Global Warming

[vitor]

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?

[Niles09]

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.

[hawklen]

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*

[Skywatcher]

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.

[Hotaru]

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

[Mooneyes]

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*

[darkstorme]

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.  

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 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, 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.

[Gulnyr]

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.

[darkstorme]

1.  Changes in the environment are the direct result of human actions and not other environmental factors.

In response:

• Here
  
• Here
  
• Here
  
• and Here, 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
  
• Here
  
• Here
  
• and Here
  

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 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.

[kenty191]

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?

[darkstorme]

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.

[kenty191]

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

[vitor]

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.

[darkstorme]

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.

[kenty191]

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.

[lonnarin]

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.

[darkstorme]

*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.)

[kenty191]

Beware of Dihydrogen Monoxide!

[darkstorme]

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.

[Hotaru]

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*