Global warming is happening, whether conservatives like it or not (1 Viewer)

[saggyjones]

This was originally a reply to another thread, but since it's on the 6th page and nobody's going to read it, I'll make a new thread. Here's the post:

I can't believe the ignorance of some people. Here's a link that proves that a climate change is occurring.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/11/13th_tipping_point-3.html

I have a feeling that some republicans classify Mother Jones as another Weekly World News, but I can assure you it's not. And unless you're into science, more specifically climatology, you probably won't want to read the whole article, so I'll sum it up here (even if you're not into science you should read it sometime, it's really interesting):

IN 2004, JOHN SCHELLNHUBER, distinguished science adviser at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the United Kingdom, identified 12 global-warming tipping points, any one of which, if triggered, will likely initiate sudden, catastrophic changes across the planet.

These tipping points are:
1. Amazon Rainforest
2. North Atlantic Current
3. Greenland Ice Sheet
4. Ozone Hole
5. Antarctic Circumpolar Current
6. Sahara Desert
7. Tibetan Plateau
8. Asian Monsoon
9. Methane Clathrates
10. Salinity Valves
11. El Niño
12. West Antarctic Ice Sheet

One of the major scenarios is mainly caused by carbon dioxide in the air, the result of burning fossil fuels and deforestation, particularly in the Amazon. As the air and oceans grow warmer from this CO2 output (which Americans are responsible for 25% of but are only 5% of the global population), ice caps and icebergs in the north Atlantic and Arctic melt, diluting the water (more regular water in the salt water) and slowing down the North Atlantic Current, also called the THC. The THC is responsible for the thermal equivalent of 500,000 power stations' worth of warmth to Europe. As it slows down and finally stops, Europe experiences a loss of power and heat, and in the worst case scenario, completely freezes.

There are many complex scenarios and some others are listed in the article mentioned above. The big problem is that the whole world is linked. A change in Greenland's climate could spell disaster for the Amazon, for example. The only thing keeping this from happening, at this point, is us. If we find alternative energy sources, we can stop burning fossil fuels, and therefore save the planet. Believe me or not, this is a proven fact, not an opinion.

 

[Schweddy]

Global Warming (climate change) theorists have many *hypotheses*.

All of which are truly interesting and none of which can be proven as fact.
We only have ~100 years of weather data out of possible billions.

I am currently taking Environmental Science in college. Even as a conservative it is very interesting. Everything we do affects the biosphere. However, my position is that it took billions of years to get to this point and the earth has adapted to us killing animals, burning grasslands, forests and detrital matter that has decomposed. The earth has lasted through earthquakes, floods, meteors, glancing comets, and of course naturally occurring deforestation through lightning fires.

Several of the 'greenhouse gases' are not caused by humans. It occurs in the wild - take decomposition of organic matter for example. The NO eventually makes its way up to the stratosphere and breaks down in the O2 layers before it makes its way back to earth to help naturally fertilize plants/trees and is necessary for photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis we would not be here.

The question is not *if* there is climate change, it is *how much*. Additionally, how bad is it really?

 

[saggyjones]

Global Warming (climate change) theorists have many *hypotheses*.

All of which are truly interesting and none of which can be proven as fact.
We only have ~100 years of weather data out of possible billions.

I am currently taking Environmental Science in college. Even as a conservative it is very interesting. Everything we do affects the biosphere. However, my position is that it took billions of years to get to this point and the earth has adapted to us killing animals, burning grasslands, forests and detrital matter that has decomposed. The earth has lasted through earthquakes, floods, meteors, glancing comets, and of course naturally occurring deforestation through lightning fires.

Several of the 'greenhouse gases' are not caused by humans. It occurs in the wild - take decomposition of organic matter for example. The NO eventually makes its way up to the stratosphere and breaks down in the O2 layers before it makes its way back to earth to help naturally fertilize plants/trees and is necessary for photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis we would not be here.

The question is not *if* there is climate change, it is *how much*. Additionally, how bad is it really?

The earth has lasted through those disasters, but humans cannot, because the earth is not a living thing (obviously). The most likely scenario taken to the most extreme and worst case is a total freezing of the earth. Some radical scientists predict this as being soon, as in the next 20-50 years. More rationally, it will be a problem our children and grandchildren have to face. But it's constantly declining toward that, and the earth gets warmer and less beautiful every day.

