at all.
Self confidence takes another hit.


Sorry, I usually only read these discussions you people have, if participating as you've witnessed I forget about other things, make myself look dumber (don't know if that's the right word I'm looking for) than I am. I'm not really comfortable with social interaction with people I don't know, I get insecure. But I guess it's good to practice.

I should've stuck to "not getting into debates", it only goes bad.

Sorry, I'll stay clear in the future.

[August]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

In the end you might end up spending for "saving the planet" in advance (now) or you will end up spending for cleaning up the mess of pollution later (not just because of global warming but because of pollution in general and excessive fossil energy consumption throughout the world).

Well tell you the truth Schroeder i'd rather pay to clean up the mess later than throw a bunch of money away now on schemes that will not solve the problem, which is basically what the human caused global warming believers are asking everyone to do. Let Algore and his kind make their money some other way.

So either way we will have to change something and it will cost us. There simply is no keeping status quo, at least not unless someone finds a way to power our cars and planes with an endlessly available, clean and cheap fuel.
We will have to adopt to new technology to get away from oil before it gets unaffordable no matter whether you believe in Global Warming or not. It will also make us more independent from some rather unstable regions in the world that are making fortunes in delivering oil to us right now.

I see your point but i'd say that a much, much higher priority would to get world human populations stabilized at sustainable levels or which fuel we use to power our cars will not matter at all.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Lionclaw

D'oh... I've managed make a fool of myself again.

I hate making mistakes... I shouldn't have posted in this thread at all.
Self confidence takes another hit.


Sorry, I usually only read these discussions you people have, if participating as you've witnessed I forget about other things, make myself look dumber (don't know if that's the right word I'm looking for) than I am. I'm not really comfortable with social interaction with people I don't know, I get insecure. But I guess it's good to practice.

I should've stuck to "not getting into debates", it only goes bad.

Sorry, I'll stay clear in the future.

Hang out, get on the soapbox, preach my son! You'll get the hang of things.

......

I'm not too good at debates either.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by August

I see your point but i'd say that a much, much higher priority would to get world human populations stabilized at sustainable levels or which fuel we use to power our cars will not matter at all.

I'd have to agree with August there. Our population is growing rather quickly.


EDIT:

Sorry for the back-to-back post. I could have just edited my previous one.

[Schroeder]

@August

I agree that population control would be required to succeed in fighting pollution and shortage of resources. Unfortunately not everyone thinks so...India anyone?

However on the rest of your post we will just have to agree to disagree.
I've seen what acid rain has done to our forests and even years later still 3/4 of our trees are sick and weakened. I think we have come to a point where we already have to clean up and the longer we wait the costlier and more difficult it'll get.
I won't deny that there are idiots who are just preaching for the fast buck but when I compare my current environment with pictures of the 70ies or my personal experience with the environment of the DDR when it still existed, then I'm very glad that Germany has decided to get more or less green while still having heavy industry that can compete with the rest of the world (mostly....).

[krashkart]

My mother was able to see the Sawtooth Mountains from where she lived as a kid (maybe a good 200 miles or so). When I was a kid we could barely see them through the haze on a good day.

[August]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

However on the rest of your post we will just have to agree to disagree.

Don't get me wrong Schroeder. I fully support pro-environmental efforts that produce tangible results but things like trading carbon credits is going to do nothing but make some people rich and the rest of us poorer.

[Aramike]

Winter in Wisconsin is NOT what it used to be, even 15 years ago. It used to be late October thru early March, now it's become December to mid-February ... I can already smell spring in the air ...

Whoa, now, I've lived in Wisconsin nearly 40 years and it seems to me that winter is still the same unpredictable mess that it was when I was a child. We've had tough ones and we've had easy ones. Nothing's really changed.

In any case, it's very difficult for me to understand the line of reasoning that man could not possible change the conditions which directly effect our climate. It's not my ego that presents me that thought - it's mere observation.

Has anyone ever been to L.A.? I'm pretty sure that ever-present smog didn't come about naturally. Or look at a photo of the night side of Earth from space. That man can have an effect on the planet becomes obvious.

Yes, in a lot of cases (if not most), such adverse conditions tend to remain localized. But it only takes a brief glimpse at a map of jetstreams to know that pollutants are going SOMEWHERE (they don't just disappear).

And finally, through observation I've learned that mixing different substances, or changing the ratio of the way said substances are mixed, alters the observable properties of those substances. Meaning, if you put of bunch of junk into the air, it's going to change the way that air "behaves".

But see, here's the thing: while man may be fundamentally altering nature (although I don't think it's nearly to the extent that the alarmists claim), we don't really know WHAT is happening. So-called global warming science has been nothing more than "bad things are gonna happen man, and any bad thing that happens is caused by global warming". Too little snow? Global warming. Too much snow? Global warming.

In the end, the Earth's climate has been changing for millions of years. Hell, if the dinosaurs bitched enough and were able to prevent climate change, man likely would have never evolved. Yet, for some reason, we've decided that this particular climate is THE climate our planet needs to maintain.

Now THAT is ego, friends.