Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[twilyth]

Something to note about the affect of carbon on the oceans is that much of the atmospheric carbon gets dissolved and deposited in the oceans in the form of carbonic acid. From Nat Geo.

For tens of millions of years, Earth's oceans have maintained a relatively stable acidity level. It's within this steady environment that the rich and varied web of life in today's seas has arisen and flourished. But research shows that this ancient balance is being undone by a recent and rapid drop in surface pH that could have devastating global consequences.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the early 1800s, fossil fuel-powered machines have driven an unprecedented burst of human industry and advancement. The unfortunate consequence, however, has been the emission of billions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere.

Scientists now know that about half of this anthropogenic, or man-made, CO2 has been absorbed over time by the oceans. This has benefited us by slowing the climate change these emissions would have instigated if they had remained in the air. But relatively new research is finding that the introduction of massive amounts of CO2 into the seas is altering water chemistry and affecting the life cycles of many marine organisms, particularly those at the lower end of the food chain.

 

[LightningJR]

Climate change is a natural occurrence. The planet warms and cools based on many factors, over many millennia. Solar activity is probably the most significant factor.

To believe than mankind has any meaningful influence, whether positive or negative, is the absolute height of human arrogance and conceit.

To believe that the proponents of man-made global warming have your, or anyone else other than their own, best interest at heart is not only foolish, but dangerous.

Why? Because they know it is unprovable either way, and they can make money and exert influence and control over the people by their fear-mongering.

You may be amused, however, if you were serious, you would do more research and not take a few examples of what a certain group of scientists who have a vested interest in proving their hypothesis report, thereby validating your own belief, and look at the counter-point evidence. In other words, look at both sides before you presume to know how someone 'feels'.

Thinking that 7 billion people can affect the climate of the world is far from arrogance. I would maybe give that to you if we were only just pushing 1 billion but 200 years have passed and now we are 7.25Billion on this planet.

With the population growing as it is and China & India, the two largest countries in population, continuing their industrial revolution things will get worse.

The thing is I don't come to any conclusions based on my own interests, the only thing I look for it facts and the truth. I can be persuaded if the facts take me there. I see zero reason to believe the big oil & gas companies, they have every reason to protect their interests and their billions of dollars. I don't understand the argument that these reputable scientists are lying to me and trying to make money. Please show me the evidence, it's all I ask. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.

This quote "To believe that the proponents of man-made global warming have your, or anyone else other than their own, best interest at heart is not only foolish, but dangerous." can be flipped to support the side of man made global warming and it fits much easier.

In response to this quote "Climate change is a natural occurrence. The planet warms and cools based on many factors, over many millennia. Solar activity is probably the most significant factor." This information is very important and any self respecting scientist will take into account all the the necessary variables.


I try my best to put myself in on the opposite side of the argument in order to understand my views. It's one of the ways I come to the conclusions of my own beliefs. I also do this with the god debate, but that's another thread. When I think about it the only reason that I can come up with that would persuade me is that scientists have missed something huge that they have not taken into account. this bit of evidence would disprove the whole premise of man made global warming. But until then I see no good reason to think otherwise.

Just like that one scientist that had direct links between vaccines and mental deficiencies, the scientific community tested his theories and he was heavily disproven. I hold the scientific community to a high standard because they hold themselves to the same standard. You should too.

 

[R-T-B]

Thinking that 7 billion people can affect the climate of the world is far from arrogance. I would maybe give that to you if we were only just pushing 1 billion but 200 years have passed and now we are 7.25Billion on this planet.

There are some animals that actually outnumber us by a large margin, but the thing is, none consume the same average resources as a human does. We eat a metric button (that's a scientific term, people) of resources compared to any animal. And our population is only growing.

If you don't think we have an impact on "mother nature" at this point, you are just burying your head in the sand to be honest. Your attitude certainly isn't arrogance, but it is hiding from an issue.

The issue may be blown out of proportion. But it does exist... denying that is just foolish.

 

[rtwjunkie]

@LightningJR The evidence in this being a big moneymaking scheme by Liberals, is, at least in the U.S. In for instance, pollution credits. I don't know how it is is in the rest of the world, but here it is a means to support and prop up so called green businesses that couldnt sell their ass if it was free, and to charge these pollution credits to big manufacturing companies. Supposedly, this money is to fix the environment, but in reality, its just a bribe instigated on big companies to keep whatever emmissions they had previously.

