Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[the54thvoid]

now that is what we have as a problem is, brushing it under the carpet isnt the way bud. you are trying to control what we are talking about which is very under handed. not fear- reailty its a fact if we dont change we die. i wont join in this post anymore now the thought police are here

Thought police? Don't be silly. Unfortunately, when emotive issues (and this is one) are reduced to binaries of life and death, it becomes difficult to find common ground. Climate change deniers pull ranks and those trying to change our behaviour become more 'alarmist'. Look at global politics, division breeds best when two sides push isolated agendas.

I follow the science. There is nothing to suggest our extinction. We'll see a lot of displacement of population. Conflict over resources. War in places. But extinction isn't a certainty, not at least in human generational terms. On a long enough timeline, yes, we're screwed. But that is the reality of living on a ball of rock floating around a gargantuan and finite thermonuclear reaction.

I also follow the science on a global scale. And yes. It's bleak. But to engage all sides requires mitigation of fears. That we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel is clear. But so too, we need to reduce livestock farming to reduce methane output. The Siberian permafrost isn't so permanent now and it's a vast methane reservoir.

Yeah. It's bad. But we have time to avoid the worst outcomes.

 

[Space Lynx]

Maybe we need to stop destroying each other for conflicting beliefs first, maybe then we could actually get to sorting the other problems out. Nothing will ever change while the world continues to be so secular. Until humans can truly work together to sort this crap out, nothing will change. Until it stops being me and starts being us we are screwed.

the United Nations and International Space Station were good starts, but I don't see it lasting. sadly.

Thought police? Don't be silly. Unfortunately, when emotive issues (and this is one) are reduced to binaries of life and death, it becomes difficult to find common ground. Climate change deniers pull ranks and those trying to change our behaviour become more 'alarmist'. Look at global politics, division breeds best when two sides push isolated agendas.

I follow the science. There is nothing to suggest our extinction. We'll see a lot of displacement of population. Conflict over resources. War in places. But extinction isn't a certainty, not at least in human generational terms. On a long enough timeline, yes, we're screwed. But that is the reality of living on a ball of rock floating around a gargantuan and finite thermonuclear reaction.

I also follow the science on a global scale. And yes. It's bleak. But to engage all sides requires mitigation of fears. That we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel is clear. But do too, we need to reduce livestock farming to reduce methane output. The Siberian permafrost isn't so permanent now and it's a vast methane reservoir.

Yeah. It's bad. But we have time to avoid the worst outcomes.

I agree with this, I don't think it will be extinction, but possibly near extinction, and a lot more poverty. Hopefully if that comes in my life time, I can find like minded people to band together locally and start a village life, one neighbor grows one crop, I grow a second, and we rotate our backyards and survive as a small team/village.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Aren't you agreeing with my statement? "The earth has been considerably warmer than now for most of its history"

Think I may have misread/misunderstood you. And yes, I'm agreeing.

 

[R-T-B]

Extinction is a long way off.

Not for many other species.

We are already basically in a mass-extinction event. Just not for humans.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Not for many other species.

We are already basically in a mass-extinction event. Just not for humans.

True. But given the sheer number of other mass-extinction events that have happened throughout history, we CAN NOT be certain we're the cause of it.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Where is that dooms day meteor located now.

 

[R-T-B]

Hi,
Where is that dooms day meteor located now.

Space.

 

[the54thvoid]

Most extinction events occurring in contemporary times are related to localised impacts on species sustainability. Almost all are habitat destruction for farming or creation of human spaces. Ocean events are related to temp and acidity, as well as overfishing, creating undue stresses on food chains. Pollution is also a huge problem, though that is more easily addressed by regulation. Of course, that's word is anathema to some. But without regulation, profit comes first which means systems to improve environmental damages are sidelined. Just read today about another terrible year for Florida's Manatees. More pollution killing the seagrass. Creatures starving to death because polluters aren't getting caught.

