The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: vitor on May 03, 2007, 06:23:25 PM
-
One of humanity's worst problem, what is killing and will kill thousands, and it's fault is mostly ours, due to carbon emissions, from our cars, the industries, and such.
You know about it?
What do you know about it?
You do something to save your planet?
Wanna see your sons and daughters getting old?
Solution?
Got an Hybrid car?
If no, why?
-
If you're talking about those wich only leaves water then I will never have one since they explode if the "tank" is damaged, like in an accident... wich will make accidents alot worse.
Just buy a more economic instead of a monster truck.
-
Untill the science is proven, do not beleive everything you read or are told. So far its been used politically what little scant science they have.
Remember, they still cant predict the weather properly, what makes you think they can do anything about global warming?
Plus, the earth doesnt care about it. It will go on and continue to create life. Its only humans that care.
Oh, my two cents. *nod nod*
-
I am all for good stewardship of the environment but I have to agree when it comes to the almost religious fanatisicism that some have for this issue. Thirty years ago there were people claiming we were entering the next ice age soon and food production was going to decline and global famine was coming. Science needs to show conclusively a few things that we don't know yet before I will make life altering choices.
1. Changes in the environment are the direct result of human actions and not other environmental factors.
2. The changes are bad. What if increased temperature means more food production and less extreme weather as some have proposed?
3. That actions of people can actually alter the course and prevent any bad effects.
Some might say there is consensus in the scientific community but I am not sure that's true since I know there are a lot of scientists out there saying the opposite and secondly consensus has never been the basis of truth. At one point there was consensus that the world was flat but it wasn't true. We are smarter than in the past but like Hawklen says until the weather man can accurately predict the weather this weekend I am not willing to change my life based on what he says might happen 50 years from now.
-
do we have scientific evidence that the green house effect is bad? more than likely no acid rain is an effect yes... but the over all green house effect has no backing behind good or bad.
as for the ice caps melting, the feared "flood" they will cause is unproven and can easily be disproved by ice in a glass of water. when all the ice melts does the glass overflow? 'course not there is a certain equivalence to such things. if you put nothing extra into the ocean or glass of water in this case nothing will happen. The ice is already in the ocean... the most i see happening is waves gaining a bit of power for a time and the over all land mass shrinking only a bit if at all
those are my two cents to add along with Hawklen's
-
I have to agree with you guys on this one. Shoot! They can't even tell a woman when she is going to go into labor! Now wouldn't THAT be some usefull information? *smiles*
-
Oh, I don't know about that. There is now more calving and exposed land in Antarctica than there has ever been as long as the south pole has been an ice cap.
Untill the science is proven, do not beleive everything you read or are told. So far its been used politically what little scant science they have.
The evidence against global warming has been pseudoscience and political murmurings, but the recent report out of the UN indicates that global warming as a result of human intervention is absolutely a reality (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/climatechange/unreport-2007.html).
Remember, they still cant predict the weather properly, what makes you think they can do anything about global warming?
Comparing measuring global warming to predicting the weather is like criticizing Hari Seldon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Seldon) for not being able to tell you what you're going to do tomorrow: immediate, small predictions are nearly impossible because of the number of factors that can affect them. The larger and more far-reaching the prediction (and this one's a biggie) and the more information we have (and we've got a lot), the more accurate a prediction can be, and the more precise causality can be about it as well.
Plus, the earth doesnt care about it. It will go on and continue to create life. Its only humans that care.
In the short run, sure. But the interesting thing is, by destroying the ice caps, Earth's average albedo goes up. This heats the earth further. This evaporates water, which is a greenhouse gas, and traps further heat, destroying ice caps AND tundra, and raising the albedo still more. Eventually, temperatures reach a point where things not normally volatile start to evaporate... and you have a runaway greenhouse effect. Seen any life on Venus recently?
*shakes head* I don't mean to get off on a tirade, but anyone who says "It hasn't been conclusively proven" is, with all due respect, off their rocker.
Oh, and also:
If you're talking about those wich only leaves water then I will never have one since they explode if the "tank" is damaged, like in an accident... wich will make accidents alot worse.
You are, perhaps, referring to a car driven by liquid hydrogen. Leaving aside the costs (in terms of energy loss) of creating and transporting liquid hydrogen (upshot? Electrical cars = more efficient), these cars will not spontaneously explode if their gas tank is punctured any more than cars that run on conventional gasoline. At some point, hopefully, your school chemistry professor did the trick with the two balloons, the one full of hydrogen, the one full of a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. The former, when burst with a flame, would have burst with a small, dull, "bang". The latter, with a far more dramatic explosion. The reason?
Well, like anything else that burns, hydrogen needs oxygen present. Liquid hydrogen is tremendously volatile.. but so is gasoline. Neither will explode spontaneously if they're simply spilled - but you shouldn't be smoking in a gas station, either. Everyone remembers the Hindenberg and thinks that hydrogen is tremendously dangerous - but the blimp burned, it didn't explode. Hydrogen is less dangerous than compressed natural gas, even, and a number of cars/buses have been retrofitted to run on that.
What Vitor was referring to as a "hybrid" vehicle is one of the new gas/electric cars that improves engine efficiency by shutting it off at speeds where it is not necessary, and by using the idling engine to drive an electrical generator, recharging the car while it isn't moving. I'm all for this technology, but given that we're already likely past Hubbard's Peak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_Oil), it's at best a stopgap for our energy supply, and still results in emissions. Whether it's hydrogen or electric, the world's energy economy is going to have to take a rather dramatic change, and quickly.
-
as for the ice caps melting, the feared "flood" they will cause is unproven and can easily be disproved by ice in a glass of water. when all the ice melts does the glass overflow? 'course not there is a certain equivalence to such things. if you put nothing extra into the ocean or glass of water in this case nothing will happen. The ice is already in the ocean...
This is true of the northern polar cap. There isn't any land under it and the ice floats in the ocean.
It is not true of the ice on Greenland or Antarctica. There is land under the ice in both places, so the ice is not in the ocean already. When the ice there melts, it will leave the land and enter the ocean, like extra ice cubes leaving your hand and entering the glass.
-
1. Changes in the environment are the direct result of human actions and not other environmental factors.
In response:
- Here (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html)
- Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report)
- Here (http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/03.html)
- and Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1225064.stm), for starters.
2. The changes are bad. What if increased temperature means more food production and less extreme weather as some have proposed?
Gotcha here too:
- Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1174272.stm)
- Here (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/climatechange/unreport-2007-pt2.html)
- Here (http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp)
- and Here (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/01/ap3674686.html)
Most of these would hit people in developing countries first and hardest, but I hardly think that is a reason to sit on our hands.
3. That actions of people can actually alter the course and prevent any bad effects.
I'm not going to bother bringing up the dozens of arguments in favour of this - I'll just say two things:
[list=1]
- So if scientists aren't certain we can do anything, you're alright with saying "okay, we're doomed"?
- Human activity caused (or accelerated) the problem in the first place; if we can affect the climate in a negative manner, surely we can effect a positive change.
At one point there was consensus that the world was flat but it wasn't true.
