Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Note: I posted this in Politics and Controversies, but I've been told by someone that I'd have a better discussion posting this here.
There are a number of skeptics of anthropogenic global warming among the frequenters of the City-Data Politics and Other Controversies forum. I am not going to argue against that, since anthropogenic global warming is a very complex issue, involving not only the modeling of the various systems using chemical, geological, biological and other sciences, but it also involves politics and foreign policy, both very sensitive issues to some members of the forum.
What I want to know is what your opinion is of the relationship between humans and the third planet from the sun.
I would like to begin with saying that according to many scientists, the earth has gone from hell and back. The earth has been at points of both extreme cold and extreme heat already, with both conditions not being suitable for human life as we are now. This theory is not far-fetched, given the diverse and violent tectonic history of the earth.
I would also like to remind that the current theory is that we are not the ONLY organisms that would alter the chemical composition of the planet, since the introduction of cyanobacteria millions of years ago. The introduction of oxygen to the atmosphere was a VERY significant change to all life forms.
...But besides biosphere, there are other systems at play that affect the conditions in which the various forms of life live in.
The hydrosphere is one of the systems that living things depend on. Not only does it cover most of the earth, it is the environment in which many organisms survive. The main component of the hydro sphere is water, a molecule that has peculiar characteristics. For one thing, water in it's liquid form needs a lot of energy to be heated up one degree, in fact, it needs four times as much energy to be heated one degree than dirt. Water circulates the oceans, and provides a medium to transfer energy, nutrients, and itself to various systems that uses. In it's solid form it reflects radiation off the earth, provides insulation to the ground, and provides fresh water when it melts. In it's gas form, water can lift itself off the ground and be transported across the continents. It also acts as an energy transfer, and it can cause unpleasant conditions to people through the means of a storm.
Another system is the lithosphere. Much of the earth is still pretty damn hot, although the surface significantly cooled off. But, the surface is still changing due to the circulation of liquid below the lithosphere. Although they are microscopical for the most part, over millions of years, they can alter the distribution of the earth and oceans significantly, altering the interaction between water and land. At it's current condition, the lithosphere is responsible for the ice age, due to blocking off transfer of water between the pacific and Atlantic oceans at the point which is now Central America. Another component to the lithosphere are volcanoes. Volcanoes can release matter to the atmosphere and release lava to the ground. This matter temporarily stays in the atmosphere, and it can block radiation to the surface. At times volcanoes have been known to destroy villages, cause famines, and even mass extinctions, if enough of them go off at one time, or if many of them erupt for a long period of time.
Another system is that between the sun and the earth. The sun gives off energy and the earth reflects it. This exchange is equal, but various systems have tipped the balance before, leading to a very cold and very hot earth in the past.
Since the rise of humans in recent times, we have gained the technology to cause chemical reactions and bring up carbon dioxide and other gases to the atmosphere. Remember how I said that water in it's liquid form takes a lot more radiation to be heated up one degree than dirt? Well, certain gases do not need a lot of radiation before turning it into thermal energy. One gas to keep in mind is methane. A huge amount of methane is stored within the earth will be released if the permafrost in the soil in the northern hemisphere melts. This could be a runaway effect, according to some. The runaway effect supposedly tips the radiation balance towards an unfavorable position to humans. However there are many systems in place that will react to this warming and will perhaps act as a balance. Furthermore humans also have been known to chop down trees, a consumer of global warming gases. However, with advancement of global warming, trees in the low population areas of the north will advance north and increase in numbers.
Somethings else to be considered are the benefits of global warming. Being in an ice age means a shorter growing season, which means less food for humanity. While global warming COULD displace populations, climate change happened before and is nothing new. The only thing new is that there are more people that could be displaced.
The earth is a very complicated system, but so is human activity. Humans have a demand for energy, but that energy is the result of a chemical reaction which alters the composition of the atmosphere. Humans also have a preference against certain changes, but they are also agents of change.
As I said before, I am not here to convince your opinion on how people should handle the politics of global warming.
However, I would like you to recognize that there are many complex systems on earth and they all contribute to the radiation balance on earth. Humans are a part of the system and not only they contribute to it (though significance and the quality of consequences can be debated) but they react to it as well. But we are not the only system, and many systems are outside of control.