Humans have for centuries caused localised extinction events. It's well recorded. But the link to climate is more nuanced, though pretty much every biologist understands the issue at hand.

 

[PaulieG]

True. But given the sheer number of other mass-extinction events that have happened throughout history, we CAN NOT be certain we're the cause of it.

Maybe not certain that we are the absolute cause, but it's very, very likely that we have accelerated it to a great degree. Anyone who denies that is simply an idiot or a liar. It is also true that there are a great number of things we can choose to do to stop it or at least slow it down.

 

[Caring1]

If you were hoping for another ice age to happen soon, then that's probably not going to happen...

Unless the giant caldera under Yellowstone erupts and that's overdue.

 

[lexluthermiester]

but it's very, very likely that we have accelerated it to a great degree.

That is an assumption that has little to no merit. It is equally likely that events that have transpired are a part of a natural cycle, or set of cycles, we have yet to understand, much like many other things we do not understand.

Anyone who denies that is simply an idiot or a liar.

Or a scientist who requires EVIDENCE instead of hapless conjecture before reaching a conclusion.

It is also true that there are a great number of things we can choose to do to stop it or at least slow it down.

Another assumption that has little to no merit.

Unless the giant caldera under Yellowstone erupts and that's overdue.

That depends on who you talk to and the part of the geological record you reference. Not everyone agrees on the overdue aspect. It's of course possible, but how likely is open for much debate.

 

[PaulieG]

That is an assumption that has little to no merit. It is equally likely that events that have transpired are a part of a natural cycle, or set of cycles, we have yet to understand, much like many other things we do not understand.


Or a scientist who requires EVIDENCE instead of hapless conjecture before reaching a conclusion.


Another assumption that has little to no merit.

The majority of the scientific community believes my statements to be true. Please note that I didn't say that we are the cause of climate change, but that we have at minimum accelerated the process. I'm not arrogant enough to know the cause 100% but both educated and intuitive enough to know we greatly contribute. Those who don't believe these "assumptions" fall into the categories I mentioned in my first thread.

 

[lexluthermiester]

The majority of the scientific community believes my statements to be true.

Perhaps. Doesn't make them correct. It just means they subscribe to a similar school of thought.

I'm not arrogant enough to know the cause 100% but both educated and intuitive enough to know we greatly contribute.

Fixed that for you. There can be no doubt that our activities as a civilization have contributed to environmental conditions. However, no one anywhere in the world has conclusively proven to what extent we have contributed to environment changes. There is only a lot of conjecture, some of it based on known information, some of it theory.

Those who don't believe these "assumptions" fall into the categories I mentioned in my first thread.

Calling someone...

an idiot or a liar

...because they don't subscribe to the same school of thought and require more evidence than you is just simple name-calling and insulting. There is a description for that...

I'm not arrogant enough

...

 

[rruff]

And isn't that good? We'll not all freeze? No, that's bad. Glaciers will melt further, reducing water sources for continental areas. The seas will keep rising, displacing millions. Arable farmland will diminish (already over cultivated - another debate). Let's move up the mountains (where we can't farm as much). Basically, human conflict will be the main focus of a world with a moving population and smaller resources.

Why would :
... melting glaciers reduce water resources for continental areas? Seems like turning ice into water would have the opposite affect...
... arable farmland diminish? Most crops love warm wet conditions and a long growing season. And large land masses in the northern hemisphere will become viable that are not currently.

A Warming Earth is Also a Wetter Earth

As temperatures rise across the globe, many places may experience more intense bouts of precipitation.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

 

[PaulieG]

Perhaps. Doesn't make them correct. It just means they subscribe to a similar school of thought.


Fixed that for you. There can be no doubt that our activities as a civilization have contributed to environmental conditions. However, no one anywhere in the world has conclusively proven to what extent we have contributed to environment changes. There is only a lot of conjecture, some of it based on known information, some of it theory.


Calling someone...

...because they don't subscribe to the same school of thought and require more evidence than you is just simple name-calling and insulting. There is a description for that...

...