This is a bit of Proof by Example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example) reasoning. The conclusive, scientific proof at that point was that the world beneath your feet appears flat. This is not particularly rigorous, and was discredited publicly by scientists (who saw a horizon that could hide a mountain) as soon as they wouldn't get burned for it.
We are smarter than in the past but like Hawklen says until the weather man can accurately predict the weather this weekend I am not willing to change my life based on what he says might happen 50 years from now.
See my response to Hawklen's post.
Annnd... I was going to address the ice-cube fallacy, but Gulnyr beat me to it.
As I said before, I don't mean to go on a tirade, but head-in-the-sand reasoning tends to irk me.
-
Interesting I was having a discussion with my housemates on this just a few hours ago.
My opinion is:
Environmental research is a growth industry, with governments investing huge amounts of funding into the area.
However, as with all areas of the scientific/research community, there is often a prevailing position which the majority of research adopts, to the neglect of contradictory evidence.
Put simply it is less likely one would receive funding for a piece of research which aimed to argue against the 'man made' causality of measurable temperature increase, than one which supports the current view.
Always remember, research which finds no human effect is less common, and less newsworthy, but does that make it any less valid?
-
Here's the thing, though - I've been following the idea for many years now, and I've seen support for both sides of the equation - but more and more the research pointing to "no human cause" seems flimsy. Yes, the world, and the sun itself, are cyclic, and climate cycles are a part of nature. But we're talking about carbon dioxide levels, sea level changes, and temperature changes unprecedented in geologic history... and pretty much all of these can be traced back to human intervention.
The presence of CFCs in the atmosphere, as well, is an indisputable human artifact, as the damnable things wouldn't exist save for our clever experimentation.
Finally, certain governments have spent a lot arguing the no-human-intervention side of things... the two largest economies in the world, for instance ... and yet we still have non-governmental bodies concurring with intergovernmental groups like the UN, and bringing with them a wealth of supporting evidence.
Up until even midway through 2006, I was willing to argue both sides... but I'm fairly certain where the truth lies, now.
-
I sometimes think in decades to come, IF (big if there) the arguement of human made global warming falls from its position of grace, our ancestors will have a good laugh at us all for getting all wound up about it!
The beauty of hindsight though I suppose
-
We'll see extreme climate changes, thats for sure, the weather depends on lots of small factors. Like the monsoons on Africa. The carbon Creates a smokescreen on the ocean, that doesnt let the sun rays pass it, and reflects it also, so, with no water evaporation, there are no monsoons on Africa, causing more aridity than common, what kills people.
In future, if nothing change, what are two F4 tornadoes, will be one F4 and one F5 (same intensity of Katrina).
About the cold melting, is known that solid water ocuppies less space than liquid water, which ocuppies less space then gaseous water .So, a possible flood can't be discarded.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is harmful for humans health.
-
Well, likewise, they'll probably laugh about our use of CRT monitors, scoff at our dependence on fossil fuels, and pity those who didn't know about the One True Faith. Then they'll realize they're late, get on their Sunday best, and log in before the party leaves for Haven.
-
Seems like there are two debates here:
Global Warming (literal sense) vs. No Global Warming - Difficult to argue there are no temperature changes. Quantitive data which compares temperatures over the years is difficult to argue against.
Human Involvement vs. Historical Patterns of Warming - I can't see any conclusion to this any time soon. Difficult to research, correlation does not imply causation. Just because one effect occurs in conjunction with an entity does not imply that entity caused it.
-
I certainly believe that the pollutants we put out as a species are incredible, and that they have an impact on the ecosystem. However, I think we will adapt to whatever changes we make, and that even if we are obliterated as a whole by some armageddon, life would persist and adapt to the new environment. Being an avid fan of bleak futures like Shadowrun, Blade Runner, Planet of the Apes and Soylent Green, I actually look forward to the days when society is reduced to Mad Max fringe tribes struggling for survival across wastelands of radioactive desert, complete with barbarian mutant factions that cannibalize any who dare stry from the village gates. There would still be relics like old shotguns and tanks for us to find in the catacombs, and ancient libraries of vast knowledge for the few literate scholars left to unearth. It's an optimistic future, where fuel is wrought from Master Blaster's manure farming process, and two men enter... one man leaves.
Honestly though, how bloody hard is it to just turn the Arizona Desert into one big solar panel grid? And for every lamppost made to sport one, so we can finally go electric for good like Edison wanted in the first place? Too bad the oil lobby is the most powerful in existance... you can't fluctuate the price of "free" during times of war and iffy political situations with OPEC.
-
*winces* Sorry, vitor, not really supporting your horse:
The carbon Creates a smokescreen on the ocean, that doesnt let the sun rays pass it, and reflects it also, so, with no water evaporation, there are no monsoons on Africa, causing more aridity than common, what kills people.
Not exactly. Rising temperatures can disrupt the prevailing wind and water currents on the globe, resulting in major weather pattern change. Carbon dioxide is clear, and cannot act as a "smokescreen". Particulate matter in the atmosphere could lower temperatures (as Krakatoa did), but the issue here is with gases that trap solar radiation, not things that reflect them.
In future, if nothing change, what are two F4 tornadoes, will be one F4 and one F5 (same intensity of Katrina).
Katrina = hurricane. F4 and F5 are measurements of tornado intensity (an F5 tornado is unprecedented - there have only been 50 in recorded US history.) These are measured using the Fujita scale, while a Force 5 Hurricane is measured using the Beaufort or other scales. A Force 5 Hurricane registers as a Beaufort 12, which involves winds of over 120 KnPH. A typical tornado clocks in with winds of 110 MPH... and an F5 tornado is unimaginably worse than that.
About the cold melting, is known that solid water ocuppies less space than liquid water
Nope. In fact, it's the only "pure" substance for which this is not true.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is harmful for humans health.
In the grand scale of things? Clearly, we've proven this. If it's all they breathe? Well, yes, they need oxygen. But since it makes up ~0.04 of the air we breathe, on a day to day basis, carbon dioxide is not so huge a risk. CO, carbon monoxide, is hazardous to human health, as is SO2, sulphur dioxide, both in gaseous form and when it combines with water. But CO2, by itself, needs a lot of help to permanently harm a human. (The greenhouse effect, however, is more than enough help, in the long term.)
-
Beware of Dihydrogen Monoxide! ;)
-
Human Involvement vs. Historical Patterns of Warming - I can't see any conclusion to this any time soon. Difficult to research, correlation does not imply causation. Just because one effect occurs in conjunction with an entity does not imply that entity caused it.
Well, again, this is the issue I was on the fence over up until about midway through last year. The flood of evidence from recent studies (most notably the intergovernmental UN scientific board, linked in one of my above posts) indicates that it is very likely (and they use this language only because certain requires about a hundred years for anything this impactful in the scientific world) that human activity has a causal link with global warming.
It might be working in tandem with a natural cycle, but given that (as I said), current levels are geologically unprecedented (nothing like this has happened, as far as we can tell, since just after the dinosaurs checked out), I think the jury is just about ready to render a guilty verdict on humankind. We can try for community service, mind you - certainly is preferable to the other sentence that could be passed.
