Global warming tactics - are they working? (pet, look)
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.
So, global warming / climate change has been a big topic in political and science circles for at least 20 years now. Most people in the science community agree global warming is real and are making various predictions of what the future will be like if we don't fight it.
My questions: Are the tactics we are using to fight global warming working? If we don't know yet, how long before we DO know? How do we know if our efforts to combat it are having or will have any effect at all? Perhaps all of this human-based effort is akin to a mosquito fighting a hurricane.
Just looking for some factual insight here, not random speculations.
The warming of the last few centuries is actually quite insignificant and is attributed by many climatologists to be a result of a Millenial Oscillation which is a swift change in climate lasting less than 1000 years and ending sometimes in just decades. Carbon dioxide levels? Not that high at all. Sure, the last glacial maximum saw levels at 200 ppm, but that was just that, a glacial maximum. Values around 350 ppm are not excessive in the least for an interglacial period.
That being said, air pollution from human activity is having significant effect on our air quality and the urban heat island development! I think policies to reduce air pollution have definitely achieved a positive result with many U.S. cities reporting fewer dangerous smog days per year. Also the prospect of rapid "Global Warming" has actually been a driver of alternative energy production...a definite plus!
The reduction of CO2 won't happen without China onboard and they are building new coal plants every few weeks. Increased energy costs here to meet any mandates in CO2 emissions will simply drive more manufacturing jobs to China and would actually increase CO2 because it's less efficient.
During the Copenhagen talks China and India were offering to reduce "carbon intensity". This is not a cap on total emissions but a cap on emissions per product. In other words they were offering to increase efficiency which is something they will be doing anyway. Total emissions would continue to grow.
It stretches my credulity, to ask me to believe that in the few short years of heavy fuel-burning industry, it is just a coincidence that the planet went through one of its own cycles of adjustment at the same time.
It stretches my credulity, to ask me to believe that in the few short years of heavy fuel-burning industry, it is just a coincidence that the planet went through one of its own cycles of adjustment at the same time.
You might want to ask Eric the Red about that. His attempts to colonize in Canada occurred before this industrial era, and were only possible because of warming.
I agree with the China assessment. We contribute about 1/4th of the CO2 that China does. Isn't offshoring our jobs wonderful?
Global climate change is purely a political and financial ploy, one easily traced by following the money, grant money, and talking to those who have recently retired and no longer in fear of losing funding.
To answer the OP question - NO. Nothing effective is being done, nor will it be done. China power and industry alone MORE than makes up for all other efforts, and those "efforts" are only possible because of outsourcing the CO generating processes to China. GCC is a straw man. Sorry to burst your bubble.
“Some islands affected by climate change have been hit,” said Nilsson. “Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity — not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming?”
“Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do,” he added.
Global warming enthusiasts have also taken to Twitter to raise awareness of the need to respond to the earthquake by finally acting on climate change. And the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Lee Doren compiled some of the best ones.
Since the post above left out part of the article here it is:
"Hours after a massive earthquake rattled Japan, environmental advocates connected the natural disaster to global warming. The president of the European Economic and Social Committee, Staffan Nilsson, issued a statement calling for solidarity in tackling the global warming problem."
Someone needs to explain to me how in the hell global warming caused an earthquake. It would seem to me to be the other way around if anything.
Methinks there are some dumb damn people roaming around out there. If it's me, please educate me.
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.