Who knows, maybe we are starting a runaway effect. Or maybe we are acting as a balance towards other systems and are actually making life more pleasant for ourselves in the future. Or maybe it won't matter at all since we are still at the mercy of the lithosphere and a super volcano will eliminate us all and essentially make our effects null and void
...Chances are this system is too complicated to predict the long term effects. When listening to politicians dictate global warming policy, think about the complexity of system. Furthermore, think about the benefits and consequences of a certain policy first. Recognize that chances are politicians have good intentions. Equally recognize that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
...I guess you could say that I created this thread to remind you that essentially you are an agent to chaos. In my opinion global warming just might be the one problem that capitalism might not be able to figure out
Whether or not a person believes in or agrees with global warming the problem is most people don’t understand the science and have a political view (one way or the other on the issue). Few people will change their view even when they are made aware of “facts”. They simply hang onto their opinion (supported or not by science).
Assume for a moment that there is not enough science to prove either way on global warming, most people will not change any part of their lives even if they’re told it’s for the best. People are simply stuck in their rut and remain there as creatures of habit. Money is the big motivating factor for a person’s behavior. Charge them $10 a gal for gas and they’ll stop driving soon. Charge them $5 for a 32 oz soft drink and they’ll avoid buying it. And $10 for a Big Mac and that too will go away. Money is the only answer people understand. It worked with cigarette tobacco prices going up to $5 a pack; fewer people smoke now and it took many years.
Through technology, global warming can be managed. There are already technologies that can greatly impact CO2 emissions as we speak. Nuclear Energy, Solar Energy, Increase of efficiencies, Rise of Biofuels, Carbon Dioxide Sequestration.
There are models of global warming that are very accurate, and the system is not that complex (If taken as a whole, if you are going to model every detail then.....). Take a look at Richard Muller's work on global warming. Global Warming is a fact, it is predictable and the only people in denial are those that have no understanding of physics and empirical analysis.
Through technology, global warming can be managed. There are already technologies that can greatly impact CO2 emissions as we speak. Nuclear Energy, Solar Energy, Increase of efficiencies, Rise of Biofuels, Carbon Dioxide Sequestration.
There are models of global warming that are very accurate, and the system is not that complex (If taken as a whole, if you are going to model every detail then.....). Take a look at Richard Muller's work on global warming. Global Warming is a fact, it is predictable and the only people in denial are those that have no understanding of physics and empirical analysis.
A fool never changes his mind!
The sort of "Someone else taught me what to thik" drivel posed above is precisely why "global warming" (which is politically-motivated hype) has to be separated from "climate change" (which IS real and worthy of serious study)
It doesn't take too much reading to learn that as recently as a few centuries ago, what is now the Sahara desert was much more arable -- but the change came about long before the heavy use of fossil fuel.
Or that places like Alaska and Spitzbergen have coal deposits -- which could only form during millienia of temperate climate.
And nobody seems to remember that the darkest part of the Dark ages came in 600-900 C E, a time when temperatures (projected from natural evidence) dropped for a few degrees -- occasionally referred to as the Little Ice Age.
But it's much easier to swallow the hype of sharlatans like Al Gore and the rest, who sell it in a manner calculated to appeal primarily to sub-teenagers (But the polar bears, Daddy!!!). What Gore really wants is just another layer of bloated bureaucracy with patronage to dole out among his statist/collectivist groupies.
All but the most strident conservatives agree that something -- probably many things -- affect our weather over time; the conservative news journal National Review carried a neutral cover story on it not long after the passing of founder William Buckley.
Thirty years ago, every adolescent was being educated about "El Nino" -- an unxplained pocket of slightly-warmer sea water that pops up from time to time.. (That, BTW, was at a time when a spate of colder winters came here in the East; 1977 saw record low temperatures -- but only as far back as 1936.
So by all means, let's see an intelligent discussion on climate change -- but please don't try to pack he stands with overgrown tweenyboppers who have been taught not how to think, but what to think.
We are NOT all one. We are a nation buuilt by rebels, outcasts and free-thinkers; that, thank God, is what separates us from corrupetd, rotting Europe and it's bloody history.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-05-2013 at 04:38 PM..
The sort of "Someone else taught me what to thik" drivel posed above is precisely why "global warming" (which is politically-motivated hype) has to be separated from "climate change" (which IS real and worthy of serious study)
It doesn't take too much reading to learn that as recently as a few centuries ago, what is now the Sahara desert was much more arable -- but the change came about long before the heavy use of fossil fuel.
Or that places like Alaska and Spitzbergen have coal deposits -- which could only form during millienia of temperate climate.
And nobody seems to remember that the darkest part of the Dark ages came in 600-900 C E, a time when temperatures (projected from natural evidence) dropped for a few degrees -- occasionally referred to as the Little Ice Age.