-
It is not true of the ice on Greenland or Antarctica. There is land under the ice in both places, so the ice is not in the ocean already. When the ice there melts, it will leave the land and enter the ocean, like extra ice cubes leaving your hand and entering the glass.
true however even still with the amount of land surface on the face of the planet not to mention that all oceans are connected so still the most i see effects i see is a mild loss of land on all continents. however this is just speculation... for all we know a flood could happen killing quite a few people in the process... however only time will tell *shrugs*
-
It might be working in tandem with a natural cycle, but given that (as I said), current levels are geologically unprecedented (nothing like this has happened, as far as we can tell, since just after the dinosaurs checked out), I think the jury is just about ready to render a guilty verdict on humankind. We can try for community service, mind you - certainly is preferable to the other sentence that could be passed.
The only other issue to consider then, as I am insistent on playing devils advocate here, is the interplay of these factors, both natural and man made. How much of each is contributing to temperature change? Again I would argue it is difficult to scientifically seperate complex variables with so many confounds.
-
true however even still with the amount of land surface on the face of the planet not to mention that all oceans are connected so still the most i see effects i see is a mild loss of land on all continents. however this is just speculation... for all we know a flood could happen killing quite a few people in the process... however only time will tell *shrugs*
*ahem*
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/images/040421_earthday.jpg)
The red is what sections of Florida would be under water with a six-meter rise in sea levels.
The city of Boston (all of it) is only one meter above sea level at high tide.
And calculations (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday_2.html) indicate that if Greenland alone were to melt, the seas, worldwide, would rise seven meters.
So if you consider the eastern seaboard, the state of Florida, a good chunk of Western Europe, and huge sections of India, Indonesia, Japan, China, and other pan-Asian countries "a mild loss of land"... then yes, the ice caps melting is no big deal.
-
I think I'm going to leave this to Darkstorme, as the man has a handle on spreading the facts.
Let's not forget you'd lose a healthy portion of Western California, Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, and, well... Anywhere else that has a beach.
I think what the discussion needs (and has gotten, it seems, ONLY from Darkstorme!) is for people to cite their sources on any information that is even slightly arguable.
-
The only other issue to consider then, as I am insistent on playing devils advocate here, is the interplay of these factors, both natural and man made. How much of each is contributing to temperature change? Again I would argue it is difficult to scientifically seperate complex variables with so many confounds.
A fair argument. I'm willing to concede that the entirety global climate change has human activity at its root. However, to quote from National Geographic (emphasis mine):
The current rate of warning is unprecedented, however. It is apparently the fastest warming rate in millions of years, suggesting it probably is not a natural occurrence. And most scientists believe the rise in temperatures will in fact accelerate. The United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001 that the average temperature is likely to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the year 2100.
So even if we're not wholly to blame, the increasingly evident situation is that we've still screwed up big time, and something that might once have been a natural cycle has been warped and distorted away from where it might have swung back. The melting of the ice caps and tundra (and subsequent loss of global albedo, as above) sets the stage neatly for a runaway greenhouse effect.. and nothing in the world can adapt to that. (Well, maybe some lithovoric extremophile bacteria, but I don't really think that fits with our beautiful green planet's image.)
Edit: I should add as an addendum that a 3-degree rise will melt Greenland in its entirety... which has the catastrophic effects mentioned in my previous post.
-
I really do enjoy a good debate but the need for sleep is overwhelming me now. I would say there have been some valid and well thought out responses here, which I'm suprised about given the opening statements. Though I assume they were given as a means to provoke this debate.
I hope to continue this when my eyes can stay open! Night All!
Oh...one last thing to ponder:
It is apparently the fastest warming rate in millions of years...
I assume the wording of this suggests at some point in history this occured. Could it be argued history repeats itself?
-
It is apparently the fastest warming rate in millions of years...
I assume the wording of this suggests at some point in history this occured. Could it be argued history repeats itself?
It could... but the history in question dates from before the last meteor-induced ice age. The last time (and only times we've unearthed) that the earth warmed or cooled so dramatically and rapidly was after a chunk of rock a mile wide smashed into its surface at forty thousand miles an hour, give or take.
Since an impetus of that scale is not evident (and you can bet, if it happened, it would be), we have to look for some different causation, something that can throw a ton of stuff into the atmosphere in a (geologically speaking) short period of time. Now, what's been pumping weird chemicals into the atmosphere in the last hundred years or so? *smiles tightly*
In addition to this, the further back geological records go, the harder it is to be absolutely sure of their accuracy (as exposure in the interim might skew results.) So the wording is far more likely a hedging of bets than a statement that it happened in the past (since, as I said, the only such climate shifts occurred after some sort of celestial influence - and I'm not talkin' Aasimar, here.)
-
in response to Darkstorme's evidence... noooooo not japan T_T *snicker* only time will tell... time will tell if we wise up and try to stop or at least reduce the rate of toxins emitted into our atmosphere. and only time will tell if the ice actually does melt... i mean worse comes to worse we end up with a giant water ball and are forced to live on giant platforms, which would be possible there's a dude off the coast of Mexico i think it is that has an island built of water bottles and he grows food on it :o
-
Yeah, but then we wind up in wars over tankers of oil and fresh water, and we wind up having to rely on Kevin Costner to save us all.
And the (http://www.nserc.gc.ca/news/features/2007_03_21_e.htm) ice (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml) is (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/science/earth/16gree.html?ex=1326603600&en=b018c85a1b03d90f&ei=5090) already melting (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html), so we'd best get a move on.
As for the gentleman off the coast of Mexico... well, we're running into an oil shortage hand-over-fist as well, so plastic water bottles are likely to be in short supply. In addition... I strongly suspect that the billion people in developing countries who will be flooded out will have access to neither platforms nor water bottles from which to build their little floating paradises.
-
...i have this to say in response.... "SAVE US KEVIN COSTNER!!!" *snicker* personally i say we do what we can to help prevent further damage. and do what we can to repair the damage already caused
-
OMG, politics on the layonara forum. I thought this was against the rules or something.
Recently poler bears was added to the list of threatened species. Generally a law suite has to be argued in court in order for a species to get added to that list. It seems bush does not ever believe that a species is endangered until a judge orders him to believe so... Amazing how powerful judges are like that huh! But he did not need a judge to tell him about the polar bears. The reason is, he did not want the publicity from the fact that the polar bears environment is literally melting under their paws. The polar bears are the first subspecies to be officially listed as threatened due to global warming.
Now I have been a tree hugging anarchist environmentalist all my adult life. I can tell you about the evils of deforestation, bioengineering, PCBs, nuclear waste, the depleting ozone layer, green house gases, human overpopulation, republicans that are honest about not caring, and democrats that lie and say that they do care when in reality they are just a bunch of corporate prostitutes.
What I have come to believe with great sincerity is that we are on the Titanic. And you know, it doesn't matter what you do on the Titanic. You can argue that the ship is so huge and incredible that it is impossible to sink. You can pretend the ship is not sinking. You can run around yelling about it. You can read a book. You can have a drink. You can play a song on the piano. You can sit around and play video games. In the end, you will still be dead on the bottom of the ocean with everyone else.
