A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

[Blue_vision]

I won't argue with you on the topic of energy and waste conservation, that is something we need to do regardless of what other measures we take.

But what kind of "green energy" are you talking about in this case. Be it for vehicles or overall electrical production, I defy you to name a viable system that is economically feasible on a large scale. With the exception of course of hydroelectric (since we've already built as many as we can), nuclear, or fossil fuels.

But you have to realize that energy and waste conservation have many of the same answers that global warming does. Switching away from fossil fuels, cutting down on landfill use, and recycling materials all have a similar thread in the broader issue of environmental sustainability.
And if you want other systems that are "economically viable," well they're all economically viable, perhaps with the exception of solar (that said, the rate of decline in the price of solar energy means that it's currently economical to install a solar panel and have it in use for 20 years, and it'll be even more economical a few years down the line.) Wind power has been a perfectly economical alternative to traditional power for some time now, as seen by the massive development of wind power in places like Texas and the North Sea. Geothermal power, while more limited in scope, is as well (just for heating your house: I did the math, and with current energy cost, it'd only take 15 years for the average seasonal american household to recover all its costs from geothermal energy.) The issue is that non-renewable energy companies have a far firmer footing, meaning better existing infrastructure, and more capital to expand on non-renewable enterprise.

An example of a novel idea that combines everything: There's an initiative that's been going on in Brazil for some time now, that takes the depleted husks of sugarcane, breaks the unusable cellulose down into ethanol for use in biofuel, burns what organic material is left over to power the entire process, and then ships out the ash left from the burning as organic fertilizer for use on those same sugarcane fields. But of course, I'm not sure why exactly they'd do it; there's obviously no possible economic opportunity in that system which would turn otherwise waste sugarcane husks into biofuel and fertilizer, right?

But take an overall shift towards electric vehicles.

Electric vehicles increase the amount of hazardous waste dumped. The energy saved from not burning gas is just transferred to a burden on the power plants, leading to an increase in fossil fuel consumption. Overall, this system is more efficient, but the cost involved in switching over may or may not be offset by the 5-10% improvement.

Several things:
First, most obviously, is that electricity provides the possibility for 100% renewable energy in automobiles. Just have those electric cars hooked up to a wind, geothermal, solar, or hydroelectric grid, and the GHG emissions while in use are basically zero. And even if not, depending on how far you are from the closest power plant, the efficiency of energy conversion in even a large-scale coal power plant to electricity and to the car will likely end up being less than in an internal combustion engine, which are notoriously inefficient.
Secondly is that, again, it's all about the existing infrastructure. Once you get the proper infrastructure for electric cars (which really isn't that hard when compared to the infrastructure that went into making gas-powered automobiles,) it's all benefit. And you might as well start now, as we're going to run out of oil sometime. The question is when; is it going to be now, where we can transition in an organized fashion towards a post-oil economy, or is it going to be 20 years down the road when we're in a rush to convert our infrastructure to renewable resources, and have essentially released all the carbon deposits that we can? That 5-10% may not be worth it in 5 years, or even 20, but it will eventually make up its cost, and it's something that we'll need to do anyways.

Of course, the novel thing to do would say "we just don't need this many cars," and instead build better public transport systems, so we could cut the number of cars in total (meaning less energy consumed,) and face lower costs when transitioning from oil to electricity.

 

[thephich]

I really don't mean to sound like an ass when I say this, but it really doesn't matter what you think about global warming, its all about what has been proven. Now I am definitely a proponent of stewardship of the planet, but I've never seen reliable data for human induced climate change. All the stuff the comes out of the IPCC is not from professionals, and Dr. Mann was a complete hack.

Short side note, people talking about how the weather they experience is changing, thats what you get in a dynamic climate. And nothing is to say that local extremes are not possible, statistically they are almost guaranteed to happen every year somewhere on the planet.

 

[Bantarific]

97% of climatologists say humans are responsibile for accelerated climate change.

