Global Warming - Myths and Facts

[curryking1]

Just if anyone's interested, I'm personally interested in this kind of stuff.. so hey lol.

Please take note that the myths are usually simple sentences with not much explained. It's a nice lesson for most of things in life :)

One more thing, my favourite myth here is 'We can adapt to the changing temperatures.' I just laugh at that one XD

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

Global Warming Myths and Facts

MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.

FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.

The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005)

The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.

MYTH: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers.

FACT: A well designed trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.

Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation. An independent MIT study found that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and have no negative impact on employment.

Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA. Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth. Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now.

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?

FACT: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.

Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.

The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.

MYTH: Global warming and extra CO2 will actually be beneficial — they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth.

FACT: Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.

Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally. Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.

Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species.

Higher levels of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.

The notion that there will be regional “winners” and “losers” in global warming is based on a world-view from the 1950’s. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications — when an environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected.

MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.

FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.

People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.

We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.

MYTH: We can adapt to climate change — civilization has survived droughts and temperature shifts before.

FACT: Although humans as a whole have survived the vagaries of drought, stretches of warmth and cold and more, entire societies have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts.

The current warming of our climate will bring major hardships and economic dislocations — untold human suffering, especially for our children and grandchildren. We are already seeing significant costs from today's global warming which is caused by greenhouse gas pollution. Climate has changed in the past and human societies have survived, but today six billion people depend on interconnected ecosystems and complex technological infrastructure.

What's more, unless we limit the amount of heat-trapping gases we are putting into the atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since human civilization began 10,000 years ago. (IPCC 2001)

The consequences of continued warming at current rates are likely to be dire. Many densely populated areas, such as low-lying coastal regions, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection is that the homes of 13 to 88 million people around the world would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Poorer countries and small island nations will have the hardest time adapting. (McLean et al. 2001)

In what appears to be the first forced move resulting from climate change, 100 residents of Tegua island in the Pacific Ocean were evacuated by the government because rising sea levels were flooding their island. Some 2,000 other islanders plan a similar move to escape rising waters. In the United States, the village of Shishmaref in Alaska, which has been inhabited for 400 years, is collapsing from melting permafrost. Relocation plans are in the works.

Scarcity of water and food could lead to major conflicts with broad ripple effects throughout the globe. Even if people find a way to adapt, the wildlife and plants on which we depend may be unable to adapt to rapid climate change. While the world itself will not end, the world as we know it may disappear.

MYTH: Recent cold winters and cool summers don’t feel like global warming to me.

FACT: While different pockets of the country have experienced some cold winters here and there, the overall trend is warmer winters.

Measurements show that over the last century the Earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all seasons, and in most regions. Climate skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold weather in one region of the globe is not an indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.

MYTH: Global warming can’t be happening because some glaciers and ice sheets are growing, not shrinking.

FACT: In most parts of the world, the retreat of glaciers has been dramatic. The best available scientific data indicate that Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking.

Between 1961 and 1997, the world’s glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods. Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a global warming trend.

In Greenland, a NASA satellite that can measure the ice mass over the whole continent has found that although there is variation from month to month, over the longer term, the ice is disappearing. In fact, there are worrisome signs that melting is accelerating: glaciers are moving into the ocean twice as fast as a decade ago, and, over time, more and more glaciers have started to accelerate. What is most alarming is the prediction, based on model calculations and historical evidence, that an approximately 5.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in local Greenland temperatures will lead to irreversible meltdown and a sea-level rise of over 20 feet. Since the Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than the global average, this tipping point is not far away.

The only study that has shown increasing ice mass in Greenland only looked at the interior of the ice sheet, not at the edges where melting occurs. This is actually in line with climate model predictions that global warming would lead to a short-term accumulation of ice in the cold interior due to heavier snowfall. (Similarly, scientists have predicted that Antarctica overall will gain ice in the near future due to heavier snowfall.) The scientists who published the study were careful to point out that their results should not be used to conclude that Greenland's ice mass as a whole is growing. In addition, their data suggested that the accumulation of snow in the middle of the continent is likely to decrease over time as global warming continues.

MYTH: Accurate weather predictions a few days in advance are hard to come by. Why on earth should we have confidence in climate projections decades from now?

FACT: Climate prediction is fundamentally different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather.

It is often more difficult to make an accurate weather forecast than a climate prediction. The accuracy of weather forecasting is critically dependent upon being able to exactly and comprehensively characterize the present state of the global atmosphere. Climate prediction relies on other, longer ranging factors. For instance, we might not know if it will be below freezing on a specific December day in New England, but we know from our understanding of the region's climate that the temperatures during the month will generally be low. Similarly, climate tells us that Seattle and London tend to be rainy, Florida and southern California are usually warm, and the Southwest is often dry and hot.