Several of the 'greenhouse gases' are not caused by humans. It occurs in the wild - take decomposition of organic matter for example. The NO eventually makes its way up to the stratosphere and breaks down in the O2 layers before it makes its way back to earth to help naturally fertilize plants/trees and is necessary for photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis we would not be here.

You know that plants output oxygen from CO2 right? And I don't see how breaking down the 02 layers in the stratosphere makes any difference to global warming. So photosynthesis breaks down 02 into 0, which combined with carbon makes carbon monoxide? How is our atmosphere not filled with this? Unless you mean 03, which is trioxide and makes up our ozone.

Despite the scientific flaws with your argument that I found (though I'm only in chemistry in high school, so I'm more than likely wrong), photosynthesis slows down global warming because the plants take in the CO2 and release oxygen.

 

[Schweddy]

You know that plants output oxygen from CO2 right? And I don't see how breaking down the 02 layers in the stratosphere makes any difference to global warming. So photosynthesis breaks down 02 into 0, which combined with carbon makes carbon monoxide? How is our atmosphere not filled with this? Unless you mean 03, which is trioxide and makes up our ozone.

Nope, I mean 02. 03 = Ozone, but that is not causing the type of global warming that you are speaking about. Too much ozone can be an issue, but the vast majority of the issues this week are coming from plants, cars and the burning forrests.

The increased CO2 in the atmosphere warms the Earth's surface and leads to melting of ice near the poles.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Despite the scientific flaws with your argument that I found (though I'm only in chemistry in high school, so I'm more than likely wrong), photosynthesis slows down global warming because the plants take in the CO2 and release oxygen.

photosynthesis = awesome. Needed for life itself. There are very few organisms found on earth (deep in the sea) that do not rely on photosynthesis to sustain. The by product is good, too much by product = bad. That by product is Nitrogen.

Scientists are claiming both 02 & 03 are the issues. But, 02 is the biggest threat by far.

03 is needed to block harmful UV rays. 02 does not allow the reflection of the sun back out so the earths temp is increasing.

03 & 02 are both naturally occurring. 02 comes from almost every living animal. 03 comes from 02 and reactions in the air as well as from industry. Increased nitrogen + 03 = depletion of Ozone over Northern Poles. Melting glaciers = even more increased nitrogen.

What will really get your goat is that there is proof that global warming and global cooling are happening concurrently.

 

[talloulou]

Ice caps on Mars are also melting aren't they? I've also read evidence about global warming on Jupitor and Triton. Are we causing that? To think we are wrecking havoc on our own planet doesn't require much of a stretch in the imagination but to believe my car is causing problems on Jupiter does.

I don't think anyone questions that something is happening but whether it is something that we have caused or can do anything about vs it being a cyclical thing beyond our control is the big question. And with evidence about the other planets, which you rarely hear, I tend to lean towards the belief that global warming is not something we have much control over.

 

[saggyjones]

Ice caps on Mars are also melting aren't they? I've also read evidence about global warming on Jupitor and Triton. Are we causing that? To think we are wrecking havoc on our own planet doesn't require much of a stretch in the imagination but to believe my car is causing problems on Jupiter does.

I don't think anyone questions that something is happening but whether it is something that we have caused or can do anything about vs it being a cyclical thing beyond our control is the big question. And with evidence about the other planets, which you rarely hear, I tend to lean towards the belief that global warming is not something we have much control over.

The ice caps on mars melt every warm season and freeze again every cold season. You see, Mars has seasons just like our Earth because of the tilt of the planet toward the sun. Here's an excerpt from http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. "It's late spring at the south pole of Mars," says planetary scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it."

Jupiter also is currently experiencing climate changes. This is caused by a shift in vortices. There is a climate change that happens about every 70 years on Jupiter, and it's experiencing one now. I got this info from http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/21_jupiter.shtml

Even if Mars and Jupiter are experiencing dramatic climate changes, their climates are completely incongruous with Earth's.

Scientists have determined that a number of human activities are contributing to global warming by adding excessive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide accummulate in the atmosphere and trap heat that normally would exit into outer space.