AeonBlues
-
Well Darkstorme I really appreciate your passion and conviction on this issue and your willingness to back it up with all the support you have presented. I really don't want to get into an arguement since that's not what the forums are all about. The fact is though (and I won't through a bunch of links at you since that just gets to a battle of links) that there are some very prominent scientists that disagree very strongly with those that claim the issue is a slam dunk. The fact is also true that this issue is being used as political leverage by lots of people with particular political ideologies and to me that makes it seem fishy when you have scientist lining up by political ideology. So I would just like to politely disagree with your assertion that there is a guaranteed tragedy ahead of us if we don't stop living like we are. Besides who says polar bears wouldn't apprecaite it getting warmer? See the attached. :)
-
*smiles* I enjoy a good debate as much as Kenty. By all means, provide all the links you wish, and I will take them into consideration. I deliberately chose the most nonpartisan links I could find, from different countries and different news agencies, to make my point.
I am not at all close-minded about the issue, but the evidence seems to be piling up in favour of human causation, and the scientists arguing against it are of decreasing prominence. I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but the 2007 UN report was pretty thoroughly damning, and backed up by very, very well-researched fact.
As I said, though, make me a counteroffer.
Edit: I would argue, Aeonblues, that this isn't politics. One of the principal arguments lined up against me is that, in fact, it is, but it's more a debate over whether or not the science involved is valid, and whether it is an issue to be concerned with.
-
The golden rule of politics: The person with the gold rules. The oil and coal barons hire prominent scientists to work their propaganda machines.
I am still waiting for someone, anyone to reference me to any scientist that discredits global warming, and has no economic ties to the industries that produce green house gases.
AeonBlues
-
I don't usually respond to anything political on a gaming forum with anything more then a sigh, as it can only end in tears....but I gotta....
Time Magazine 1974
Another Ice Age? | TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html)
Time Magazine 2006
Global Warming Heats Up | TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html)
A few simple statements:
- Don't get caught up in temporary hype and publicity, rise above it and act locally
- Understand that the spectrum of what we're dealing with is far beyond our current scope of research or data. We are too young to get the big picture, and very few models are shown accurately.
- Realize that organizations dealing with these issues need to sustain their budgets, and with society and politics the way they are today, this means sensationalizing things. Be aware of the issues... they *are* issues. But also realize that it's sensationalized for maintaining budgets on otherwise neglected programs. No real fault of their own mind you.
- Things are warming up however, read the DARPA reports, you may be enlightened that the 'evil oppressive' USA is highly aware and aggressive (in the labs at least for now) about these issues. Educate yourself, have facts.
- We aren't going to significantly influence this but it's high time we set some precedents for the future, realizing that we do impact things and can make a local difference. It's like community motivation, everyone just needs to start. ;)
I've been on expeditions to several parts of the Andes in the past 5 years. And yeah, the glaciers are melting at an abyssmal rate. It gets me down. How this factors into big pictures? I don't know nor do propose to be at the forefront of college student omniscient awareness of all things political, sociological, nor environmental.
But it is important that you start taking steps in your own home, and bloody research the right ways to do it. Starbucks spends millions on wind and solar power when they could've aided the environment a heck of a lot more by buying carbon emission shares for 1/1000th of the cost. Or so someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows informed me. See what I mean? Har.
There's a lot of misinformation out there. Be humble and do your own research. Then get some consensus, then act locally. Until you act locally you're just another spout of soundbytes. Tend to your own garden first.
-
When I was working on my master's degree my advisor, a very wise man, told me something that rang true and has since been born out in many circumstances.
When you get a Bachelor's degree you think you know everything.
When you get a Master's degree you realize that you really don't know anything.
When you get a doctorate you realize that neither does anyone else.
There is still a huge amount we don't understand about this beautiful and marvelous world we live in. Let's take care of it as we continue to learn as much as we can.
-
For those that haven't seen it, I would suggest viewing "An Inconvenient Truth."
And then I would suggest viewing the BBC documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which can be seen free at Google Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming%2C+bbc+documentary&hl=en).
There is merit to hearing differing viewpoints on the issue.
-
I've seen both of those, Boxcar - excellent recommendations.
-
This may sound a bit sociopathic, but I dont think the earth will really miss mankind a whole lot. If we end up ending ourselves, maybe something better will come along next time. To be even more pessismistic, I think we'll be lucky if we last long enough for global warming and its ensuing hazards to end us as a species.
I'm fun at Christmas parties. Really.
-
This may sound a bit sociopathic, but I dont think the earth will really miss mankind a whole lot. If we end up ending ourselves, maybe something better will come along next time. To be even more pessismistic, I think we'll be lucky if we last long enough for global warming and its ensuing hazards to end us as a species.
Indeed! Ever play Fallout? As I said, I look forward to the new wars between the vault people and the twisted radiocative mutant barbarians!
-
This may sound a bit sociopathic, but I dont think the earth will really miss mankind a whole lot. If we end up ending ourselves, maybe something better will come along next time. To be even more pessismistic, I think we'll be lucky if we last long enough for global warming and its ensuing hazards to end us as a species.
I'm fun at Christmas parties. Really.
I agree. That was my main point. Only humans care ;) The earth doesnt care about us. It will happily spin around till the sun goes nova and destroys the solar system. Give or take a few billion years.
And who says there isnt life on Venus? (earlier darkstorme post) Just not in the form we can recognize :D
I still have hopes for FTL so we can spread out and ruin other planets.
-
Who is to say that life as a post-apocalyptic protoplasmic concoction on the face of an asteroid is any less fulfilling than that of Joe Consumer with his 2.4 children, 3 cars, amassing tower of debt and credit card bills? If reincarnation is true and we are obliterated to atoms, then I will simply party hard as an atom. It seems a big weight off the shoulders really. All the paramecium I view under a microscope seem to be boogying down, waving their flagelli in the air like they just don't care... diggin it. Seems a good life.
-
Woot! I want to be a paramecium. That sounds pretty sweet.
-
Woot! I want to be a paramecium. That sounds pretty sweet.
*pooof* You're a paramecium!
-
When you get a Bachelor's degree you think you know everything.
When you get a Master's degree you realize that you really don't know anything.
When you get a doctorate you realize that neither does anyone else.
I'm going to write this down somewhere on my wall or something. It should spurn me on when working on my assignments for my Bachelors degree! Hehe!
My arguements thus far though, have been from a perspective that I *think* I know everything. I suppose that is the big enlightenment that comes with a first degree, but it makes you confident if a little naive perhaps.
-
I'm going to write this down somewhere on my wall or something. It should spurn me on when working on my assignments for my Bachelors degree! Hehe!
My arguements thus far though, have been from a perspective that I *think* I know everything. I suppose that is the big enlightenment that comes with a first degree, but it makes you confident if a little naive perhaps.