Today’s climate models can now reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century and beyond. Such findings have reinforced scientist’s confidence in the capacity of models to produce reliable projections of future climate. Current climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future heat-trapping emissions in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.

MYTH: As the ozone hole shrinks, global warming will no longer be a problem.

FACT: Global warming and the ozone hole are two different problems.

The ozone hole is a thinning of the stratosphere's ozone layer, which is roughly 9 to 31 miles above the earth's surface. The depletion of the ozone is due to man-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A thinner ozone layer lets more harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach the earth's surface.

Global warming, on the other hand, is the increase in the earth's average temperature due to the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities.

[scarecrow]

This thread is too religious for the rules.

[Phoenix]

I think a better name for that is "theories and other theories."

[Viper]

It's the time frame that is mostly debated. Far too many instant doomsday reports have been flooded into the media to give the basis of the issue much credibility.

The base message has been diluted with junk on both sides.

[seahorse]

fundamentally, all science is is peoples' 'best guess.' at the moment it seems that most of these best guesses are that global warming is occurring. and until this isn't the case, i will try to do my bit to prevent it.

i didn't read the thread by the way.

[masteratt]

I always had this feeling that this is all bullshit or over exaggerated crap.
After all, it seems humanity can't exist without having to fear something.

And as dumb as this will sound- Ever since South Park writers (whom I consider to have an intelligent outlook on societies issues) made fun of the problem, I totally shrug it off as nothing.

One day many people might come upto me and go "HAH! I told you so!" as we are drowning to death but then I'll say to them "You have bigger things to worry about now, jackass."

[Phoenix]

I've never cared much about the issue. Whether or not this is happening, I've always believed it best to protect the atmosphere and the environment. It's rather sad if it takes a threat to mankind to make anyone care about it. Especially if this threat ends up false.

[D3adcell]

I find it kind of funny though how this 'its not natural thing' is going around. Can they prove this?

Right now I did a search for the hottest day in dallas fort worth area ever. It was in 1969 and 112 degrees. So far it is still the record holder. Yet global warming is apparently some big deal?

Also how come you never read about anyone trying to do something to stop global warming? All you hear are people debate about it or say that it exists, yet I never read or hear about what they are doing to prevent it.

[Viper]

I find it kind of funny though how this 'its not natural thing' is going around. Can they prove this?

Right now I did a search for the hottest day in dallas fort worth area ever. It was in 1969 and 112 degrees. So far it is still the record holder. Yet global warming is apparently some big deal?

I've posted on here before about the hottest and coldest records for each continent and found just as you said. The hottest days were near the turn of early 1900's while the coldest were in the past 2 decades.


What I see more important is the simple fact that we need to pollute less. This cannot be argued against and if this is the simple goal behind the changes, then the secondary benefits will be a reduced global warming if it exists.


This whole buy carbon credits is a frikkin scam though. The guy that preaches the whole global warming issue is the same person that sells carbon credits. In other words the more fear he instills into countries the more of his carbon credits they buy.

[bobo_ess]

canada gets more frost free days from if...but i live near the sea.

[gnznroses]

i believe global warming is real and is problematic, but it gets hyped way too much. last night on the history cahnnel there was a show called Last Days On Earth about the top 10 (or so) things that can wipe us out: from the unlikely (black holes) to the more likely (asteroids, nuclear war) and when it got to number one and said it was Global Warming, i just turned it off. that's ridiculous.

[bobo_ess]

i think it's the lack of trees, they consume CO2, plant more trees

[The Dude]

HAHAHAH! Wow.. look at the people that sit on their board of directors, many of them profiteer from Global Warming one of them even is the chairman for Carbon Investments. Disgusting.

[Khaos]

I've posted on here before about the hottest and coldest records for each continent and found just as you said. The hottest days were near the turn of early 1900's while the coldest were in the past 2 decades.


What I see more important is the simple fact that we need to pollute less. This cannot be argued against and if this is the simple goal behind the changes, then the secondary benefits will be a reduced global warming if it exists.

Exactly!

Also, this would've been a much better article if it debated "myths" on both sides of the debate, instead of myths against global warming, because it just sounds like a defensive article.

From what I've seen, CO2 does not directly affect the global temperature. CO2 levels have been rising for awhile now, even though we had some cold times like Viper said. Seems like they're barely connected to eachother.

[Phoenix]

It just sounds like a defensive article.It does more than just sound like one.

[frosty]

Carbon fueled global warming IS real, there's no debating that. How bad it is, that's where the debate lies. Fact is, one can neutralize the ammount of carbon they produce a year by planting something to the effect of 6 trees (IIRC) every year. Those trees in one year's time will absorb the ammount of carbon an average Joe puts into the air. Our deforistation is hurting our planet's ability to neutralize these carbons, so we need to try to counter that by planting trees whenever and wherever we can.