While many greenhouse gases occur naturally and are needed to keep the Earth warm enough to support life, human use of fossil fuels is the main source of excess greenhouse gases. By driving cars, using electricity from coal-fired power plants, or heating our homes with oil or natural gas, we release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. Deforestation is another significant source of greenhouse gases, because fewer trees means less carbon dioxide conversion to oxygen.

http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/globalwarming.htm

This proves that humans are contributing to global warming. I tried to find as non-biased a source as I could, and about.com is solely for information, not propaganda, so I'm confident I succeeded in that.

 

[Schweddy]

The question is not *if* there is climate change, it is *how much*. Additionally, how bad is it really?

Let me rewrite it.

There is climate change aka Global Warming! :2wave:

How much are humans affecting it?

That "how much" is the million dollar question.

Some scientists say humans affect the biosphere (earth) little, some say infinitesimal, some say we will burn up tomorrow. Who is right?

I think I confused you with the 02/03 thing. Sorry about that. However, 02 being the issue is more accurate than 03 according to many more scientists. It can be confusing when learning about respiration and photosynthesis in class. 02 is neccessary for photosynthesis.

 

[saggyjones]

Let me rewrite it.

There is climate change aka Global Warming! :2wave:

How much are humans affecting it?

That "how much" is the million dollar question.

Some scientists say humans affect the biosphere (earth) little, some say infinitesimal, some say we will burn up tomorrow. Who is right?

What I'm trying to do with this thread is convince people that global warming is happening and that humans are contributing to it. Whether or not you (as in people in general) believe there is an imminent threat to the Earth, cutting down and eventually eliminating the use of greenhouse gases in cars and such will greatly improve the environment. Who wants to live in a world filled with pollution? Also, fossil fuels are running out so we need to cut down on their use and find an alternative energy source.

I think I confused you with the 02/03 thing. Sorry about that. However, 02 being the issue is more accurate than 03 according to many more scientists. It can be confusing when learning about respiration and photosynthesis in class. 02 is neccessary for photosynthesis.

I realize O2 is necessary for photosynthesis because it's in CO2. However, O2 alone is oxygen, the stuff we breath. CO2 is the stuff that is bad for the environment if there's too much. Trees can't take in an infinite amount of carbon dioxide, so more than just trees and other plants are needed to keep our environment clean and safe.

I'm sure you already know all that; I don't mean to patronize you lol

 

[stsburns]

This was originally a reply to another thread, but since it's on the 6th page and nobody's going to read it, I'll make a new thread. Here's the post:

I can't believe the ignorance of some people. Here's a link that proves that a climate change is occurring.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/11/13th_tipping_point-3.html

I have a feeling that some republicans classify Mother Jones as another Weekly World News, but I can assure you it's not. And unless you're into science, more specifically climatology, you probably won't want to read the whole article, so I'll sum it up here (even if you're not into science you should read it sometime, it's really interesting):


These tipping points are:
1. Amazon Rainforest
2. North Atlantic Current
3. Greenland Ice Sheet
4. Ozone Hole
5. Antarctic Circumpolar Current
6. Sahara Desert
7. Tibetan Plateau
8. Asian Monsoon
9. Methane Clathrates
10. Salinity Valves
11. El Niño
12. West Antarctic Ice Sheet

One of the major scenarios is mainly caused by carbon dioxide in the air, the result of burning fossil fuels and deforestation, particularly in the Amazon. As the air and oceans grow warmer from this CO2 output (which Americans are responsible for 25% of but are only 5% of the global population), ice caps and icebergs in the north Atlantic and Arctic melt, diluting the water (more regular water in the salt water) and slowing down the North Atlantic Current, also called the THC. The THC is responsible for the thermal equivalent of 500,000 power stations' worth of warmth to Europe. As it slows down and finally stops, Europe experiences a loss of power and heat, and in the worst case scenario, completely freezes.

There are many complex scenarios and some others are listed in the article mentioned above. The big problem is that the whole world is linked. A change in Greenland's climate could spell disaster for the Amazon, for example. The only thing keeping this from happening, at this point, is us. If we find alternative energy sources, we can stop burning fossil fuels, and therefore save the planet. Believe me or not, this is a proven fact, not an opinion.

Environmentalism, is as much a business as Iraq is to Haliburton. When propaganda is good, business is good.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Let me rewrite it.

There is climate change aka Global Warming! :2wave:

How much are humans affecting it?

That "how much" is the million dollar question.

Bingo.