But it's much easier to swallow the hype of sharlatans like Al Gore and the rest, who sell it in a manner calculated to appeal primarily to sub-teenagers (But the polar bears, Daddy!!!). What Gore really wants is just another layer of bloated bureaucracy with patronage to dole out among his statist/collectivist groupies.
All but the most strident conservatives agree that something -- probably many things -- affect our weather over time; the conservative news journal National Review carried a neutral cover story on it not long after the passing of founder William Buckley.
Thirty years ago, every adolescent was being educated about "El Nino" -- an unxplained pocket of slightly-warmer sea water that pops up from time to time.. (That, BTW, was at a time when a spate of colder winters came here in the East; 1977 saw record low temperatures -- but only as far back as 1936.
So by all means, let's see an intelligent discussion on climate change -- but please don't try to pack he stands with overgrown tweenyboppers who have been taught not how to think, but what to think.
We are NOT all one. We are a nation buuilt by rebels, outcasts and free-thinkers; that, thank God, is what separates us from corrupetd, rotting Europe and it's bloody history.
What are you talking about? Debate the issue, don't throw people a bunch of history that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is obvious you have no idea what global warming is about, your mention of natural phenomena is not a part of and never has been a part of the global warming issue.
Carbon Dioxide emmissions in the past 100 years have been retaining energy in the form of heat because of the heat capacity of Carbon Dioxide, also the carbon cycle has alot to do with it.
You depend on others whether you like it or not......... and to dispute the obvious is pretty silly.
No we are not all one, but we can be. There are those of us that can do more because we get it, we get that we can do more and do do more with others than we can do alone.
You think that I cannot think for myself, try me, engage in a discussion don't regurgitate your angry rhetoric I have heard a million times before. Debate the issue.... try at least.
What are you talking about? Debate the issue, don't throw people a bunch of history that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is obvious you have no idea what global warming is about, your mention of natural phenomena is not a part of and never has been a part of the global warming issue.
What I posted were examples of climate change other than the only one you seek to advance
Quote:
Carbon Dioxide emmissions in the past 100 years have been retaining energy in the form of heat because of the heat capacity of Carbon Dioxide, also the carbon cycle has alot to do with it
There are other possible explanations or than the one you seek to champion; and as indicated via the link below
you and your fellow Gore-groupies have been caught manipulating data to suit your purposes on several occasions.
Quote:
You depend on others whether you like it or not......... and to dispute the obvious is pretty silly.
No we are not all one, but we can be. There are those of us that can do more because we get it, we get that we can do more and do do more with others than we can do alone.
And that argument is almost always advanced by people with designs on someone else's liberty and property.
Quote:
You think that I cannot think for myself, try me, engage in a discussion don't regurgitate your angry rhetoric I have heard a million times before. Debate the issue.... try at least.
It never fails to amaze me how people who protest loud and long about segments of mainstream technology, such as nuclear power, which don't suit their personal prejudices, will lap up the "junk science" spewed in your original post like so much cream soda.
As it so happens, I spent most of my career in a field (transportation -- mostly freight) which has been deeply affected by and intertwined with, the energy squeeze which was just getting under way when I finished my formal education back in 1972. Since that time, considerable segments of the transport market have been recaptured by the railroads, bus transportation has been undergoing a restructuring and comeback, and a growing, not-all-young segment of our population has resettled -- not so much within the major cities as on the fringes, and on the corridors between them. That, in turn, has led to the push, not so much for pie-in-the-sky European-modeled High Speed Rail (HSR) systems (which would require new right-of-way -- likely unfeasible in many congested areas) but for the gradual upgrade and expansion of conventional systems built upon proven off-the-shelf technology.
The system is quite capable of adapting and reforming itself -- without the costly interference of supposed do-gooders with expensive ulterior motives. If carbon emissions actually turn out to be a problem (something I'm not completely discounting) then it can be addressed.
But the clamor for a huge expansion in bureaucracy on a global scale, at a time when the proposed remedies have not been sufficiently tested or agreed upon, tells me all I need to know.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-11-2013 at 12:53 AM..
My big problem with global warming debate is the fact that if you dare ask questions, if you dare raise doubts or hold any opinion contrary to the current dogma, you are immediately branded a right-wing, "teabagger" flat-Earth type who listens to Rush Limbaugh and Fox news.
* I am not leveling that accusation at this discussion thread, I am talking much more in general.