One of the biggest proponents here is Al Gore. He's made alot of money scaring people with his own cherry picked "facts", yet...he owns a house that has a monthly electricity bill of over $3,000. Duplicity to the max. Or another one who loves hysteria is Leonardo DiCaprio. Several years ago, he attended a climate change conference in SE Asia. How did he get there? By private jet. Yep, duplicity to the max.

And then there are some of the good people on TPU, who sound as if they believe these few, Liberal-funded scientists and think the world is about to end. And all this brainwashed hand-wringing happens on their elecrically powered pc's, tablets, and phones. And if that's not enough, you don't even want to know what very harmful metals and chemicals are in them, and the water table pollution that was instigated in the extraction of them. Duplicity, again.

The only way I can believe someone is truly against global warming is for them to renounce all technology and raise animals and crops on a farm, without powered anything, like the Amish do. And even then, you'll be contributing to the calamity that mankind is supposedly committing, because you'll be burning wood for a fire and your animals will be emitting methane.

 

[OneMoar]

is air pollution a major problem: yes
should we be doing something about it: yes and we are

is icemelt likely to speed up the occurrence of a ice age fk no: are you retarded ?
ICE Melts people even if you dumped a massive chunk of it in the sea you are not likely to lower the temp enough to affect the thermal mass of the planet especially when you consider how much extra heat we are keeping in,
any drop in sea-temps over the long term is going to be offset by the extra energy we are keeping in.
now there may come a point someday where the atmosphere will become so clogged with various types of crap that there will be a reduction of sunlight to the point of causing a serious catastrophe when you factor in the natural cycle of the planet, but that is at least a few hundred years away and no matter what we do or do not do that cycle will contiune,it would be a exersise in curbing the "severity" nothing else

 

[LightningJR]

@LightningJR The evidence in this being a big moneymaking scheme by Liberals, is, at least in the U.S. In for instance, pollution credits. I don't know how it is is in the rest of the world, but here it is a means to support and prop up so called green businesses that couldnt sell their ass if it was free, and to charge these pollution credits to big manufacturing companies. Supposedly, this money is to fix the environment, but in reality, its just a bribe instigated on big companies to keep whatever emmissions they had previously.

One of the biggest proponents here is Al Gore. He's made alot of money scaring people with his own cherry picked "facts", yet...he owns a house that has a monthly electricity bill of over $3,000. Duplicity to the max. Or another one who loves hysteria is Leonardo DiCaprio. Several years ago, he attended a climate change conference in SE Asia. How did he get there? By private jet. Yep, duplicity to the max.

And then there are some of the good people on TPU, who sound as if they believe these few, Liberal-funded scientists and think the world is about to end. And all this brainwashed hand-wringing happens on their elecrically powered pc's, tablets, and phones. And if that's not enough, you don't even want to know what very harmful metals and chemicals are in them, and the water table pollution that was instigated in the extraction of them. Duplicity, again.

The only way I can believe someone is truly against global warming is for them to renounce all technology and raise animals and crops on a farm, without powered anything, like the Amish do. And even then, you'll be contributing to the calamity that mankind is supposedly committing, because you'll be burning wood for a fire and your animals will be emitting methane.

Well I do agree duplicity is BS, some high profile people like to be very outspoken about certain issues and they just go and do whatever the hell they want. Greed and self interest, which also leads to corruption, like in politics, seems to be a human condition. Once you mentioned "Liberals" you lost much of your credibility (to me, not that it matters or that you even care) both parties are corrupt and each has their own agenda. I always wondered if people decide their party affiliation based on their views or do their party affiliation dictate them...

Once you inject the idea that it's a liberal scam the other side can say that's it's a conservative scam when conservatives deny it, it's a it's a never ending shit circle that will get no one anywhere. I am concerned about the facts and only that. The 95% of scientists is a huge number and the probability of those being "in on the scam" is very low especially when these scientists are from all over the world. Also something can be a fact and still be making people lots of money, how do you know these liberals, like you say, are just making money from the truth?

There's also a big difference between people using a pc/laptop/tablet etc. and billion dollar corps in oil/gas/coal, etc. These people have all the control, consumers will consume what they can afford. Until the people are given an alternative they will change very little. I don't know all the nuances of how to change the world but I would bet that if we have the people with all the money and power change the people will have little choice but to do the same.

 

[OneMoar]

try and keep the politics out of the discussion it never ends well

 

[LightningJR]

try and keep the politics out of the discussion it never ends well

I agree, indeed.

 

[rtwjunkie]

try and keep the politics out of the discussion it never ends well

Unfortunately, this "science" is so firmly and incestuously wrapped with politics it cannot be discussed seperately, because it's an agenda on either side. For that reason, this is a science thread that I vote closed.