[Khaos]

If everyone plants 6 trees a year, I imagine that would do more hurt to the world than good. In America, that would be about 1,800,000,000 more trees every year.

But I see your point. I am surrounded by deep forests where I live. The air is nice.

[Phoenix]

Global warming or not, planting trees is the solution to many problems. Heck, even going by the "if you cut it down, plant a new one" rule is helpful.

[Viper]

One of the problems with planting trees is the time ti takes for them to mature enough to reach the same level of carbon reduction that the tree it's replacing was at. Most cut trees are full grown and it takes 20-30 years for trees to reach that level.

We need a combination of tree planting and plain emissions reduction.



Makes one wonder just what happens if we plant too many trees and cut emissions too much...global cooling? "Oh no, Miami hit 0 degrees. Quick, someone burn something."

[Phoenix]

They'd probobly just die or be stunted, suffocating, if you will, from lack of CO2. Or, more likely, animal populations will just go up to match with the new habitats. I doubt anything short of ecology would be affected.

[D3adcell]

One of the problems with planting trees is the time ti takes for them to mature enough to reach the same level of carbon reduction that the tree it's replacing was at. Most cut trees are full grown and it takes 20-30 years for trees to reach that level.


Not for the aus tree.

[frosty]

Not for marijuana either. Full maturity is reached no more than 6 months. I bet a field of pot would consume quite a lot of CO2.

[Khaos]

Another reason for legalization :-p

[ScratchedAt]

Eh. This subject has become shit to me.

I agree, the world needs to be taken better care of. Less pollution is DEFIANTLY going to help us. A lot of global warming things are, in my opinion, over exaggerated. Of course people are going to see all these things going wrong with global warming, that's all the people seem to be researching.

[masonite]

I've posted on here before about the hottest and coldest records for each continent and found just as you said. The hottest days were near the turn of early 1900's while the coldest were in the past 2 decades.


What I see more important is the simple fact that we need to pollute less. This cannot be argued against and if this is the simple goal behind the changes, then the secondary benefits will be a reduced global warming if it exists.


This whole buy carbon credits is a frikkin scam though. The guy that preaches the whole global warming issue is the same person that sells carbon credits. In other words the more fear he instills into countries the more of his carbon credits they buy.


nine of the ten warmest years on record have occured since 1990.


the global average temperature is constantly increasing and has been for some time:

http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/sst_global.jpg

(image taken from "theoildrum.com" - site dedicated to looking at the current oil situation and helping decide what to do after it is depleted.)

the same story is present in the UK:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/images/charts/368.gif


(image taken from www.statistics.gov.uk - UK government site.)

Another interesting read can be found at http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2.html

written by Mitchell K. Hobish. Some of it seems a bit alarmist, as he admits at the end of the writing, but afaict he has no agenda - he's self employed with his consulting company which can be seen here:
http://www.sciential.com/founder.html and doesn't seem to serve any democratic agencies (so all you republicans can click on the link now)
and theres a small biography here: http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Front/collab.html





the keeling curve tells us that co2 has increased in the atmosphere drastically since the fifties, and the most likely explanation is humans. the amount of co2 produced by us is massive, to say it's due t any other reason is to ignore the vast majority of the evidence.

CO2 has a high capacity for warming. That's a fact, its a property of the chemical. It doesn't matter whether its in the atmosphere or a winery, that's the chemical property of the compound. It retains heat, an is responsible for warming. its the whole reason it belongs to a group of gases known as "greenhouse gases"


As for the original source in the first post, i wouldn't trust everything they say. Some of it might be right, but "globaldefense.org" doesn't exactly sound like an impartial source to me. That's not to say they're wrong, but i reckon they'd be putting a bit of spin on things...


and carbon credits...well, it turns carbon into business. inevitably someone is going to profit from it, and they're going to try to push their agenda. but that doesn't mean they're wrong - nicotine patch and gum companies profit from the scientific research showing that smoking causes cancer, but that doesn't make them "scammers"....

and there's a lot more money to be made from ignoring the co2 problem - du pont didn't try and convince people that there was nothing wrong with CFC's simply because they felt like lit ;)


IMO any show called "last days on earth" is going to be pretty silly ;)

[masonite]

Of course people are going to see all these things going wrong with global warming, that's all the people seem to be researching.

yeah, i know eh! its the same with cancer!!!

people keep finding things wrong with cancer, how terrible it is, how it destroys life - if only they started researching the good things that cancer does, the world would be a better place!

...

[frosty]

Amen Masonite. The logic (or lack therof) that some exhibit blows my mind sometimes.