It's become like a religion and the non-believers are ostracized! All we've heard from the beginning is "The debate is over", "there is a majority consensus" ... it's as if any debate was a threat and needed to be shut down from the start!
I thought science was about challenging pre conceived notions. The sad reality is I think science has become political. Scientists have been marginalized and shut out as well if they dare reach any conclusion or dare to conduct science that strays from the "consensus".
My next big problem is the fear mongering. The media and the scientists are guilty of this. They irresponsibly paint the worst case scenario in order to get attention or get funding. Meanwhile, like in "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" no one pays attention to it anymore and will fail to pay attention when there is a real wolf at the door someday.
Meanwhile we teach a generation of children to fear for their future and wonder what type of world they will have to grow up in because we adults can't be more responsible with our language.
I am all for responsible energy usage and cleaning up the environment but the current group that has been championing that cause, the media, the scientists and the environmentalists, have messed that job up so badly that they are frankly doing more harm than good at this point because their credibility has been so diminished by their fear mongering, dogma and witch hunts against anyone who dares to disagree with them.
Now, Barton has found a new weapon to deploy against scientific evidence of man-caused global warming — the Old Testament.
As the House Energy and Commerce Committee took up legislation that would allow Congress to bypass President Obama and approve the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline, Barton held forth Wednesday on climate change:
“I would point out that people like me who support hydrocarbon development don’t deny that climate is changing. I think you can have an honest different of opinion of what’s causing that change without automatically being either all in that’s because of mankind, or it’s all just natural. I think there’s a divergence of evidence.
“I would point out that if you’re a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change that certainly wasn’t because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.”
Aside from the sheer insanity of using a vaguely-described ancient myth to refute modern science, there's the basic logic that just because A might've once caused B, it does not follow that C cannot now be causing B. (reminds me of a radio nut-job I once heard who spoke of a non-smoker he knew who got lung cancer, and held this up to disparage the idea that smoking causes cancer)
What I posted were examples of climate change other than the only one you seek to advance There are other possible explanations or than the one you seek to champion; and as indicated via the link below
you and your fellow Gore-groupies have been caught manipulating data to suit your purposes on several occasions. And that argument is almost always advanced by people with designs on someone else's liberty and property.
It never fails to amaze me how people who protest loud and long about segments of mainstream technology, such as nuclear power, which don't suit their personal prejudices, will lap up the "junk science" spewed in your original post like so much cream soda.
As it so happens, I spent most of my career in a field (transportation -- mostly freight) which has been deeply affected by and intertwined with, the energy squeeze which was just getting under way when I finished my formal education back in 1972. Since that time, considerable segments of the transport market have been recaptured by the railroads, bus transportation has been undergoing a restructuring and comeback, and a growing, not-all-young segment of our population has resettled -- not so much within the major cities as on the fringes, and on the corridors between them. That, in turn, has led to the push, not so much for pie-in-the-sky European-modeled High Speed Rail (HSR) systems (which would require new right-of-way -- likely unfeasible in many congested areas) but for the gradual upgrade and expansion of conventional systems built upon proven off-the-shelf technology.
The system is quite capable of adapting and reforming itself -- without the costly interference of supposed do-gooders with expensive ulterior motives. If carbon emissions actually turn out to be a problem (something I'm not completely discounting) then it can be addressed.
But the clamor for a huge expansion in bureaucracy on a global scale, at a time when the proposed remedies have not been sufficiently tested or agreed upon, tells me all I need to know.
Empirical means that data has been taken by instrument and analyzed. Global warming has been proven empirically, with ice cores, indicators of temperature and historical temperature readings.
Global warming is happening and it has nothing to do with el nino or la nina, geological phenomena, or with natural cyles of weather patterns caused by the axis of the earth "wobbling" in space.
If any of the naysayers or critics of the global warming debate could ever really bring up a real argument against global warming it would be refreshing.
Empirical means that data has been taken by instrument and analyzed. Global warming has been proven empirically, with ice cores, indicators of temperature and historical temperature readings.
Global warming is happening and it has nothing to do with el nino or la nina, geological phenomena, or with natural cyles of weather patterns caused by the axis of the earth "wobbling" in space.
If any of the naysayers or critics of the global warming debate could ever really bring up a real argument against global warming it would be refreshing.
A change in the overall temperature of parts of the planet has been identified -- one of many.
That's all -- the rest is being "spun" to suit a particular advocacy, which is dar more interested in power, on a multi-national level, than in "saving the earth", or similar good intentions portrayed in a juvenile format that both sets multiple standards (Who's watching China?) and dismisses economic realities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