 

[Blue_vision]

Yes heron I do know that some scientists perform false experiments designed to have a specific outcome so that they can say climate change is a hoax. But this does not mean I believe in them, I tend to go with what the smartest people on earth have to say, people who spend years and years studying this with scientists just as smart as them from all around the globe. I ask again, if I cannot trust the smartest people who devote their lives to science to tell me why the world is heating and cooling, who should I believe?

A scientist I know said something very wise when I asked him about the scientific community and its general opposition to global warming deniers:

"If a scientist was to prove in a scientific way that there is absolutely no correlation between human activities and climate change, he would likely be named the scientist of the century."

Just for people that are distrustful of scientists and their intentions on the subject.

 

[Deepzound]

I find it hilarious reading all these nay-sayers' replies in this thread, basically talking like they're experts on the subject and none of them presenting any evidence for their claims.

If you are actually interested in learning about global warming, I recommend going to Skeptical science [http://www.skepticalscience.com/] and checking out some of the facts like 97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans [http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html].

Also worth checking out is a little documentary called The Denial Machine [http://documentaryheaven.com/the-denial-machine/] to learn where a lot of the propaganda regarding climate skepticism is coming from.

 

[Bantarific]

My point being that scientists have tried and failed to say that climate change is a hoax. Just look at many posts from here, one of which is that climate change was disproven scientifically, I was referring to that. (His statement was obviously false.)

 

[Nieroshai]

I'm FULLY for conservation and preserving natural resources. I just think the planet's temperature isn't one of our genuine concerns like deforestation, poaching, pollution of water, etc. I'm also worried about the extinction rate. I just haven't been convinced with undisputable evidence that our global temperature is significantly affected by human carbon output.

 

[qwertyz]

Regardless of whether or not people agree with global warming, everybody can see that the fact is that pumping pollutants in the air, in a very general sense, is not healthy, to the environment, nor the people around the source. Pollutants such as the components that make up smog may or may not be causing the spike in global temperatures. It does cause illness and harm all around though. Who knows, global warming may not be real. Thing is, the people who deny global warming will never get to say, "I told you so," because they will have their lives shortened by 20 years due to Asthma, COPD, or Cystic Fibrosis. And every one else on the face of the planet, for that.

TL;DR:
We are still polluting the world. Doesn't matter whether or not you agree on global warming. Just stop pollution (air pollution mostly). We all know that exists, and we know its bad for everything. I'm sure you don't want to die early due to it (mostly air pollution though).

 

[Bantarific]

Don't even try linking actual facts Deepzound, nobody likes facts in deez here parts.

 

[Deepzound]

Don't even try linking actual facts Deepzound, nobody likes facts in deez here parts.

I know, sad isn't it?

I find it hilarious reading all these nay-sayers' replies in this thread, basically talking like they're experts on the subject and none of them presenting any evidence for their claims.

If you are actually interested in learning about global warming, I recommend going to Skeptical science [http://www.skepticalscience.com/] and checking out some of the facts like 97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans [http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html].

Also worth checking out is a little documentary called The Denial Machine [http://documentaryheaven.com/the-denial-machine/] to learn where a lot of the propaganda regarding climate skepticism is coming from.

 

[v3n0mat3]

Of course Global warming is a real occurrence. I don't deny it. I do deny that humans are the major cause of it. Because, really? Do you think a bunch of humans can beat out a gigantic ball of fire floating above our heads? Do you think we have a greater impact on the Earth than, say, the way the atmosphere is? Very doubtful.

 

[Heronblade]

And if you want other systems that are "economically viable," well they're all economically viable, perhaps with the exception of solar (that said, the rate of decline in the price of solar energy means that it's currently economical to install a solar panel and have it in use for 20 years, and it'll be even more economical a few years down the line.) Wind power has been a perfectly economical alternative to traditional power for some time now, as seen by the massive development of wind power in places like Texas and the North Sea. Geothermal power, while more limited in scope, is as well (just for heating your house: I did the math, and with current energy cost, it'd only take 15 years for the average seasonal american household to recover all its costs from geothermal energy.) The issue is that non-renewable energy companies have a far firmer footing, meaning better existing infrastructure, and more capital to expand on non-renewable enterprise.