Yeah the idea is similar to the statement "The more you know, the more you know there is to know." Bachelor's degrees are typically wide based introductions to a field of knowledge so since you know something about a wide area it seems like you know a lot. When you work on a Master's you have to specialize into a specific part of that field of knowledge and actually become somewhat of an expert on a particular topic. This made me feel like the actual field of knowledge was so huge the I would never be able to grasp it all. I haven't reached the PhD level yet but I understand that its the colaboration with other experts that makes you realize that field of knowledge is so big that even though there are many experts in very narrow areas there is hardly anyone who is an expert on broad ranges of it.
This is actually one of the difficulties in this global warming debate since you have experts in lots of different aspects of the issue like the effects of temp increase on plant and animal life, Climatologist, computer progamers making models, and many other areas but to really figure out what's going on would take an expert on so many areas that it's hard for many to grasp.
So what I have been hearing thus far in the debate is partially a good dialogue between scientists who think there is a big short term problem with other experts who think there isn't a big problem and things might just be the way they are supposed to be.
The problem is tha politicians have grasped this issue as a way of motivating people before the truth is really known. I think the scientific community will figure things out in time but they have been wrong a lot before for long periods of time so I just think it's a bit premature to be changing the way we live in ways that can cost lives and lower standards of living around the world.
That's my perspective on it.;)
-
I don't want to get too involved in this discussion. I just want to say, whatever side you're on, do your research before making blanket statements, repeating hearsay, or taking sides. Global warming research includes a variety of fields, some of which are better understood than others. So go find out about them. Reading Time magazine, or listening to talk radio, or watching "An Inconvenient Truth" are not substitutes for actually informing yourselves.
A couple starting places: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/)
US Global Change Research Program (http://www.usgcrp.gov/)
-
I hope folks are actually clicking on the links instead of doing the skim-assumptions.
I found my links rather witty. Then again, I usually think I'm witty. Keeps me entertained.
IPCC is a good resource.
-
You are witty chongo!
And it shouldnt be "Save our Planet" It should be "save Our habital Zone"
Oh, has any of those links done research to include the increased output of the sun, and increase in solar radiation and so on?
*shifty eyed*
-
*nods* I linked IPCC a few times in my initial posts to this thread, and the USGCRP (though the later is euphemistically named, in my opinion).
@Chongo: While the links are clever, the situations are somewhat different; in "the 70s case, people saw a situation and were looking for causation - in the modern case, people predicted an effect from greenhouse gases, and the observations are starting to fit the model.
A bit scarier, I think.
@Skywatcher - I've always been fond of that quotation.. well, that and the paired quotations on quantum physics:
If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." - John Wheeler.
"Nobody understands quantum theory" - Richard Feynman
-
According to Google News, the IPCC put out some new information as of thirty minutes after I looked it up in second period - i.e. sometime around 9:30 EDT this morning.
IPCC Reports Quick Action Can Avert Worst Climate Impacts (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=463b06e1c905e3ed&ei=So07Rv_WJYOMoQKHzaSRAg&url=http%3A//www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2007/2007-05-04-01.asp&cid=1115811538&sig2=c5aXWUGM5rVeyYZh5vfTsg)
There's the link... Though oddly it only lists as being an hour ago, now. Many hours later...
-
Nice article, Stephen - it's about as thorough an answer to #3 (http://www.layonara.com/general-discussion/115913-global-warming-post478632.html#post478632) above as I've yet seen.
Oh, has any of those links done research to include the increased output of the sun, and increase in solar radiation and so on?
I would imagine that the UN council would, in fact, have taken something that simple into account over the years that they've done these studies, but even if THEY haven't, one of my links involved a satellite study of the atmosphere, and the amount of entering solar radiation vs. the amount of leaving solar radiation. The gist of it was that there is an incongruity between the amount that should be leaving (for a steady-state temperature system) and the amount that is leaving. And given the size of the incongruity, it's virtually impossible that it's a natural occurrence.
-
*winces* Sorry, vitor, not really supporting your horse:
Not exactly. Rising temperatures can disrupt the prevailing wind and water currents on the globe, resulting in major weather pattern change. Carbon dioxide is clear, and cannot act as a "smokescreen". Particulate matter in the atmosphere could lower temperatures (as Krakatoa did), but the issue here is with gases that trap solar radiation, not things that reflect them.
Well, what happens is: The ash, accumulates small particles of water, which doesn't fall as rain as it should. These makes huge and dense cloud, what blocks and reflects sun rays, what doesnt let the area under it be warmed. The changes are on rains, which are lesser, and then... aridity.
That's called Global Dimming.
-
*thinks* Wish I could find the link, but it was a study, showed the suns output has increased around 30%. Forget in how many millions of years.
-
Well, what happens is: The ash, accumulates small particles of water, which doesn't fall as rain as it should. These makes huge and dense cloud, what blocks and reflects sun rays, what doesnt let the area under it be warmed. The changes are on rains, which are lesser, and then... aridity.
That's called Global Dimming.
Any sources on that to cite? I mean, it's an interesting theory (even if I, personally, feel its likelihood is slim), but if you've got any sources to cite on that, I'd be interested in reading them.
What that sounds like, though, is good, ol' fashioned, acid-rain-producing smog.
-
Its still in the mid 30's in eastern WA. And its May. We had snow falling three weeks ago. Any chance this global warming could hurry up and get here? To quote Dr. Evil, "Its fricking freezing up here".
I think I'm gonna go park my car in the driveway and leave it running all night.
-
*thinks* Wish I could find the link, but it was a study, showed the suns output has increased around 30%. Forget in how many millions of years.
The sun's output has natural cycles, just like the earth. How that affects earth's climate is very poorly understood at the moment. Even our highest estimates however, places the radiative forcing due to solar variability far below that of CO2 alone (see the 2001 IPCC report for details). Some more recent studies suggest that up 30% of global warming may be due to the sun, but I don't know too much about the details. I may check and get back to you :-)
-
Plus,the earth doesnt care about it. It will go on and continue to create life. Its only humans that care.
Yeah, actually, the planet does care about its condition and the destruction we cause to it. I thought it was obvious to everyone that we're not magically building it up and making it "feel better", but we are, rather, slowly consuming it. What environmentalists and certain politicians try to do is to simply try to minimize the damage we do to the planet, or to rectify damage already done to it. I'm not commenting on global warming, except to say I believe it does exist, only I cannot say to which extent. My point is, we are consuming it. It's not like the nature is consuming itself.
Sir David Attenborough said something along the lines of; 'We have a unique power to do what we want with this beautiful planet. We can either destroy it, or we cherish it.'
-
Yes, the earth goes through it's own periods of warming and cooling, ice ages, and the like. It is difficult therefore to tell precisely what climactic changes are due to human pollution - but I think we can all agree that if cities in America have "smog alert" days, our contribution isn't exactly a positive one. You know I'm in Atten's boat, Kindo. :)
But I just LOVE when people go on as if humans were entirely separate entities from ALL other existence and all other life. Obviously never studied human origins or well, biology, for that matter. But oh well. They'll be feeding daisies soon enough.
lo, I actually do love your response - words of wisdom, words of wisdom.
-
Well, what happens is: The ash, accumulates small particles of water, which doesn't fall as rain as it should. These makes huge and dense cloud, what blocks and reflects sun rays, what doesnt let the area under it be warmed. The changes are on rains, which are lesser, and then... aridity.