Lightning, I don't know where I ever mentioned a party. Liberal is a doctrine, not a party in the U.S. at least, diametrically opposed to Conservative. Both major parties in our country have liberal and conservative members. The belief in or not of man's contribution to climate change is broken down on those doctrines, not political parties. I for one do not belong to any party and vote my conscience always, and only after becoming throughly familiar with the issues. So...there is no reason to have lost you!

 

[LightningJR]

Unfortunately, this "science" is so formly and incestuously wrapped with politics it cannot be discussed seperately, because it's an agenda on either side.

Lightning, I don't know where I ever mebtioned a party. Liberal is a doctrine, not a party in the U.S. at least, diametrically opposed to Conservative. Both major parties in our country have liberal and conservative members. The belief in or not of man's contribution to climate change is broken down on those doctrines, not political parties. I for one do not belong to any party and vote my conscience always, and only after becoming throughly familiar with the issues. So...there is no reason to have lost you!

haha, well my knowledge of another countries politics isn't wide enough yet. It's good to see I have been found.

 

[rtwjunkie]

haha, well my knowledge of another countries politics isn't wide enough yet. It's good to see I have been found.

By the way, if you are sincerely interested, don't take the 95% of scientist number as fact. In truth, the more studies you look at, not interpreted by politicians, you'll see it's about 50/50.

 

[metalslaw]

Nevermind the title on this video, but this guy analyses the climate change debate quite well with his whiteboard.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Nevermind the title on this video, but this guy analyses the climate change debate quite well with his whiteboard.

Very good find! What I heard toward the end of his video is something both sides should take from this. Do your own research. Don't take politicians proclamations. Come to your OWN conclusions.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Way to have a mature and sensible debate guys............

I;m impressed !!!


If Parliament had spent this much airtime on the subject at least one pervert, paedophile or comnman would have been exposed by now and the argument would have been diverted by scandal.

DONT BELIEVE POLITICIANS .......................they bullshit for a living.

If you feel you can do your bit, do it. Ive got kids who i love, i dont want their kids to grow up asthmatic or plueritic or worse.
Have strong convictions and shout them from the rooftops.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Nevermind the title on this video, but this guy analyses the climate change debate quite well with his whiteboard.

That's pretty much what Freeman Dyson (physicist that cites economists and climatologists) concluded in a short article titled "The Question of Global Warming." When I read it, it was available in its entirety for free. Now, apparently, it requires a subscription to read so, here's what I wrote about it as I was reading through it back in 2011:

He is a world renowned physicist and mathematician that cites the works of Keeley (who pioneered CO2 research), Nordhau (economist that did a fiscal policy analysis of climate change), and Zedillo (an author that cites many resources from economists to oceanographers, to climatologists, and key people inside of governments that have political interest in climate change).

Just read the damn thing--its only three pages long. In his conclusion, he explains, perfectly, your view point and why you are so insistent on being correct.

Quick summary:
-Keeley's research shows that vegetation has a massive, seasonal impact on CO2. Excluding the oceans, he estimates CO2 is only in the atmosphere for 12 years. Figure in the oceans, that falls to 5 years.

-Nordhau research showed that Gore's and Stern's environmental policies never pay off economically (they cost 17+ times more over 100 years than what they save from supposed economic losses). Doing nothing results in virtually no change. Using a "low-cost backstop" (implementing yet-to-be developed technologies that are cheap and environmentally friendly like "genetically engineered carbon-eating trees") was ideal.

If you only want to read part of it, read the third page. It's relatively short and I'm not going to sum it up here because it is already a summary.


Bottom line: science doesn't give to alarmism. There's obviously forces at play that have an agenda (majority) and they are vilifying those that don't (minority).

linkage

He's wrong that rising oceans would reduce resources. Those resources were exploited long ago. The displacement of people would be bad but realize that the oceans rise slowly and people can adapt to slow change like it wasn't even change in the first place.


Obviously he's a climate change advocator because he says "A" is the "only choice." Absolutely wrong. Merely the debate that took place around 2010 caused a massive socio-political rift in the USA. Both the A (Democrats) and B (Republicans) went to their respective corners and argued their case until the alarmism died down and both sides more or less forgot about it. Freeman Dyson put the tab of implementing changes to reverse climate change at some where around $10 trillion globally if memory serves and that wasn't counting the damage to all the sacrifices that would have to be made. That would bankrupt the world which also leads to wars and wars lead to massive pollution aggravating the climate. The costs are huge for "A" and "B." I'd argue they are about equal which is why it is debated at all.