Furthermore, assuming humans contribute a significant portion to global warming, how much of an impact can we reasonably make in reducing it and at what cost?

How much is too much sand in the gears of the global economic machine?

 

[saggyjones]

Bingo.

Furthermore, assuming humans contribute a significant portion to global warming, how much of an impact can we reasonably make in reducing it and at what cost?

How much is too much sand in the gears of the global economic machine?

Finding an alternative energy source would benefit the planet for obvious reasons, but also the economy because we wouldn't be reliant on foreign oil. There would probably be short-term consequences like many oil companies going out of business, but that's most likely going to happen in our lifetimes anyway because fossil fuels will run out. That's why we have to move slowly but surely with this because humans naturally don't like a bunch of change at once.

But that's just the national level. The global economy would be hurt because some nations whose economies rely on oil as an export wouldn't have as many buyers, so would have to raise the prices, and so on. A smart oil company, however, would get into the business of alternative energy.

In the long run, finding an alternative energy source is the difference between life and death and would benefit the economy. But in the short run (if that's even an expression lol) the economy would probably be hurt.

 

[saggyjones]

Environmentalism, is as much a business as Iraq is to Haliburton. When propaganda is good, business is good.

So you truly believe that global warming is propaganda? Wow, you really are an ignorant prick. Future generations (if there are any) are going to look back on people like you and be disgusted.

I respect the people who aren't convinced that humans are contributing to global warming, but to be in denial about it when there's proof everywhere? That is true ignorance.

 

[Schweddy]

No need to call names, we are speaking from an unproven scientific hypothesis. Everyone is ignorant on the true effects from Global Warming.

There is alot of propaganda, and alternative fuels are actually coming into play. It is not an overnight 'fix'. Capitolism doesn't quite work that way. We will be on much more environmentally safe fuels within the next 10 years.

 

[WI Crippler]

I moved my wife from Charleston, SC back home with me to Wisconsin. I think she is all for some global warming right about now. Its going to be awesome having her 9 months pregnant in the beginning of Feburary. :doh

Seriously speaking, I agree with most people here. yes we have an impact, but the question is how much??

I am all for renewable energy scources, but I am also for some more oil drilling for the US until the renewable energies can pick up the energy consumption for our country.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Lots and lots and lots of missinformation and ignorance related the to science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming Floating around here. Anthropogenic Global Warming is certainly not just a hypothesis. It is the scientific concensus backed by multiple studies each backed by multiple lines of evidence.

I have posted this all before, but I think the best thing that can be done is to lay out the basic science behind it:

First off, The National Academy of Sciences, the worlds most respected Scientific Society, released a peer reviewed study recently that found that the Earth's Climate is now warmer than it has been in over 12,000 years.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2489742

Now there are those who have argued that warming is simply due to "natural variances". They make the claim that it could simply be due to solar variances. The problem with that argument, is that last May the U.S. Climate Change Science Program released a peer reviewed study on warming at the Surface, the Troposphere, and Stratosphere.

They found that the Earth has warmed at the surface, warmed in the Troposphere, yet cooled in the Stratosphere. This is very important to this debate. The reason is that warming due to natural variances, such as solar or orbital variances, is contingent on a warming Stratosphere. Greenhouse Warming, is contingent on a cooling Stratosphere. The reason for this is basic thermal physics. Increased solar activity or orbital variations would result in top down warming, essentially, the stratosphere would have to be warming as well. On the otherhand, Greenhouse Effect Warming results in a cooling Stratosphere, because more heat is trapped at the surface and the troposphere and less heat escapes into the stratosphere and thus back into space.

Therefore, we can definitively state today, as a result of this study and others like it, that most of our current warming is due to Greenhouse Effect Warming.

Source: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm

The next question is: Do we know that Human Activity has resulted in an increased level of Carbon Dioxide since the Industrial Revolution? The answer is yes we do. There is a direct correlation between worldwide economic growth and development, and Atmospheric CO2 concentrations as shown here:

We also know that there is a direct correlation between Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations, and Global Temperatures as shown here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png

Of course, warm climatic periods are not always preceded by increases in CO2 concentrations, as other climatic forces can force climate changes as well. However, the trend is very clear. Absent other mitigating factors, such as orbital and or solar variations, increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations results in climatic warming. The causation is basic thermal physics, and the correlation is backed by multiple lines of peer reviewed evidence. Moreover, as sourced earlier, those possible mitigating factors have been ruled out by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Study released last May.