An example of a novel idea that combines everything: There's an initiative that's been going on in Brazil for some time now, that takes the depleted husks of sugarcane, breaks the unusable cellulose down into ethanol for use in biofuel, burns what organic material is left over to power the entire process, and then ships out the ash left from the burning as organic fertilizer for use on those same sugarcane fields. But of course, I'm not sure why exactly they'd do it; there's obviously no possible economic opportunity in that system which would turn otherwise waste sugarcane husks into biofuel and fertilizer, right?

But take an overall shift towards electric vehicles.

Electric vehicles increase the amount of hazardous waste dumped. The energy saved from not burning gas is just transferred to a burden on the power plants, leading to an increase in fossil fuel consumption. Overall, this system is more efficient, but the cost involved in switching over may or may not be offset by the 5-10% improvement.

Several things:
First, most obviously, is that electricity provides the possibility for 100% renewable energy in automobiles. Just have those electric cars hooked up to a wind, geothermal, solar, or hydroelectric grid, and the GHG emissions while in use are basically zero. And even if not, depending on how far you are from the closest power plant, the efficiency of energy conversion in even a large-scale coal power plant to electricity and to the car will likely end up being less than in an internal combustion engine, which are notoriously inefficient.
Secondly is that, again, it's all about the existing infrastructure. Once you get the proper infrastructure for electric cars (which really isn't that hard when compared to the infrastructure that went into making gas-powered automobiles,) it's all benefit. And you might as well start now, as we're going to run out of oil sometime. The question is when; is it going to be now, where we can transition in an organized fashion towards a post-oil economy, or is it going to be 20 years down the road when we're in a rush to convert our infrastructure to renewable resources, and have essentially released all the carbon deposits that we can? That 5-10% may not be worth it in 5 years, or even 20, but it will eventually make up its cost, and it's something that we'll need to do anyways.

Of course, the novel thing to do would say "we just don't need this many cars," and instead build better public transport systems, so we could cut the number of cars in total (meaning less energy consumed,) and face lower costs when transitioning from oil to electricity.

Base energy cost increase for these systems as compared with Nuclear:25 percent higher with wind power, 61 percent higher with offshore wind power, and 333 percent higher with solar photovoltaic.

Basic wind power costs a great deal in upkeep and maintenance. In addition, only a few places in the US have a constant enough wind to offset the cost, most of those are already in use or not viable for other reasons. Try building one in my state for instance and the company will go bankrupt very quickly, even if a hurricane doesn't come along and rip into everything.

The cost for standard solar is so far off the charts I won't bother going into it. It also has similar problems that wind has with placement and constant need for productivity.

Geothermal systems can sometimes cost nearly as much to build as the house it is going to supply, and as mentioned is limited to areas where a constant supply of clean water is available. In addition, since users must be careful about how they return the used water to the ecosystem, expect to deal with the consequences of people being themselves.

Biofuel is responsible for at least two separate food crises that I am aware of. Since the advent of the corn ethanol program, food prices around the world have increased by a great deal. It is responsible for a 400% increase in the price of corn flour in Mexico. Corn flour is the staple for the poor in that country. Prior to the price hike, they would pay as much as a third of their wages for it year round. In addition, ethanol fuel is not usable on its own. Attempting to run an engine on straight ethanol will result in an engine that is worth less than its weight in scrap metal thanks to the corrosion. It is only viable as a supplement, most fuels labeled as biofuel are 85-90% regular gasoline, 8-13% ethanol, and 2% stabilizer so the crap doesn't evaporate and leave water in your tank.

Again, I have no problem with cutting corners on consumption, and make no argument that there is a time and place to do such without significantly causing problems for us.