And again, I refer to my first post in this thread: I'll call it point "C" and what Freeman Dyson concluded similarly: When you have to spend money on something anyway (e.g. a power plant, a car, a transit system, electronic devices, light bulbs, etc.), everyone collectively just needs to weigh economic cost with environmental cost as well as invest in new technology like fusion power and genetically modified trees that are especially effective at processing CO2. Instead of coal or natural gas, build nuclear. Instead of a buying a big pickup, buy a crossover SUV. Instead of expanding roads in cities, expand mass transit systems that would be almost emission free if they're powered by predominantly nuclear. Instead of buying a passive PFC AC-DC converter that is <70% efficiency, buy one that is 85+ certified that could get up to 95% efficiency. Instead of buying incandescent bulbs, buy LED. This is the happy medium that not only reduces emissions, most are close to or more cost effective (e.g. an LED bulb will last many, many, many incandescent lifespans) than their environmentally unfriendly counterpart.


Yes, for example, there's a lot of naysayers out there that still hate the idea of nuclear but these are often the same people that press the alarm button on climate change. Would these people rather have "A" or "C" since they don't believe "B" is an option? And before any of you start throwing "green" out there, let me point you to this that shows thermal solar and wind have double the cost of nuclear. Photo voltaic is a third more but production of all solar and wind is a function of space which is more precious than electricity.


I took his "challenge:"

 

[silkstone]

I didn't realize there was actually a large amount of climate change deniers until I read this thread. Both the ignorance and the level of political influence on the population is staggering!

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Once again the Welsh have got it nailed

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon-developers-8609939
only the first bit on the vid is in Welsh



(The film Twin Town is set in this " Pretty Shitty City" if you like lunacy watch it. Nothing to do with global warming btw)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I didn't realize there was actually a large amount of climate change deniers until I read this thread. Both the ignorance and the level of political influence on the population is staggering!

You're making me quote my quote of me quoting myself:

Bottom line: science doesn't give to alarmism. There's obviously forces at play that have an agenda (majority) and they are vilifying those that don't (minority).

I don't confirm nor deny because I can't prove either way. Atmospheric CO2 & CH4 are rising and that's a provable fact. Everything that comes after that is postulation. We're heading into uncharted territory with only theory to shine a potential path.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

Threads too long to read through, and I don't have time for reading articles...

Either way, I've always been an opponent of man made global warming theory, there is not enough evidence that global temperature doesn't normally fluctuate significantly over the short term. And because the accuracy of our long term measurements is very limited, and the timescale resolution is much larger any of these short term (100 year) changes will not be seen at all. If our data sets in the past are of resolutions of the order of 1000s of years, we can make no scientifically based assumptions about the current global temperature.

I guess one of the reasons the argument is popular among politicians is because it allows them to draw people away from problems like waste disposal, externalization of costs/consequences, among many others...

 

[BiggieShady]

I didn't realize there was actually a large amount of climate change deniers until I read this thread. Both the ignorance and the level of political influence on the population is staggering!

I totally agree. The only situation where scientists go against science and all the scientific data. 40% of all electricity is still produced by burning coal. 80% by burning coal and other stuff.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I totally agree. The only situation where scientists go against science and all the scientific data. 40% of all electricity is still produced by burning coal. 80% by burning coal and other stuff.

You forgot the exception to the rule--the one country that pushed forward with cuclear despite Chernobyl NPP reactor 4 explosion and the Three Mile Island incident: France.

<10% from burning

 

[rtwjunkie]

I didn't realize there was actually a large amount of climate change deniers until I read this thread. Both the ignorance and the level of political influence on the population is staggering!

50% each side roughly. One of the biggest divisive issues in across the world.

Now, please watch the video, and Ford's post above. The debate is wrong. It should not be about whether it is human caused...thats unprovable either way. It should be on what can we do to help make things better whether its human assisted or not.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

You forgot the exception to the rule--the one country that pushed forward with Nuclear despite Chernobyl NPP reactor 4 explosion and the Three Mile Island incident: France.

When was the last nuclear incident in france?

With thorium cycle reactors I think it will be the main way forward for a long while, the main problem with nuclear power ATM is the waste, not the danger of chernobyl lile incidents. This is another thing that is hugely blown out of proportion by politocians and the media.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Now, please watch the video,

Which one Dude ?


This one?

Youll laugh your bollocks off. (might need subtitles though)

 

[BiggieShady]

You forgot the exception to the rule

France is the part of the world, so I did include it and did not forget it ... too bad it didn't offset the percentage much.
Nuclear energy is great and can be safe. But, even if all is perfect in that regard, the earthquake or tsunami fucks it up.