[Phoenix]

While I admit that I did not read all the presented information, those graphs are relatively misleading. First of all, they track deviation from average rather than just temperature, so the notable rise of the line is enclosed in just a small degree or two in the full scale. And even though that can be significant, a rise in temperature in the last 100+ years does not say anything about its cause.

[masonite]

While I admit that I did not read all the presented information, those graphs are relatively misleading. First of all, they track deviation from average rather than just temperature, so the notable rise of the line is enclosed in just a small degree or two in the full scale. And even though that can be significant, a rise in temperature in the last 100+ years does not say anything about its cause.

the temperature is displayed with respect to the average, but the actual temperature is irrelevant - the topic being debated is the warming, which deviation around the average displays.

You're right that the graphs themselves don't say anything about the cause.


But when external factors such as the milankovic cycles tell us that the world should be cooling right now, and the fact that there has been almost a degree of change in just 100-200 years are considered, there is obviously another factor at work. The warming effects of CO2 are well known (hence why it is known as a greenhouse gas), so we know that the rise in CO2 levels has contributed to the rise in temperature, and that it is the main reason - if CO2 levels are going up, then the temperature, logically should follow. We also know that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen drastically. the most logical explanation is human activity.

Now it's possible to say that there might be some mystical heebie-jeebie force pushing up the CO2 levels, but common sense says that the huge amounts of fossil fuels that we burn each year contributes in some way, and the scale of increase of our use of fossil fuels is simply too fast for the earth to evolve and adapt to those huge levels of production.

[Viper]

nine of the ten warmest years on record have occured since 1990.


Like I said, Hottest actual temps recorded.

I'll make it easier. I'll post 7 world regions and their temp extremes and the date recorded.


Africa 136 1922
NA 134 1913
Asia 129 1942
Asut 128 1889
Euro 122 1881
SA 120 1905
Oceania 108 1912


Every single one of these locations have had their lowest recorded temperatures in much more recent times. Some were in the 1990's.


Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007

That's another thing....what the hell is average temperature? What baseline temp are you using? Average since 1950? 1900? 1500? I ask this because we're cooler now than in the middle ages.

I'm not saying we aren't warming up just that facts can be skewed to fit a preconditioned notion.

[masonite]

Like I said, Hottest actual temps recorded.

I'll make it easier. I'll post 7 world regions and their temp extremes and the date recorded.


Africa 136 1922
NA 134 1913
Asia 129 1942
Asut 128 1889
Euro 122 1881
SA 120 1905
Oceania 108 1912


"Every single one of these locations have had their lowest recorded temperatures in much more recent times. Some were in the 1990's.


Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007

That's another thing....what the hell is average temperature? What baseline temp are you using? Average since 1950? 1900? 1500? I ask this because we're cooler now than in the middle ages.

I'm not saying we aren't warming up just that facts can be skewed to fit a preconditioned notion.


quite often the hottest and coldest temps recorded aren't indicative of the overall trends in change - they're anomalies more than anything else. Using them to try and predict a change or trend is useless.

I'm not disputing you or your source (im sure New York Times crossword editor Will Shorz is right for calling it his "#1 reference work for facts"), i'm simply stating that extremes can't reliably be used to predict trends. Using those stats as a counter argument is proof of the ability for stats to be skewed to fit an argument.

The average for the above graphs in my earlier post are from 1961 - 1990.

Personally, i'd say annual average temps are a better indication of warming than highest recorded, and in the UK alone 4 of the 5 hottest years ever recorded since recording began back in 1772 occured after 1990.

And whilst you're right that there was a mini ice age in the middle ages, we're supposed to once again be cooling - but we're not. The physical properties of CO2 can't be ignored. And if we are warming, and the ice caps and glaciers really are retreating, then there could be large problems earlier than we'd like to think.

[Xer0]

Actually, the oceans are a lot more usefull as carbon sinks then land based plants are.

[masonite]

Actually, the oceans are a lot more usefull as carbon sinks then land based plants are.

The problem is that as they warm their capacity for absorbing CO2 is reduced.

[curryking1]

I'm not disputing you or your source (im sure New York Times crossword editor Will Shorz is right for calling it his "#1 reference work for facts"), i'm simply stating that extremes can't reliably be used to predict trends. Using those stats as a counter argument is proof of the ability for stats to be skewed to fit an argument.

The average for the above graphs in my earlier post are from 1961 - 1990.

....

And whilst you're right that there was a mini ice age in the middle ages, we're supposed to once again be cooling - but we're not. The physical properties of CO2 can't be ignored. And if we are warming, and the ice caps and glaciers really are retreating, then there could be large problems earlier than we'd like to think.

The problem is that as they warm their capacity for absorbing CO2 is reduced.

I'm not very convinced that people saying 'O I'm not sure about the global warming' are actually even remotely knowledgable about the subject.

