First we tell the sun to behave, then we tell the CO2 in our oceans to stay there. Then we kill all cows, all the people in India, half the population of China and half the population of the USA. Problem solved.
Global Warming: Solutions
- Thread starter Zeke109
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, the Earth has natural temperature variations. Yes, they are very slow, and sometimes very big. The important thing here is that the current warming is extremely fast, and big enough to be pretty bad for humans.raemiel post=18.73528.822664 said:
I'm not sure why so many people think the existence of natural cycles disproves global warming; actually, they help prove it, because they show how ridiculously fast the current warming is compared to anything in the past. It's not unnatural because the new temperature is unprecedented; it's unnatural because the rate of change is unprecedented, and could be very hard to adapt to just because it's so fast. 800,000 years is plenty of data because, like I said, most of the predicted warming should occur over a much, much shorter period of time. We have no way to explain how anything natural could be doing this; there hasn't been a supervolcano eruption, the Sun hasn't gone berzerk, etc. Some natural things have contributed, but they're no different from the other natural things that have been going on for 800,000+ years and not doing anything like this.
What can you say, that the sudden warming beginning in the Industrial Revolution and developing rapidly into something unlike anything in the past 800,000 years is just a coincidence, caused by something natural and strangely unnoticeable? I really don't see why this is still an argument. Anti-global warming is looking more and more like another conspiracy theory, given all the crazy excuses people come up with when someone asks why on Earth so many scientists would support global warming if it's not well-supported. Why can't they just accept it?
(That last part was mostly an exasperated rant; no offense intended to the quoted poster.)
Such a short and nasty response to a long and well-thought-out post hardly deserves a rebuttal, but here it is anyway. I assume you mean [a href="http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/05/14/ice-core-goes-deep-giving-us-800000-years-of-climate" target="_blank"]this?[/a] I didn't actually quote that, I quoted [a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm" target="_blank"]this similar one[/a], but both of these support global warming so I have no idea what you're being so snide about. The first one says that global warming is "amplifying the effects of the orbital changes" and that "the current conditions represent an experiment with a sample size of one in which we may find new and unexpected feedbacks", which I guess if you're skimming it looking for things to misquote and misinterpret might sound like it's against global warming. But it isn't, it's just being scientific by not ignoring other things that affect warming and by mentioning that the new climate and temperature will be unpredictable (this is exactly why we are so worried about global warming). The article I actually quoted supports global warming pretty much completely. Please, treat this like an actual subject or don't talk about it.Jazzyluv post=18.73528.822559 said:
I'm a history student, so to answer your question: No, I'm not being trained or taught in natural sciences, let alone pure (theoretical) science. I am, however, a student of social/cultural science which, despite the fact that mathematical reasoning is not the driving force behind it, still has the same basis: Skepticism, the neverending inquiry and inherent doubt in any new development and theory.RAKtheUndead post=18.73528.833705 said:
I'm constantly getting the feeling that people try to lure me into the "GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE"-camp, or at least condemn me on similar grounds. I do not deny that Global Warming is happening. It is, I am not doubting the absolute fact that the earth is getting warmer on average. No man of science (I consider myself one, even though I'm still pretty much an apprentice) will doubt such a fact. I do doubt the interpretation and conclusion people attach to this fact.
I'm willing to admit that CO2-emissions are 'helping' global warming, it's not my area of expertise and it would remove the foundations of my own arguments if I claimed that it was. However, it's a fact that climate change is cyclical phenomenon. It's been hotter and warmer in the past, without many of the catastrophic effects people are ascribing to our current return to a warmer climate. People didn't call Greenland "Greenland" because they liked the irony of it.
Basically put, it's not the theory behind Global Warming that I'm against. Sure, I do not agree with all aspects of it, especially the "Sole Guilt"-aspect that so many "believers" seem to emphasize. It's the believers I have a problem with. Society will not collapse, it will, at most, adapt. But I still believe that ultimately it will just happen to be less of the problem people make of it.
First of all, I'll instantly recognize your superior knowledge on the subject, but I can't help but pointing out some (cynical, perhaps) questions. No human-made safety measure is completely infallible (The birth-control pill comes close, I guess). Despite all the benefits, I continue to wonder (awed by the completely different, but closely associated with the Bomb) if all the advantages way up to the possible disadvantages. I can't stave it with arguments, so I'll salute you in this regard.RAKtheUndead said:
Although I suppose it is in economics and energy demand as is in politics, that it is unwise to base all of your power on one source.
OK. Let's go back to basic principles first. When we look at something, anything, like what was the effect of a particular thunder storm on how much corn was produced from a field. We are looking at the effect of the thunder storm, that's a really important point, so I'm going to repeaet it again, we are looking at the effect of the thunder storm. Does that mean there are no natural fluctuations in the production level of this field? We don't really care to be honest, because, and here I repeat it again, we are looking at the effect of the thunder storm.Spinozaad post=18.73528.833485 said:
So, to answer your question. When we are looking at the effects of man made activities on our climate. We are looking at the effects of man made activities on our climate. Should I repeat this for you again? I mean it may sound like a difficult point to understnad, but really it's kind of simple. We are not looking at the natural fluctuations and asking ourselves stupid questions about it. The natural fluctuations, whatever they are, are irrelevant, this is a very simple point:
No matter whatever else. CO2 absorbs heat.
I really don't understand why when I post something like this:
"If you had a box, and you put in more heat then you take out of it, then it heats up. What are we putting into our box? 1 trillion barrels of oil last centry, and 1 trillion more this centry, and even more coal, and some gas also. CO2 heats up under the sun. What are we taking out of the box? Only heat transfer by radiation from earth, the same as 5000 years ago."