There is a great deal of missinformation related to Anthropogenic Global Warming being put out by various ideological and industry funded groups. One of the principle sources for this information is the appropriately named www.junkscience.com. A site ran by a paid lobbyist for the chemical industry. The common theme for Anthropogenic Global Warming Deniers though, is that they never actually subject any of their articles and or "studies" to peer review.

The Scientific Concensus behind Anthropogenic Global Warming is extremely strong. Every single Scientific Society in the industrialized world with expertise in Climate Officially backs the theory. You can read their official positions here:

National Academy of Sciences:
http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange/

American Geophysical Society:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

American Association for the Advancement of Science:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0616climate.shtml

Finally there is the question of costs. Specifically, what would be the costs of taking action today to curb worldwide carbon emissions verses what would be the costs of unmitigated Anthropogenic Global Warming. The Chief Economist for the World Bank just completed a study on this very issue, and found:

And his case to the business and economics communities, which as a former World Bank economist he is well placed to make, is that action now will cost a mere 1% of global GDP by 2050, whereas business as usual could cost up to 20%.

The overall message of the report is not fundamentally new. In its 2001 report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated costs in the same ballpark.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6098124.stm

So, if we do nothing, the eventual costs of unmitigated Global Warming will be up to 20% of GDP a year. However, taking action will only cost about 1% of GDP a year.

 

[saggyjones]

Thank you SouthernDemocrat for that argument, I don't know how to put it any better.

And sorry for calling you an ignorant prick stsburns.

 

[WI Crippler]

I think this thread is different than the others because most of us involved in this one agree we have an impact, but some of us are questioning exactly how much of an impact we are having when you have people like Al Gore out there telling us that hell is about to break loose on us. I personally think its being overstated on the left to further strengthen the ties they have with enviro groups, and its being understated by the right to strengthen the ties with oil comps. the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, and there are steps that are being taken , but there is not currently a solution to effectively replace it all right now. So just be patient.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I think this thread is different than the others because most of us involved in this one agree we have an impact, but some of us are questioning exactly how much of an impact we are having when you have people like Al Gore out there telling us that hell is about to break loose on us. I personally think its being overstated on the left to further strengthen the ties they have with enviro groups, and its being understated by the right to strengthen the ties with oil comps. the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, and there are steps that are being taken , but there is not currently a solution to effectively replace it all right now. So just be patient.

We know what we need to do. We know the costs of action and inaction. The political will is the problem. The majority of estimates put the costs of curbing carbon emissions at approximately 1% of yearly GDP. The costs of inaction are estimated to be 20% of yearly GDP and that is with conservative estimates on temperature increases. A three degree increase in worldwide temps over the next century will consume 20% of the world's domestic product. The consequences that Al Gore talks about in his documentary are mainstream science. It is the middle ground on this issue.

The problem with waiting it out, is that it is the growing scientific concensus that we only have about a ten year window to start taking significant action in curbing carbon emissions. We simply do not have time to be patient. The fact is, for slightly less than the yearly cost of the war in Iraq, we could be taking significant steps toward investing in a sustainable economy. The technology is here today, the will is the problem.

Three degrees may not seem like a lot, but you have to remember the difference between the climate we have today, and a sheet of ice a mile thick extending over the entire northern half of the U.S. is just a drop of 5 degrees Celsius. You see for every 1 degree increase at the equator, you have a 12 degree increase at the poles. Think about that. Is that the world that you want your children and grandchildren inheriting?

 

[saggyjones]

I think this thread is different than the others because most of us involved in this one agree we have an impact, but some of us are questioning exactly how much of an impact we are having when you have people like Al Gore out there telling us that hell is about to break loose on us. I personally think its being overstated on the left to further strengthen the ties they have with enviro groups, and its being understated by the right to strengthen the ties with oil comps. the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, and there are steps that are being taken , but there is not currently a solution to effectively replace it all right now. So just be patient.

Yeah right, be patient and let Congress sort it out. It'll be years before any progress is made unless they take some action and pass some effective bills.

 

[stsburns]

This was originally a reply to another thread, but since it's on the 6th page and nobody's going to read it, I'll make a new thread. Here's the post:

I can't believe the ignorance of some people. Here's a link that proves that a climate change is occurring.