That's called Global Dimming.
This is true. It is not, however, associated with global warming in any manner other than its probable cause: burning diesel and other dirty fuels (wood, coal, etc.) and aerosols. These wind up sending particular matter (macroscopic pollution) into the upper atmosphere, where it blocks solar radiation. These particles also bind with water vapour, causing cloud formation (in the same way that clouds can be "seeded" with silver iodide to cause rain), which in turn blocks solar radiation.
It has been suggested that Global Dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) has had a mitigating effect on Global Warming, since it increases the albedo of the planet by inducing cloud formation. This is hotly (no pun intended) debated, however, since carbon black absorbs solar radiation, heating the upper atmosphere, and increasing global temperature regardless - but without permitting the solar radiation to directly impinge on the ocean, and thus slowing evaporation as well.
This slowed evaporation is a mixed blessing; water vapour is a greenhouse gas, so slowing evaporation will slow global warming, albeit slightly, but once the macroscopic pollutants are bound to water droplets, they can be rained out of the sky, clearing it and removing the pollutants that are hazardous to health and global well-being. (This can result in acid rain, but this is in fact easier to deal with than airborne sulfates.)
There has actually been a decrease in global dimming over the last decade or so - a steady measured increase for three decades (starting in the mid-sixties), and then a gradual decline to the present day. This is attributed to the banning of certain aerosols from public use, and the decreased and cleaner use of coal for power.
The process of Global Dimming was what led to the fears of Global Cooling that the Time magazine article Chongo referenced from the 1970s was referring to. Calculations involving a simple energy model to represent the earth's absorption/reflection of solar energy indicated that sufficient pollution (or a major volcanic eruption) could raise the earth's albedo to the point where more ice would form.. further raising the earth's albedo, and so on, and so forth, until a new ice age would begin. (This is the converse of the result of global warming, as the ice caps shrink.) However, these early models took macroscopic pollution alone into account, and didn't calculate for the greenhouse effect induced by the non-reflective pollutants flooding into the atmosphere.
The odd weather patterns perceived to have been caused by Global Cooling were in fact induced by the disruption to the hydrologic cycle caused by the absorption/reflection of solar radiation in the upper atmosphere, rather than in the oceans. This disrupted certain prevailing winds, and has been had things attributed to it to the present day, like the unusual 2006 Atlantic hurricane season.
Gobal Dimming was suggested in the late 70s as a desperation measure to deal with a runaway greenhouse effect (ie, burning sulfates in the atmosphere to block out planet-heating sunlight), but this was largely gainsaid due to the fact that[list=1]
- the pollutants/aerosols involved, in order to blot out sufficient solar radiation, would have to be of a type necessarily harmful to human (and general biologic) health.
- because there are no pollutants linked to Global Dimming which do not also speed the Greenhouse Effect, more and more aerosols would have to be pumped into the atmosphere just to keep steady-state.. with the resultant ecological fallout.
(It should come as little surprise that this desperation measure was suggested by the same Russian group that suggested using nuclear weapons to snuff out forest fires. You have to give them credit for enthusiasm.)
Regardless, my beef with your comment, Vitor, was not that it was generally incorrect, but specifically incorrect, since you seemed to be linking it to carbon dioxide (not the case) and global warming pollutants (only partially the case.)
-
The problem is, english is not my first language, then, sometimes, i say something thinking im saying another... my words may be not so clear, and my translation not perfect.
-
The problem is, english is not my first language, then, sometimes, i say something thinking im saying another... my words may be not so clear, and my translation not perfect.
Its fine leoglas! Its a fun conversation so far
-
My 2 cents :)
Yep, we humans are screwing up the environment and definetly contributing to the global warming. The normal heating and cooling of the planet exists, but we have kinda screwed it up and put it well beyond anything we have recorded or discovered over the course of earths history.
Theres too much real science behind it at this point to discount it. Plus I like the before and after pictures of glaciers taken over the last 50 years.
Now you see it them...now you dont.
Personally....I cant wait for the end of the earth party! Its gonna be to die for! :D
Bad..bad..bad... O.o
P.S>..feeling a bit nihilistic right now
-
Interesting reading.
I should declare my hand as I work for a big evil multinational and work with bio-engineered crops. Not that it changes my opinion mind you!
I thought that Al Gore's movie was brilliant. It was an absolute mastery of pseudoscience. He did not demonstrate a scientific link between CO2 and the earths temperature. I have heard counter arguments that CO2 is the least of our worries, as it works both to heat and cool the earth. I think it was more aimed at political gain than anything else
-
Can you cite any arguments re: CO2 cooling? That's a new one on me.
-
Can you cite any arguments re: CO2 cooling? That's a new one on me.
Reference Rush Limbaugh? :D
When I read Carl Sagan's book Cosmos, I learned that CO2 emissions does raise the earths temperature, and will set off a chain reaction. As the earth continues to get warmer, the earth will release more CO2 on it's own. Notice that is problem is also compounded by deforestation.
What I never understood is how people that call them selves "conservative" will make decisions that threaten the very survival of future generations and economic prosperity.
How a conservative mind should work. "We should have conclusive evidence that what we are doing will not threaten life as we know it on earth."
How a conservative mind does work. "Unless you can prove to an impartial judge that what we are doing is harmful, then we are much too busy looking at our projected profit earnings over the next fiscal period to care about the future our species."
AeonBlues
-
Even if everyone is suggesting that the information we are provided is not good.
Even if everyone is suggesting that science is not true. (I believe science can never be accurate in anyway.
You have to look at your own empirical evidence, it started snowing in the summer a few years back at my school, our summers are hotter, I notice the winters are not as chilling-to-the-bone as they used to...I feel something is changing, and feel powerless to do anything about it. Everyone says it's our responsibility but I don't think alot of people are going to face up to it.
-
@AeonBlues:
Please refrain from making such blanket and often inaccurate statements in a thread that is already teetering on a fine balance. This topic is a highly-charged political, social and economic issue, with far ranging implications on both ends of the spectrum. Your stereotyping was neither contributive to the discussion and served only to insult a group of people whose greatest fault may be that they don't agree with you.
@Everyone here: Discuss this topic all you want, but be aware that there is a reason why we generally will shut down political discussions here. The comment above is a prime example of the snowball that becomes an avalanche. Keep the comments and arguments on the issue at hand, accept possible opposing arguments in the spirit of debate, and above all, keep it civil and respectful. The next thing that even begins to smell like an attack against a person or group of people will result in the thread being locked.
-
I request that this discussion be frozen.
When I first saw this discussion, I thought, "Oh no, this is a trap. Political discussion is not part of Layonara and my views will result in me being banned."
I have tried to keep it mild, but apparently I have failed to do that.
Rather then going into a detailed explanation of my beliefs....
I ask that this thread be frozen.
Thank you.
AeonBlues
-
Nope, sorry. I won't do that out of respect for others who might find the discussion enriching. I believe I explained myself pretty well above.
My comment above has nothing to do with your beliefs or whether or not I agree or disagree, in full or in part. Sweeping generalizations about "conservatives" simply do not contribute at all to the issue of global warming.