This thread is too religious for the rules.

What the ***k does that mean?

I think a better name for that is "theories and other theories."

Myths and other myths? Really? Or should I just show you a drowning polar bear in the artic that would convince the general public that global warming is a problem?

Do you guys really think that if you just see the birds in the summer everything is ok? Seriously? Ecosystems are made from a fine balance of everything, including timing of changing in seasons. These changes are just way, way too fast, and there is no way in hell all things will just adapt to the change.

[Khaos]

I really don't know about this whole global warming. If there is such a dramatic increase like everyone says, I would believe that the hottest temps on record would've been surpassed by now, as Viper said.

So maybe it is a slow increase. Okay, but there is a definite pattern of increases and decreases in the Earth's CO2 levels for millions of years, as data says. This is what causes the ice ages and hot periods.

[curryking1]

I really don't know about this whole global warming. If there is such a dramatic increase like everyone says, I would believe that the hottest temps on record would've been surpassed by now, as Viper said.



Wow.. did you not read what masonite posted? Hot temperate days are simply due to anomalies in the weather and are essentially by chance. The coldest day of the year could happen next year, but for god's sake, that wouldn't mean that the trend for that entire year was a drop in temperature for the whole year or even for one area.

What kind of data analysis is that? You don't take the most obscure and unrelating points to make a conclusion of a trend for the whole month or year. That is the most illogical scientific reasoning anyone could pull out of their ass.


So maybe it is a slow increase. Okay, but there is a definite pattern of increases and decreases in the Earth's CO2 levels for millions of years, as data says. This is what causes the ice ages and hot periods.

Uh huh, uh huh.

Gradual changes. Yes, with most people's perspective of time, global warming is a very gradual change. However, it's gradual change is like light speed compared to what would normally in fact be gradual change. You're not looking into what rate the atmospheric CO2 levels would change, or the rates at which average annual temperatures would change. Do you over what time significant changes normally take? It's not in the range of a hundred years.

Any fucking moron could say 'So what, the ice age happened, it'll happen again.' That's not the damn point, the damn point is that it's happening so ludicrously fast and the impact humans are having on it is not slowing down one bit.

This is you.

"I really don't know about this whole global warming."

That is exactly right, you don't know what the hell it's all about. You don't seem to understand what global warming is about. Yet millions of people around the world like you would say the same thing, and for so many years nothing would have changed, and only now that is finally changing for whatever damn reason, and that reason is because a mob of billions of people like you who would rather just not look at the issue objectively finally decided to look at the freaking issue because they, oddly enough, finally looked out and saw how many smog days there were. Which is funny, because that's the least of the problems related to global warming.

Of course people are going to see all these things going wrong with global warming, that's all the people seem to be researching.

Are you.... I'm not even going to say it.... what a load of crap that is. When they tell us the positive effects of tuberculosis, let me know.

You do know that they research both sides? Otherwise we wouldn't know of this most popular example, sickle celled anemia in many Africans protects them quite strongly from malaria.

Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.


You simply have a serious lack of understanding of general needs for a population to survive. Scientists only research one part of it.. do you know how people research? They don't look for specific things to find, they use observations and let the experiment tell them, otherwise there would be serious flaw in their experimental design of influencing one's own data.

Only research one part of it... I hope common sense hits you in the head one day.

[rpgamer_2k5]

Lovely reply CurryKing.

I suggest people to read the IPCC report:

Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004 (high agreement, much evidence)1.
- Since pre-industrial times, increasing emissions of GHGs due to human activities have led
to a marked increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations [1.3; Working Group I SPM].
- Between 1970 and 2004, global emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6, weighted by their global warming potential (GWP), have increased by 70% (24% between 1990 and 2004), from 28.7 to 49 Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (GtCO2-eq)2 (see Figure SPM.1). The emissions of these gases have increased at different rates. CO2 emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about 80% (28% between 1990 and2004) and represented 77% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004.
- The largest growth in global GHG emissions between 1970 and 2004 has come from the energy supply sector (an increase of 145%). The growth in direct emissions3 in this period from transport was 120%, industry 65% and land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF)4 40%5. Between 1970 and 1990 direct emissions from agriculture Link (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf)

This IPCC report is peer review, which is a standard if you want to justify your assertion. NY Times and other opinionated articles does not stand with peer-review. The Corporatist media is very dangerous, because they are promoting lies in order to serve the interests of ExxonMibile and the natural gas and oil industry.

Here's a report (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf) that introduces IPCC:

Authors, contributors, reviewers and other experts. Hundreds of experts from all over the world are contributing to the preparation of IPCC reports as authors, contributors and reviewers. They are selected by the Working Group Bureaux from nominations received from governments and participating organisations or identified directly because of their special expertise reflected in their publications and works. The composition of lead author teams for chapters of IPCC reports shall reflect a range of views, expertise and geographical representation.p. This inter-governmental includes nations that side with oil interests such as Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia USA, etc, and therefore there is significant balance in this panel.