People just think it's plain stupidly obvious, yet then they start talking about natural fluctuations. Is natural fluctuations going to affect the amount of CO2 we are puttin into the box? Is natural fluctuations going to affect CO2's ability to absorb heat? Why do you think it's relevant then?
Hmm?! Let's stop arguing right here, this is a misunderstanding. I'm not a "believer" just because I do think global warming is an issue. I never said society will collapse or the world will end, I just said we should be doing all we can do about it. No one actually knows how much of a problem it is, but it's just common sense to always bet on the safer side and buy travel insurance when you go on holiday.Spinozaad post=18.73528.833844 said:
No it isn't you can't arbitrarily remove an aspect of an investigation simply because you want to look at one exact thing. It's like the equations we did in physics were you had to assume that something was taking place in a vacum, all very good but in the real world you would be calculating the speed of that vehicle as it would behave in with the effects of wind resistance. The same applies to global warming / climate shift. You can't just say ignore the cyclic nature of global warming / climate change and only just look at the man made aspect of it.
Even to reach a conclusion on purely the aspect of weather man's contribution is having an effect you still need to take in to consideration the natural effects to reach your conclusions.
ok, so we are AFFECTING it, but we are not EFFECTING it.
for those tards in the audience (you know who you are), that means that we are contributing TO it, but it cannot be stopped, only possibly slowed or altered. The real problem is that it was initially used, in the public, as a way to introduce healthy ways of doing things. it was a cry for help on behalf of the companies in the world that were trying to conserve, reuse, and make affordable energy when we could have really done some good.
And no, I only know what I have done personal research on. I am by no means an expert, but that does not mean that I cannot rationalize a solution/opinion. Thus is the spirit of the debate.
for those tards in the audience (you know who you are), that means that we are contributing TO it, but it cannot be stopped, only possibly slowed or altered. The real problem is that it was initially used, in the public, as a way to introduce healthy ways of doing things. it was a cry for help on behalf of the companies in the world that were trying to conserve, reuse, and make affordable energy when we could have really done some good.
And no, I only know what I have done personal research on. I am by no means an expert, but that does not mean that I cannot rationalize a solution/opinion. Thus is the spirit of the debate.
global warming is mabye 5% man made. The rest of it is to do with natural processes, such as the oceans saturation of CO2 (during cold climates the seas absorb co2, and vice versa, hence why there is a link between climate and co2 levels). It is all just hysteria and propaganda used by governments for extra tax. And hybrid cars? Useless. They cause more polution in their production (battery dell etc) than the emissions they offset. Also a regular deisel car will do more miles to the gallon than any hybrid you care to mentionguyy said:
As someone who has actually worked for a company dealing with the issue of Global Warming, I find it rather depressing to listen to all you uninformed americans claiming there is no evidence for GW being man made. Before you start shouting off about your own little home-cooked ideas, read a book.
About 99% of the worlds scientits - an overwhelmingly large proportion I am sure you agree- have concluded that this is man made. The world's climate changes natually over time *Yes*, but we're talking about tens of thousands of years here, not in a single centuary. By the way, the other 1% of scientists work for the oil companies. Exxon Mobile has been known to pay scientist just to sign documents they have written themselves trying to create a debate over the subject.
This is a typical situation where the uneducated masses think they know more than the scientist, and walk around telling each other that evolution doesn't exist, contunually reinforcing their own self made delusions. There is No debate in the scientific community about the fact that GW is man made, there is only the illusion of a debate, mostly funded by those who have the most to loose - the oil rich tycoons, and the governments they finance.
About 99% of the worlds scientits - an overwhelmingly large proportion I am sure you agree- have concluded that this is man made. The world's climate changes natually over time *Yes*, but we're talking about tens of thousands of years here, not in a single centuary. By the way, the other 1% of scientists work for the oil companies. Exxon Mobile has been known to pay scientist just to sign documents they have written themselves trying to create a debate over the subject.
This is a typical situation where the uneducated masses think they know more than the scientist, and walk around telling each other that evolution doesn't exist, contunually reinforcing their own self made delusions. There is No debate in the scientific community about the fact that GW is man made, there is only the illusion of a debate, mostly funded by those who have the most to loose - the oil rich tycoons, and the governments they finance.
Global warming is - at best - a debated subject. IPCC's statement about the warming being man-made is already facing criticism for not taking into account confounding factors such as solar activity. Basically they set out to prove that warming is man-made (i.e. jumped to the concusion) and ignored to investigate anything else.
This does not mean however that we should not improve on things. Coal and other combustibles kill people. Nuclear power is the way to go to replace much of the shit we release into the environment today.
[http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org]
Image freely usable under Creative Commons 3.0 - BY-NC-SA.
Click on image for downloadables
/S
This does not mean however that we should not improve on things. Coal and other combustibles kill people. Nuclear power is the way to go to replace much of the shit we release into the environment today.
Image freely usable under Creative Commons 3.0 - BY-NC-SA.
Click on image for downloadables
/S
A good call, to say the least. Nuke power can really be the best thing at this point, and we've done quite a bit of research into doing it safely, it just still scares people. Meltdowns happen, yeah, but Chernobyl was a long time ago.
And to restate an earlier idea, global warming is a tool. Obviously it happens. Everything fluctuates, so it will get warmer. Durh. Ecology and safer materials seems a more pressing matter than global warming.
And to restate an earlier idea, global warming is a tool. Obviously it happens. Everything fluctuates, so it will get warmer. Durh. Ecology and safer materials seems a more pressing matter than global warming.
Lazzi said:
Crowd control? hmmmm...
I guess decreasing the amount of fossil fueld used would be the ONLY good thing to come out of Genocide, drought or any other natural disaster. Other than that, I don't really see a bright side to death. Or Genocide. or natural disasters.