If you wish to continue by providing your detailed thoughts on global warming and can do so in a constructive manner without alienating or insulting what may be a significant portion of our community, then by all means, continue.
However, if you cannot express the details of your beliefs without resulting to insults, stereotypes and sensational generalizations, then I humbly request that you recuse yourself from this discussion.
For the record, I would be saying the exact same thing had you, or someone else, made similar disparaging comments about "liberals". In my experience, political discussions, whether in person or on-line (and yeah, I've been in plenty of both), will often degenerate into bickering and name-calling that has nothing to do with the original topic, and it almost always starts with someone making negative comments about a person or group within the discussion. At that point, it loses all value.
As it stands, this discussion still has value, and as such, it will stay open for those who wish to contribute constructively.
-
Right on Dorg. I personally have nothing really to contribute *scratches armpit with vacant expression on face* but have found the conversation interesting and thought-provoking.
Really made me somewhat ashamed of my ignorance and if nothing else, I guess you've had a win there if you can do that for a few people.
-
Science is as accurate as the framework in which it works is perfect.
After all, it's every engineer's dream to work with perfectly voidless solids, infinite, frictionless planes, and the occasional perfectly elastic spring.
(How do you get two flutes in tune? Make sure their perfectly elastic springs are attached fully to their perfectly voidless solids. If you get that, you're a horrible nerd. If you actually thought it was funny, you're hopeless.)
@Dorg: Right on.
-
Another interesting observation about the limitations of science is that the perfect application of the scientific method requires a perfectly objective observer without preconceived notions of what will be observed or what the observations may indirectly imply. People are not perfectly objective.
We all have our ideological view points and ideas on the nature of the universe and the laws that govern it so when two human scientists take a look at the same data it is possible and often happens that they draw different conclusions because of what they have previously thought about things.
I have observed that one of the most important skills for a good scientist is an understanding of his or her preconceptions otherwise sometimes data or truth can get thrown out because it doesn't fit the model or views of the scientist.
To tie this to the global warming discussion one scientist working for a company that sells renewable energy products amy look at data and see some data points that show high temps and focus on those since they seem to make the case he is try to prove while another may throw out the same data points as anomalous because they don't track with the averages or some other reason.
I am a firm believer in the scientific method as a valid and wonderful way to study things and find out how things work but it is very important that the observer is part of the process and must be aware of how he/she may influence his/her observations and conclusions.
-
You have to look at your own empirical evidence, it started snowing in the summer a few years back at my school, our summers are hotter, I notice the winters are not as chilling-to-the-bone as they used to...I feel something is changing.
Please remember that we are talking about a global change here. Even if the weather where you lived had changed radically in your lifetime, that would not be evidence of global warming. You could argue that global warming caused it, but to argue the other way around does not make logical or scientific sense.
@CO2 cooling
Are you perhaps referring to the idea that an increase in CO2 brings an increase in vegetation (and increases the rate of plant's chemical processes), which causes more evaporative cooling?
-
My key point here is that our environmental laws are being governed by economic trade agreements, corporate law makers, business men that become politicians to further their political/economic agenda, and special interest groups. Our entire government was written and founded by people that maximize profits, for the purpose of protecting interest of maximizing profit.
Fact: ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
Fact: The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999. The agreement came into force on February 16, 2005 following ratification by Russia on November 18, 2004. As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries).[7][8] Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement despite their relatively large populations.
Fact: 90% of U.S politicians elected into office are the ones that spent the most money on their election campang.
Fact: In the corporate law academy today in the United States, the dominant view is that corporate law requires managers to pursue a single aim: the maximization of stockholder profits. ~ Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance (March 2005)
Corporate Law, Profit Maximization
and the “Responsible” Shareholder by Ian B. Lee
Fact: In 1995 Venezuela filed a complaint against the U.S clean air standards with the WTO. The WTO ruled that the U.S clean air act was a violation to this trade agreement. Two years later the U.S amended the clean air act to lower its standards.
Fact: The Bush family is heavily invested in the oil industry. Just to through some salt on the wounds here. Our presidents grand father Prescot Bush donate money to Hitlers Nazi party. Also, the Bush family was directly involved with the Binloden family prior to 911. O.o
AeonBlues
-
I think everyone else has been trying pretty hard to avoid turning this discussion to political commentary. It really was not the point. It was a decent discussion while it lasted, though.
-
@CO2 cooling
Are you perhaps referring to the idea that an increase in CO2 brings an increase in vegetation (and increases the rate of plant's chemical processes), which causes more evaporative cooling?
While an increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would, on its own, have a positive effect on global plant growth, a recent (2002) study from Stanford (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html) suggests that when coupled with the other dominant symptoms of climate change, carbon dioxide retards plant growth. So the mitigating, cooling effect of carbon dioxide through the propagation of carbon-sequestering plant growth seems a reasonably flimsy hypothesis.
Carbon dioxide's role in a greenhouse effect has been empirically proven (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142), and with the recent conclusions from the IPCC, humanity's role in raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere by 25% in the last two hundred years is rather concrete... so the climate change resultant from the anthropogenic greenhouse effect would likely nullify any positive influence the carbon dioxide might have.
*pointedly ignores political blandishments and sticks with the topic he finds interesting*
-
*throws a random tidbit and walks away*
Canada has produced more pollutants than the US, and they signed the accord.
*he winks as he walks away*
-
Hrm...I had written more than that but for some reason it does not like being copied and pasted from word....
Just did a random search and came across the following paper Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm)
Haven't looked into the researchers and the source etc so I don't know how valid it is but just as an example to alternatives.
I also like this site for a lot of science myths. Of course, take it with a pinch of salt JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)
I would like to state that I am not against cleaning up pollution (and you should never assume that all those opposed to your point of view don't care about pollution) and agree that politically some really stupid things are done. What I object too is when someone identifies a relationship between one factor and another and says "That's the answer". Especially when the system is much more complex than that. Using that reasoning I can say there is a relationship between the speed of computers and global warming. By using data I could even "prove" that. I could even do something more stupid and blame it on left handed people as there are now more of them in the world then there was 200 years ago. Thing is, you can't prove that it isn't true (science can't prove a negative).
As for maximising shareholder value, that is true. However, if someone develops a product that is better for the environment and extracts a premium brining more wealth to the share holder, is that bad? I wouls also argue that any company doing a dodgy activity that pollutes is putting at risk shareholder value. Cleaning up can be very expensive.
After studying ecotoxicology (from the environmentalist side) I agree with my supervisors comment "give me data and the right statistical tools and I can prove anything.
Also, regardless of all the evidence, you can't prove gravity exists. If I hold a spoon I can't actually prove that it will drop. I can demonstrate it and there is a huge body of evidence but I can't prove it before hand.
Guess that I am also old enough to remember the old "the next ice age is coming" There is historical data to show that in the last 1000 wheat was cropped across Greenland and that the country was also locked in ice.
Everything they have at the moment are models based on assumptions. We only have detailed temperature data going back 150 years. Ice cores/tree rings are much more localised then global temperture data now available.