Those who want to be updated should bookmark this source:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

[Khaos]

Wow.. did you not read what masonite posted? Hot temperate days are simply due to anomalies in the weather and are essentially by chance. The coldest day of the year could happen next year, but for god's sake, that wouldn't mean that the trend for that entire year was a drop in temperature for the whole year or even for one area.

What kind of data analysis is that? You don't take the most obscure and unrelating points to make a conclusion of a trend for the whole month or year. That is the most illogical scientific reasoning anyone could pull out of their ass.


How can you say that doesn't matter. To a point, the extremes wouldn't matter. But If there is such a dramatic increase, like I said, then it is plausible we should be seeing some new points. I say it would be highly unlikely that a period in time that has 70% lower level of CO2 (1900s) compared to a period that has seen a 70% rise (2000s) still holds ALL the record highs. It seems unlikely too that the late 1990s and 2000s have new record colds too. But it still could be a problem and not show itself in this data, as you stated. That is still somewhat possible.

Uh huh, uh huh.

Gradual changes. Yes, with most people's perspective of time, global warming is a very gradual change. However, it's gradual change is like light speed compared to what would normally in fact be gradual change. You're not looking into what rate the atmospheric CO2 levels would change, or the rates at which average annual temperatures would change. Do you over what time significant changes normally take? It's not in the range of a hundred years.

Any fucking moron could say 'So what, the ice age happened, it'll happen again.' That's not the damn point, the damn point is that it's happening so ludicrously fast and the impact humans are having on it is not slowing down one bit.

I never said because "the ice age happened it will happen again." I said that based on Earth's history, we can see a definite fluctuation of average temperature. It's actually quite predictable. And we are in the estimated point of the temperature rising again.

This is you.

"I really don't know about this whole global warming."

That is exactly right, you don't know what the hell it's all about. You don't seem to understand what global warming is about. Yet millions of people around the world like you would say the same thing, and for so many years nothing would have changed, and only now that is finally changing for whatever damn reason, and that reason is because a mob of billions of people like you who would rather just not look at the issue objectively finally decided to look at the freaking issue because they, oddly enough, finally looked out and saw how many smog days there were. Which is funny, because that's the least of the problems related to global warming.

You are just as discredited as me. Surfing the Internet collecting data and forming a belief does not make you an expert on this. I merely said I do not know all about it because it's true. And neither do you.

Are you.... I'm not even going to say it.... what a load of crap that is. When they tell us the positive effects of tuberculosis, let me know.

You do know that they research both sides? Otherwise we wouldn't know of this most popular example, sickle celled anemia in many Africans protects them quite strongly from malaria.



You simply have a serious lack of understanding of general needs for a population to survive. Scientists only research one part of it.. do you know how people research? They don't look for specific things to find, they use observations and let the experiment tell them, otherwise there would be serious flaw in their experimental design of influencing one's own data.

Only research one part of it... I hope common sense hits you in the head one day.

I have looked up both sides. I agree fully with cutting CO2 emissions. I am merely providing conjecture that has put me in doubt of the full and utter validity of the subject. I also do not appreciate the tone of your post; I would prefer if you not try to make me sound like a child who doesn't understand something.

The one true fact of the matter is this: This is all a theory. It may gain great acceptance and then the validity of it will slowly be brought into question more and more, just like Darwin's Theory. I am not going to go through great lengths to defend or attack a theory. Notice I am merely stating facts and observations, and am not saying whether I believe fully in the subject or deny it.

[curryking1]

How can you say that doesn't matter. To a point, the extremes wouldn't matter.

Yes, to a very high high degree, extremes don't matter. You know why? Again, extremes happen all the time. They just occur, out of thin air. You could have the coldest averaged year because of the coldest winter but it could still have the hottest day of the past hundred years during it's summer simply by chance. That's why it's so meaningless.

By taking one day out of so many years, you are taking 1 day of that year's data, and throwing out the other 364 or 365. That's how little sense it makes. Read that, 1 day, out of 365/6. That's like .25 percent of the days.

You know it only rains in some places for decades sometimes? Similarly you could say because one year it didn't rain, but the next year it rained, that means the rainfall in the area is increasing. That's the stupidest reasoning ever though. I don't know much about statistics and studying them and error they provide yet, but I'd bet the error there would be pretty huge because it's not taking into account the correct period of time and enough data within that time.

I never said because "the ice age happened it will happen again." I said that based on Earth's history, we can see a definite fluctuation of average temperature. It's actually quite predictable. And we are in the estimated point of the temperature rising again.