My biggest problem with replies like this is that they often come from people who are going to sit on their asses waiting for concrete proof and do nothing to potentially help slow or reverse climate change if we are indeed responsible for it (and have the ability to do something about it) until it's too late. This has been my personal experience.

 

[xtreemchaos]

ill just throw this in 70% or there about of our air we breath comes from Algae in the Ocean around the world and it allso helps to get rid co2, now these Algae likes the salt contents to be stable now with all the ice melting and deluting the salt what could happen ?. my 11 year old grandson asked me this a few weeks ago.

 

[the54thvoid]

Why would :
... melting glaciers reduce water resources for continental areas? Seems like turning ice into water would have the opposite affect...
... arable farmland diminish? Most crops love warm wet conditions and a long growing season. And large land masses in the northern hemisphere will become viable that are not currently.

A Warming Earth is Also a Wetter Earth

As temperatures rise across the globe, many places may experience more intense bouts of precipitation.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

The glaciers on continental Asia feed the rivers. Many of these glaciers are in retreat, threatening those freshwater sources. It's not as simple as saying there'll be more water. Those glaciers are disappearing. As they do the rivers will dry up too. We're talking decades to centuries. One of those, not in my lifetime problems, which is why we find it so easy to ignore.

As for farming. It's not solely about the water. As my post said, that's another discussion. Over intensive farming reducing soil viability.

 

[rruff]

I agree with this, I don't think it will be extinction, but possibly near extinction, and a lot more poverty.

Near extinction of humans?! Because the global temperature rises to a level that is more ideal for humans (and animals and plants)?

If temperatures rise substantial amounts there will certainly be a lot of changes to deal with; primarily some displacement in coastal areas, and adjustments for growing food. Humans may very well extinct themselves by other means, but there is every reason to expect that the earth will be "more ideal" for human habitation. Having a big chunk of the planet covered in an ice sheet every 20k years or so (the scenario without human-caused global warming) would be a much more challenging scenario to deal with.

The glaciers on continental Asia feed the rivers. Many of these glaciers are in retreat, threatening those freshwater sources. It's not as simple as saying there'll be more water. Those glaciers are disappearing. As they do the rivers will dry up too. We're talking decades to centuries. One of those, not in my lifetime problems, which is why we find it so easy to ignore.

As for farming. It's not solely about the water. As my post said, that's another discussion. Over intensive farming reducing soil viability.

A glacier is a mass of ice that exists year round. Liquid water is what feeds the rivers... some of that melting snow/ice and some rainfall. Snow will still fall in the mountains in winter and feed the rivers when it melts... only now there will be more of it, because the precipitation is higher and none of it locked in ice. A warming earth will alter the pattern of water flow to a degree, but it won't decrease it.

Intensive farming is a completely unrelated topic... but one that will be alleviated somewhat when higher latitudes become viable for growing crops.

 

[R-T-B]

Near extinction of humans?! Because the global temperature rises to a level that is more ideal for humans (and animals and plants)?

It was a 118F in Olympia, WA just a few weeks ago. Birds were falling out of the trees dying. Humans without shelter died. The trees got confused after the fact and thought the 80 degree followup was "Fall" and started to turn yellow.

I really don't think you grasp how wrong that is.

 

[lexluthermiester]

My biggest problem with replies like this is that they often come from people who are going to sit on their asses waiting for concrete proof and do nothing to potentially help slow or reverse climate change if we are indeed responsible for it (and have the ability to do something about it) until it's too late. This has been my personal experience.

My problem with replies like this is that they often come from people that are so assumptive that they often lose focus on the bigger picture. They are so focused on their own flawed narrative that they can't see the fact that they have no possible way of knowing anything about which they speak. This has been my personal AND professional experience.

Birds were falling out of the trees dying.

Birds fall out of trees and die all the time. I found a dead bird in my yard last week while mowing. Birds don't live forever. They die every day. This is hardly earth-shattering information.