Fear is a great mechanism to drive change. Personally I would prefer good data to do that. Or better, people to actually give time and clean up after themselves. A novel idea I know, but one day it may actually happen.
-
I work for a big evil multinational and work with bio-engineered crops.
I have no problem with eating genetically enhanced tomatoes, nor do I fear any health risks in them beyond any natural species. Honestly, most of the hippies who protest them on the basis that only organic is healthy should go live in the woods and contract malaria, and get dissentary from unfiltered river water the way nature intended. My only qualm with genetically engineered crops is that some companies are making their versions of the plants sterile past one generation, so farmers have to keep buying the same seeds again and again. On the plus side, I suppose if some unforseen mutation took place and we were attacked by the Killer Tomatoes, we'd only have to deal with them for one crop cycle or so. The negative is that it makes the engineering companies seem like drug dealers in a sense, hooking farmers on their fix and making them come back again and again.
I also wish the bioengineeers would quit focusing their efforts into seedy profits and would redirect their energy towards the forces of pure evil. Then I could run wild through the streets with a machette, hacking at vine monsters and massive venus flytraps like in Little Shop of Horrors.
I do however, look favorably on the idea of a vidallia onion the size of a basketball. I think they'd sell well with the buy-in-bulk crowd at Sam's Club.
I saw the Penn & Teller BS episode covering genetic crops, and they had largely the same take I do. Just because something's genetically engineered doesn't make it any less healthy to digest than the junkfood we already poison ourselves with. Now trans fats... whew. yeah, they're an abomination.
Back to Global warming, don't worry about the cars so much. Sure they're bad, but the biggest culprit is air conditioning. Just ask an environmentalist here in Florida how often they go without that, however. We're currently doing a transition from Freon to a new chemical Puron though that should be a little more eco-friendly, so we'll see.
I'm all for electric cars and finding better fuel methods. I think ethanol from corn and such is a step backwards, no point in combustion with the power of fuel cells today. Just wait though, once we convert, somebody will start complaining about the toxins emitted by old, discarded fuel cells. Utopia is ultimately unattainable... we must be content in our role of finding as many planets we can settle and turning them all into barren wastelands. It is our nature, and being an organism that developed on this earth, that makes us and our civilization all part of nature. Henceforth, all pollutants and toxins we produce are natural and organic by definition; only the devastation of paranormal creatures like demons and werewolves could be considered unnatural.
-
I think everyone else has been trying pretty hard to avoid turning this discussion to political commentary. It really was not the point. It was a decent discussion while it lasted, though.
Agreed. Feel free to post political discontent, but try to confine your ire to Lord Broegar, Milara, or the recent ruling of the Port Hempted council.
RL politics have no place here, and everyone knows better. Nothing will inflame and cause OOC hard feelings faster.
Global warming = Bad
Think Globally, act locally = Good
-
*grins again* Dont forget the massive amounts of methane cattle let go into the atmosphere every year. More pollutants than cars!
*whistles and walks away*
-
Things become political once money is involved.
If 0.00000001% of the world's population made a dollar every time somebody threw a candy wrapper on the ground, then littering would become a political debate. Politicians would be bought out by this tiny multi-billionaire minority to uphold the right of the masses to litter, and top notch research teams would be hired to prove that the garbage was scattered all over the floor before we got here.
Oh the smoke and mirrors of politics. This is why I prefer dry humor and fatalism. No money to be made in being a smirking corpse.
-
If mathematics is the language of science then theory is its poetry and engineering is like righting checks to pay the bills.
-
Regarding bioengineered crops you need to understand the farming system.
In many crops, farmers buy need seeds every year. Keeping seed (Brown bagging) may be up to 30% of the market, the rest is new seed from companies.
There are already seed breeders rights in many countries that means you have to pay a "technology fee" for using that variety. The fee goes back to the plant breeding companies so they can invest in new varieties.
Believe it or not, farmers do not have to buy the seed. In fact, unless you are giving them something extra (money, time or productivity) getting them to buy a product is very difficult.
Lasty, seedless/sterile varieities of plants already exist. Seedless grapes and watermellons, hybrid tomatoes and hybrid leeks all have a market/production advantage. However farmers can't sell the seeds from these crops.
As research into food crops continue, meaning we identify oils, proteins and other nutritional factors that people want in their food, you will want the quality control provided by new seed each year to produce the foods you want. Maybe not the best example, already McDonalds has high quality control on the potatoes it uses for frying (certain type, size and shape). Australia has systems to identify specific protein profiles in wheat to suit specialty markets. By knowing the grain quality of new seed you can meet these requirements.
If people say that you can't beat the big boys, here is one example were we did. We took (non-GM) germplasm from Australia to the US and took nearly 90% of one part of the market. Sure we added in a GM trait, but the germplasm was what did it for us. Basically it was what the farmers wanted so they brought it. Even though we are a big company our seeds business was not strongly funded.
Hrm...too rants in two days. Not good.....
-
I think everyone else has been trying pretty hard to avoid turning this discussion to political commentary. It really was not the point. It was a decent discussion while it lasted, though.
The issue of global warming is entirely a political issue. The U.S produces more green house gases then any other country in the world, and flat out denies responsibility for how its actions affects the rest of the world. When 2000 scientist form an organization called The Union of Concerned Scientists. When 196 world leaders get together and sign a treaty to reduces green house emissions, presumably because they believe that global warming it is a serious threat, but the U.S refuses...
Then the issue of global warming has by default crossed into the realm of a political issue. To not analyze the politics behind U.S and trans national decision making is to ignore vitally important aspects of this discussion.
AeonBlues
-
The issue of global warming is entirely a political issue. The U.S produces more green house gases then any other country in the world, and flat out denies responsibility for how its actions affects the rest of the world. When 2000 scientist form an organization called The Union of Concerned Scientists. When 196 world leaders get together and sign a treaty to reduces green house emissions, presumably because they believe that global warming it is a serious threat, but the U.S refuses...
Then the issue of global warming has by default crossed into the realm of a political issue. To not analyze the politics behind U.S and trans national decision making is to ignore vitally important aspects of this discussion.
AeonBlues
Then this discussion thread should be locked by a mod. There is no point or purpose in bring real world politics to this forum. It will only serve to agitate and annoy and quite frankly, this community is splintered enough without people adding more fuel to the fire.
We need to be building a place to relax and enjoy.
Edited: Removed ", not playing this divisive game." from the last sentence. Lacked clarity.
-
Sadly, I am now moved to agree.
It's clear that my previous warning went unheeded. There have been good points offered on both sides of this, and hopefully everyone who has read it will come away with something, perhaps something they had not previously considered.
Like most issues, this one bears no singular cause, no singular solution, and yet it is being used by everyone as a springboard for personal, commercial and political advantage. All sides of the issue are guilty of this to some degree or the other. Everyone's convinced that they're right and those who think differently are wrong. Until people start actually working for real, meaningful change, there will be no change. It is a complex, dynamic thing that simply cannot be reduced to one factor, one government or one political philosophy.
So on that note, I am locking this thread with one final thought, that applies to more than just this one issue.
In discussing, debating or championing a cause or issue, don't let yourself get so close to it that you cannot see all parts that are important.