The Thirteenth Tipping Point

I have a feeling that some republicans classify Mother Jones as another Weekly World News, but I can assure you it's not. And unless you're into science, more specifically climatology, you probably won't want to read the whole article, so I'll sum it up here (even if you're not into science you should read it sometime, it's really interesting):


These tipping points are:
1. Amazon Rainforest
2. North Atlantic Current
3. Greenland Ice Sheet
4. Ozone Hole
5. Antarctic Circumpolar Current
6. Sahara Desert
7. Tibetan Plateau
8. Asian Monsoon
9. Methane Clathrates
10. Salinity Valves
11. El Niño
12. West Antarctic Ice Sheet

One of the major scenarios is mainly caused by carbon dioxide in the air, the result of burning fossil fuels and deforestation, particularly in the Amazon. As the air and oceans grow warmer from this CO2 output (which Americans are responsible for 25% of but are only 5% of the global population), ice caps and icebergs in the north Atlantic and Arctic melt, diluting the water (more regular water in the salt water) and slowing down the North Atlantic Current, also called the THC. The THC is responsible for the thermal equivalent of 500,000 power stations' worth of warmth to Europe. As it slows down and finally stops, Europe experiences a loss of power and heat, and in the worst case scenario, completely freezes.

There are many complex scenarios and some others are listed in the article mentioned above. The big problem is that the whole world is linked. A change in Greenland's climate could spell disaster for the Amazon, for example. The only thing keeping this from happening, at this point, is us. If we find alternative energy sources, we can stop burning fossil fuels, and therefore save the planet. Believe me or not, this is a proven fact, not an opinion.

I find it hard to believe it when you put so much effort, body, mind, and spirit into computer simulated "Scenarios," when they are barely accurate on a regular day to day forcast? :badpc:

Not to mention that people can control the environment they live in? It sounds like an idea that was cooked up while some politican was watching cartoons?

 

[saggyjones]

I find it hard to believe it when you put so much effort, body, mind, and spirit into computer simulated "Scenarios," when they are barely accurate on a regular day to day forcast? :badpc:

Not to mention that people can control the environment they live in? It sounds like an idea that was cooked up while some politican was watching cartoons?

What do you find hard to believe? Global warming, or that humans are affecting it?

By the way, it's a lot easier to predict long-term stuff than short-term, because long term you have thousands of years of trends and such to rely on, and short-term weather forecasts all you have is what you see that day. Anyway, these climatologists don't predict weather, they predict climate changes. Weather can vary and is all natural. Massive climate changes, like the scenarios (I bold it now to save you time later) predicted in the article I mention above and ones that aren't listed there, change the Earth and have devastating results.

 

[jfuh]

Global Warming (climate change) theorists have many *hypotheses*.

All of which are truly interesting and none of which can be proven as fact.
We only have ~100 years of weather data out of possible billions.

I am currently taking Environmental Science in college. Even as a conservative it is very interesting. Everything we do affects the biosphere. However, my position is that it took billions of years to get to this point and the earth has adapted to us killing animals, burning grasslands, forests and detrital matter that has decomposed. The earth has lasted through earthquakes, floods, meteors, glancing comets, and of course naturally occurring deforestation through lightning fires.

Several of the 'greenhouse gases' are not caused by humans. It occurs in the wild - take decomposition of organic matter for example. The NO eventually makes its way up to the stratosphere and breaks down in the O2 layers before it makes its way back to earth to help naturally fertilize plants/trees and is necessary for photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis we would not be here.

The question is not *if* there is climate change, it is *how much*. Additionally, how bad is it really?

Earth will still be around. Earth as we know it will be dramatically altered and we will not be able to deal with it financially or feasibly if we do not change our attitude toward energy uses and more importantly the assumption that resources are infinite or that we can not make as much a change on such a large scale.
Yet, today there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than there ever have been in over 650'000 years - not simply by a small scale either, but by huge multitude.

How bad is it really? Glaciers world wide that have existed for millennia are now disappearing and only within the course of 1 generation of human beings - unprecedented. Massive droughts occuring world wide including the disappearance of lakes and inland seas world wide - again within 1 human generation and again - unprecedented.