That was a generalization, I was saying that to 'most people,' I wasn't trying to direct it at you or anyone else.

You are just as discredited as me. Surfing the Internet collecting data and forming a belief does not make you an expert on this. I merely said I do not know all about it because it's true. And neither do you.

All I found out about this is on the internet? Thanks, I appreciate it. You really think that I my understanding of this subject is so narrow and shallow that it's confined to a few hours work on the internet? Thanks for throwing out over a thousand hours of my life over 4 years of research and planning and directing, and 5 highschool presentations in 3 different highschools, just for environmental topics like this one, out of the classroom at my own will. Good job.

I'm not going to claim I have a doctorate in environmental studies, but I assure you, I know a hell a lot more about this than you probably do, as well as a lot of other people in this thread who probably think they can just take this issue, swirl it in their head for a few minutes, and come to some digustingly poor conclusion about it, ironically about something they have read on the internet or read one article about. Like.. say.. you.

The one true fact of the matter is this: This is all a theory. It may gain great acceptance and then the validity of it will slowly be brought into question more and more, just like Darwin's Theory. I am not going to go through great lengths to defend or attack a theory. Notice I am merely stating facts and observations, and am not saying whether I believe fully in the subject or deny it.

You know a serious problem with this thinking. Do you know the meaning of 'well supported theory?' Global warming is one of those 'well supported theories.'

It's insane. This is the foremost obstacle to make people understand this is a serious threat. Because people say 'O it's just a theory, they are meaningless, a theory is not a fact, blah blah blah.'

You think that because it's a 'theory' it's meaningless. You know how many theories are applied everyday in real world scenarios to make real things and have real results? It's a number much, much larger than zero.

You know why major parts of Darwin's Theory are taught in schools? Because natural selection as well as other parts of it actually applies to the real world.

Seriously, I'm literally appalled that some of you might think I am following this like it's a religion or something, blindly going wherever the biggest hillybilly treehugging maniac takes it.

The string theory is a theory because it has a lot of supporting evidence. The Big Bang is a theory because it has evidence to support it. The dinosaurs dying from a blanket of dust for years and years is a theory because it also has evidence to support it.

Now take all the theories that were used, past or present, and now.. take them all away, and see where we are. Go, please, do it.

[Khaos]

I apologize for discrediting you earlier if you truly did spend so much time on the subject. I was out of line.

However, as I hinted to in my previous posts, our beliefs on the subject may differ, but I think we both want to do good for our enviroment in the suggested ways (especially dealing with CO2 emissions).

[jaxmkii]

Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species. like i stated before... CO2 goes up so dose plant groth the problem is self defeating... wether is panzies or japanise notweed it will consume CO2 all the same.

[masonite]

like i stated before... CO2 goes up so dose plant groth the problem is self defeating... wether is panzies or japanise notweed it will consume CO2 all the same.

No it won't. Plants have evolved in different ways, including two separate carbon pathways (C3 and C4). Not only does this affect the way that they synthesise, but it also affects the way that they react to changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. Even within the two separate pathways, there are still differences in the way species can and will react to atmospheric changes.

In fact one of the best reactions to increased CO2 can be seen in poison ivy....wouldn't that be a fun world...

[rpgamer_2k5]

The one true fact of the matter is this: This is all a theory. It may gain great acceptance and then the validity of it will slowly be brought into question more and more, just like Darwin's Theory. I am not going to go through great lengths to defend or attack a theory. Notice I am merely stating facts and observations, and am not saying whether I believe fully in the subject or deny it. Woah...if you mean its an unverified hypothesis then you really do need to read that IPCC report.

Global warming is a fact.

It may change but that doesn't mean anti-Global warming camp is credible by any chance. At the moment they lack evidence. And IPCC is a very conservative panel. We're talking about thousands of scientists from different camps agreeing that Global Warming is due to human activity.

These discussions does suggest that ExxonMobile propaganda is taking us into the stone ages. Those economists or crony scientists who cannot even bring up the IPCC report are leading the US into a dangerous path. Its not as if the effects of global warming has not occurred. The droughts that we're seeing throughout the world is due to global warming. The high temperature are affecting animal who live in cooler or dryer habitats. The negative effect on hydrology systems does exist. Just as Californian scientists!

CurryKing: You are correct that extremes should be ignored, but we need to realize that global warming will result in less colder periods, but more intense warmer periods. This imbalance is certainly a concern, because it suggests that recovery from global warming is impossible if we continue to maintain emission levels.

Masonite:

In fact one of the best reactions to increased CO2 can be seen in poison ivy....wouldn't that be a fun world... That is what I was thinking. Hehehe

Question to all: What do you think about the cap-and-trade system that is found in the Kyoto Protocol?