 

[R-T-B]

My problem with replies like this is that they often come from people that are so assumptive that they often lose focus on the bigger picture. They are so focused on their own flawed narrative that they can't see the fact that they have no possible way of knowing anything about which they speak. This has been my personal AND professional experience.

Meanwhile I legit worry about cooking to death in the near future.

I didn't think much about this until the Pacific Northwest and Canada beat the Sahara Desert for the high of the day.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Meanwhile I legit worry about cooking to death in the near future.

Sit back and relax. You don't live in an area of the world that will experience extremes very often. You're not going to cook to death. Turn on the AC and if you don't have such utility, open a window, get a box fan, put it in your window, get a spray bottle with water, spray yourself. Enjoy, but worry not. This heat wave will pass.

I didn't think much about this until the Pacific Northwest and Canada beat the Sahara Desert for the high of the day.

Again, an extreme that happens rarely, not frequently.

 

[R-T-B]

Sit back and relax. You don't live in an area of the world that will experience extremes very often. You're not going to cook to death. Turn on the AC and if you don't have such utility, open a window, get a box fan, put it in your window, get a spray bottle with water, spray yourself. Enjoy, but worry not. This heat wave will pass.


Again, an extreme that happens rarely, not frequently.

It's predicted to happen again this very year, so, yeah.

 

[Speedyblupi]

That is an assumption that has little to no merit. It is equally likely that events that have transpired are a part of a natural cycle, or set of cycles, we have yet to understand, much like many other things we do not understand.


Or a scientist who requires EVIDENCE instead of hapless conjecture before reaching a conclusion.


Another assumption that has little to no merit.

It's not equally likely. We've burned huge amounts of fossil fuels that otherwise wouldn't have been burned, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it absorbs IR radiation which is radiated from the earth, and reduces the rate at which is radiated into space, and increasing the average temperature of the atmosphere.

This isn't conjecture or a hypothesis, it's established science, based on the basic physical properties of carbon dioxide and simple causality. There is more than enough evidence for it. You not knowing about it doesn't mean it isn't true.

There's plenty of merit to the idea that we can reduce the rate of global warming, we simply have to increase the rate that carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (e.g. by causing algal blooms or allowing forests to regrow) and/or reduce the amount we add to the atmosphere (e.g. by reducing use of fossil fuels), or by increasing earth's albedo (which reduces the amount of sunlight absorbed by the earth's surface, and therefore reduces the amount of sunlight converted to IR which is easily absorbed by the atmosphere).

Will global warming wipe out humanity? Realistically, no. We're a resilient species. But if we continue as we are now, the number of humans that could live on Earth in around 500 years will be significantly smaller than it currently is (there's a legitimate question about exactly how big the difference would be, but the only reason anyone would think it couldn't happen is if they don't understand the science), and we'd lose potentially hundreds of other species.

Why would melting glaciers reduce water resources for continental areas? Seems like turning ice into water would have the opposite affect...

The overall amount of water would be about the same on average, but it would make the water supply less consistent, because you wouldn't have an annual cycle of snow building up and melting throughout the year. Mountain streams would be dry except when it rains, rather than flowing throughout summer and frozen in winter.

 

[lexluthermiester]

It's not equally likely. We've burned huge amounts of fossil fuels that otherwise wouldn't have been burned, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it absorbs IR radiation which is radiated from the earth, and reduces the rate at which is radiated into space, and increasing the average temperature of the atmosphere.

Volcanic eruptions anyone? Volcanic eruptions inject 10,000 times(and that is a conservative number) more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere per eruption than we produce in any given year. There have been a great many volcanic eruptions in the last few centuries and even the last few decades. Quite a few more than in the previous centuries. Just throwing it out there...

This isn't conjecture or a hypothesis, it's established science, based on the basic physical properties of carbon dioxide and simple causality. There is more than enough evidence for it. You not knowing about it doesn't mean it isn't true.

It absolutely is hypothesis. It is science theory that fails to take into account all possible variables. Context IS important for a firm understanding of the big picture..