 

[TheRealCJ]

A couple tings: YES the climate is changing, YES it happens naturally, YES people are helping it happen faster, A LOT.
I have done RESEARCH on this, my sources are from all over the place, NASA, a whole bunch of .edu sites (school sites that would have NO REASON to make money or ANYTHING like that, just experiments run by STUDENTS)and a whole bunch of other places too. I even know some REAL SCIENTISTS that were skeptical of the "climate change" thing, and then turned their view around when they started doing their own research as well. Pre-industrial revolution CO2 in the atmosphere was 0.27% (I think around there, maybe 0.29...) NOW it's 0.39% those seem like small numbers yes, but you have to realize ALL LIFE ON EARTH EVOLVED LIKING THAT 0.27% add an extra ~50% to that, and I can tell you that's bad news, imagine adding another 50% oxygen to the atmosphere, we'd all DIE. And that 50% increase in CO2 was just for what countries industrialized THEN, guess what CHINA and INDIA are doing right now? You know, those places that account for almost HALF OF THE WORLDS POPULATION? Ya they are industrializing. So if America is ~4% of the world pop... and we emit 25% of the WORLDS CO2.. China and India are 50% of the worlds population... some basic math tells you that's bad, VERY bad.

Also, the scariest part about rising CO2 emissions, is the acidity of the oceans. I think it's at like 7.3 (and NO I'm not going to get into what the numbers mean, just go google it if you want to know) It used to be at 7.2, and if it gets to 7.5, that means that there will no longer be any shelled organisms in the ocean, like crab, lobster all that. That ALSO means no more coral reefs. Now, if you don't think that's bad, you got some serious reading to do.
EDIT: Bigger numbers = more acidity.

And for those of you that think that Humans DON'T contibute to climate change, I mean seriously, more basic math here, just LOOK at how much crap we pump into the atmosphere. And you think that doesn't do anything?

Oh also, I have NO idea where this climate change is taking us, for I haven't done my research that far, but either it's
A) going to burn us all to death or
B) cause an Ice age. So for everyone saying "It's a natural cycle of the Earth" yes, yes it is. SO SHOULDN'T WE FIND A WAY TO STOP THAT SO WE DON'T FREEZE TO DEATH?! Because I can GUARANTEE you, that you WILL NOT like an ice age.

One last thing: (I don't know if it already has been said BUT)

There have been 6 major extinctions wherein the majority of the Earth's life died that we humans know of. All of them happened before we were here and all of them happened due to massive climate change. The ice age was the most recent.

Humans do not affect the climate.​

The Earth will cool and warm long, long after we go extinct and the cycle of life and death will be unaffected.

The hippies are wrong. The science is right.

Of course! Because No one's EVER offered any SCIENTIFIC evidence of Global Warming!
I suppose you think that hole in the ozone layer just willed itself into existence.

Your a little miss-informed, The hole in the Ozone layer IS NOT effected by CO2 emissions, that was the whole Choral Floral Carbons thing, which was dealt with in the 90's I believe. It doesn't have anything to do with the current issue of climate change. Not trying to sound mean or anything, just informing.

And feel free to correct me on anything I missed or failed at.

Well, they're called CHLOROFLUROCarbons to begin with.

 

[MrA]

I think the world is constantly changing and the effect the human race is having on it is greatly exaggerated by those who have a vested intrest. Take Al Gore as an example. Man has invested millions into green and environmentally friendly products, of course he's going to make "An Inconvenient Truth" trying to scare people into buying his stuff. Seems like a conflict of interest to me. It's just propaganda, in my opinon. Hasn't this planet been through two ice ages already? seems like a pretty drastic global change not brought about by humans.

But that's just my two cents, I might be spouting completely ignorant points, but let me know if so, if you're better informed than me

 

[Nouw]

Call me biased but I had a term of learning about climate change and I think, yes climate change is partly our fault.

 

[cantgetaname]

And for those of you that think that Humans DON'T contibute to climate change, I mean seriously, more basic math here, just LOOK at how much crap we pump into the atmosphere. And you think that doesn't do anything?