As for the release of greenhouse gases by nature is irrelevant. Why? because such releases are in equilibrium with the environment. What the plants release during the winter months is offset by what they absorb during the summer months. As goes for various other "natural" instances of greenhouse gases.
Volcanoes? Aren't exactly going off 365 days of the year and as for the amount they do produce hardly even a percentile when contrasted to what is produced anthropogenically. In other words, easily absorbed by natures natural carbon sinks.

As a conservative you of all should be at the forefront of conservation of the environment - ie Teddy Roosevelt - Book of Genesis God directs Adam and Eve to tend to the garden of eden.
Then again, whether you are conservative or not should have nothing to do with your stance on environmental protectionism. It's the moral and ethical thing to do as a responsible parent, after all, what kind of world do you want to leave your offspring? One that you had the luxury of growing up in or one that is apocalyptic? And yes, if you consider worst case scenario, it is indeed apocalyptic.

It took 9/11 for the world to realize the dangers and urgency of terrorism and extremist ideology. I do not want the deaths of millions for us to finally see of the urgency of global warming.

 

[jfuh]

This was originally a reply to another thread, but since it's on the 6th page and nobody's going to read it, I'll make a new thread. Here's the post:

I can't believe the ignorance of some people. Here's a link that proves that a climate change is occurring.

The Thirteenth Tipping Point

I have a feeling that some republicans classify Mother Jones as another Weekly World News, but I can assure you it's not. And unless you're into science, more specifically climatology, you probably won't want to read the whole article, so I'll sum it up here (even if you're not into science you should read it sometime, it's really interesting):


These tipping points are:
1. Amazon Rainforest
2. North Atlantic Current
3. Greenland Ice Sheet
4. Ozone Hole
5. Antarctic Circumpolar Current
6. Sahara Desert
7. Tibetan Plateau
8. Asian Monsoon
9. Methane Clathrates
10. Salinity Valves
11. El Niño
12. West Antarctic Ice Sheet

One of the major scenarios is mainly caused by carbon dioxide in the air, the result of burning fossil fuels and deforestation, particularly in the Amazon. As the air and oceans grow warmer from this CO2 output (which Americans are responsible for 25% of but are only 5% of the global population), ice caps and icebergs in the north Atlantic and Arctic melt, diluting the water (more regular water in the salt water) and slowing down the North Atlantic Current, also called the THC. The THC is responsible for the thermal equivalent of 500,000 power stations' worth of warmth to Europe. As it slows down and finally stops, Europe experiences a loss of power and heat, and in the worst case scenario, completely freezes.

There are many complex scenarios and some others are listed in the article mentioned above. The big problem is that the whole world is linked. A change in Greenland's climate could spell disaster for the Amazon, for example. The only thing keeping this from happening, at this point, is us. If we find alternative energy sources, we can stop burning fossil fuels, and therefore save the planet. Believe me or not, this is a proven fact, not an opinion.

The Ozone hole has nothing to do with greenhouse gases or melting ice sheets.

 

[jfuh]

Let me rewrite it.

There is climate change aka Global Warming! :2wave:

How much are humans affecting it?

That "how much" is the million dollar question.

Some scientists say humans affect the biosphere (earth) little, some say infinitesimal, some say we will burn up tomorrow. Who is right?

I think I confused you with the 02/03 thing. Sorry about that. However, 02 being the issue is more accurate than 03 according to many more scientists. It can be confusing when learning about respiration and photosynthesis in class. 02 is neccessary for photosynthesis.

That's also the point of confusion for many ppl.
Global warming is necessary for sustaining human life on this planet. But then how much is too much and how little is too little.
The variance of a mere 50~80ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past has been the difference of north America today and north America underneath a mile of ice. Nature is in equilibrium, plants respiration and photosynthesis is in equilibrium human consumption of fossil fuels is far from being in equilibrium with nature. That is the cause of "over" global warming today.
Also, O2 is not necessary for photosynthesis it is the product of photosynthesis from the reduction of water. CO2 on the other hand is required for photosynthesis yet, there is a saturation point in which plants start to choke from too much of it. Just the same way that water is required to sustain human life yet too much of it causes us to drown.

 

[jfuh]

Environmentalism, is as much a business as Iraq is to Haliburton. When propaganda is good, business is good.

Well than that certainly throws out the rubbish that environmentalism would hurt the economy.