The crap we dump is a tiny fraction of the crap nature actually dumps into its own atmosphere. The argument is that humans are maybe possibly "upsetting the balance", which is vague and unscientific, so people obfuscate that logical leap with scary facts about what are probably natural weather cycles (which we've only been recording accurately for about 150 years, so how the hell would we know what's "normal" as far as the earth is concerned?). It's supported by the higher ups as a way for governments to justify tax hikes to support a "war on global warming". Bleh. And it's caught on because of people's desperate desire to believe that they aren't just an insignificant speck on a planet that will keep on turning no matter what they do.

All we do is change the pace. And not very much on a global scale...
Earth takes care of everything. It's been that way for a few billion years.

^ That would be a more succinct way of putting it...

Umm, no? The crap we dump into the atmosphere is A LOT more then natural? Haven't you seen like the 4876159347815694783561943 graphs that show that pre-industrial there is a steady CO2, but when the industrial revolution hit, BAM! HUGE skyrocket in Co2. And no, the argument isn't "that we are possibly upsettting the balance" and we have ways of telling how the atmosphere was like 10,000 years ago. And I TOTALY agree with you that the plaent will keep turning and be perfectly fine, but my argument ISN'T about the PLANET, it's about Humanity living on it. If there was a way to save Humanity by blowing up the planet, I for one wouldn't hesitate to push that Death Star button.
Oh and please tell me where you get your facts that "the crap we pump is only a tiny fraction" cause I would really like to know.
And don't say Fox news or I will stab you.

 

[Kikyoo]

First: Talk to the major countries that don't have pollution caps. Just because a few people are doing it, doesn't mean everyone is, and doesn't mean anything if a bunch of nations are still doing it.
Second: I heard that there is this thing, call Volcanoes, and I heard that they can release absolutely obscene amounts of pollution all at once. So much so that it makes the amount that we humans have put out, amount to nothing.
Third: The sun. Ya know it's not just static up there, the sun has an ebb and flow all it's own, it's just much slower than anything we are used too. And there is nothing we can do about the sun.
Finally: to me it seems like arrogance to think that we matter that much on this planet to think that the whole world is going to end because we are stupid. Nuclear war is about as close as we can get to a total planetary holocaust, and even that might not wipe out everything.
Final stance: The world changes, with, or without humans. We have to accept and adapt to that. Even if we do something about it, The world can still change without us. Frankly in my experience nothing we do matters. Every time we change what we do, we don't fix the problem, we just change the nature of it, or just change how we affect it. If we worry about just ourselves we'll rape nature. If we worry about nature, we will suffer for it. Frankly I'd rather prepare for trouble, and be ready for it, rather than try to fight futilely against anything and everything that can change in the world.

We can shape the world, but ultimately the world is a much bigger place than we often realize. Actions have consequences but I think you need to look around you, and really drink in the reality of how small we are.

There is one point I'm willing to concede... The dead sea. That is not at all cool, and that is completely on our heads, and if we are careless we can expect to see a lot more of that... so let's focus on fixing that, instead of something we may or may not be able to do anything about, like Global warming.

 

[Epifols]

Science has agreed that the earth has

 

[Blemontea]

Live where i live and then tell me that global warming is happening. See what ive seen then tell me its happening. But just because i dont believe global warming is happening doesn't mean ill do what i can to help the environment because their are worse things that can happen if we let the world go to shit. Like an ICE AGE which news reports also saying were going into. This to is false but science has smacked me around saying the world gets colder the more its polluted more than it gets hotter.

 

[cantgetaname]

Ok the volcano thing is kinda annoying me, how can (what max 10 major eruptions a year?) be more then the constant burning of fossil fuels that humans do? Yes volcanoes may put out a lot all at once, but just basic estimation can tell that people put out more DURING A YEAR.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2

Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value into the atmosphere every yea
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans

http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
Yearly averages of global temperatures have steadily increased since the industrial revolution, mid-1700's to mid-1800's in England, addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from industrial processes and the internal combustion engine. Carbon dioxide is abundant in volcanic gases, but not enough to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/


Comon some BASIC Goolging AT LEAST before you say something
that took me like 5 minutes