[jaxmkii]

No it won't. Plants have evolved in different ways, including two separate carbon pathways (C3 and C4). Not only does this affect the way that they synthesise, but it also affects the way that they react to changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. Even within the two separate pathways, there are still differences in the way species can and will react to atmospheric changes.

In fact one of the best reactions to increased CO2 can be seen in poison ivy....wouldn't that be a fun world...

you underestamte how flexable nature can be... how do you think all the carbon in petrolium and coal got there in the first place?

[rpgamer_2k5]

you underestamte how flexable nature can be... how do you think all the carbon in petrolium and coal got there in the first place? Carbon emissions = compression and heating of organic substance?

I've never even seen any scientist suggesting that 'nature' cannot support higher carbon emissions. However scientists do suggest that humans and many other organisms cannot live in such an environment. Earth may not turn into Mars, but without humans, organic life would have higher proliferation rates vs. today. ;)

[curryking1]

CurryKing: You are correct that extremes should be ignored, but we need to realize that global warming will result in less colder periods, but more intense warmer periods. This imbalance is certainly a concern, because it suggests that recovery from global warming is impossible if we continue to maintain emission levels.



Lol, I'm aware I used an opposite example.. ;)

I was just illustrating how an extreme of one day doesn't define a whole year's state, just if one year has a super hot day, it doesn't mean that the whole year wasn't relatively cold.

[cpiasminc]

like i stated before... CO2 goes up so dose plant groth the problem is self defeating... wether is panzies or japanise notweed it will consume CO2 all the same.
I think it's a little silly to assume that this relationship is 1:1. It also throws out the fact that deforestation still happens. Fossil fuels took millions of years to get to the point where the hydrocarbon chains are that long, and breaking them down in seconds is inherently imbalanced.

Well, CO2 alone doesn't do much. The argument is that things snowball one on top of another, and throwing the greenhouse gas levels out of balance is simply fanning the flames. More importantly, the CO2 levels and the deforestation and so on are the things humans can control, which is not necessarily true of other greenhouse gases.

That said, I think the arguments left out tend to be the economic ones. Because no matter what side you're on with the whole global warming thing, you have to accept that there's an advantage to not being dependent on foreign oil or being able to renew fuels cheaply and rapidly. That too, any repairing of the dependence on fossil fuels will still take close to a century to have any impact on a global warming scope (persistence of gases in the atmosphere and all), so it's not as though we can fix anything environmental today even if the technology was there.

As it is, I don't believe the technology is there and in many cases not even close. People love to talk about solar as this ultra-pure energy source, but it's also ultra-inferior. Reliability aside, the yield is unacceptably pitiful in every way even when it is usable. Admittedly, wind is not *quite* as unreliable as solar, and has many thousand times better yield, but it does have limited scalability and poor cost-to-yield ratio all the same. The nastiest part is that people know they can't win that argument in developed nations, so treehuggers take that fight to undeveloped nations. They see it fit to shove inferior technologies down the throats of undeveloped nations saying "you shouldn't be using oil or coal, you need to be ahead of the curve." At least shove a *useful* technology down their throats, not solar or wind. And the counterargument they have when nations in Africa can't develop on this garbage is to romanticize tribal lifestyles and culture.

[masonite]

you underestamte how flexable nature can be... how do you think all the carbon in petrolium and coal got there in the first place?

have a look at how coal is formed in a textbook. Specifically, have a look at how many tonnes of plant matter is required to produce a kilo of coal.

And just because plants lived in certain CO2 levels millions of years ago does not mean they are "flexible" - it means they have evolved to suit the slight changes in atmospheric composition that have occured each millenium over time. Genes don't suddenly revert to the way they were millions of years ago when the environment changes - they have to evolve back (which, it should also be said, very rarely actually happens).

I think you underestimate how much we know about plants, and the way they photosynthesise. The carbon pathways are very receptive to changes, and not necessarily in a good way. An abundance of CO2 can cause problems in the pathway, its the reason two different carbon pathways evolved in the first place - different atmospheric compositions at different times, in different areas. Studies have been done, even at my university as i was finishing my course there was a group of dutch students performing CO2 tests on trees.

If humans lived in an extremely oxygen rich environment, that isn't a guarantee that we'd be better off either...

[Sephiroth_VII]

This video makes some very valid points, and I agree with the guy. Hell, it's hard not to, regardless of your beliefs.

Link (http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html)


Question to all: What do you think about the cap-and-trade system that is found in the Kyoto Protocol?
I can see both the good side and the bad side, but I'm probably inclined to say that it's too loose. It allows big industries to use smaller one way too easily, but on the flip side, it does help reduce emissions to the required level. Honestly, I don't know.

As it is, I don't believe the technology is there and in many cases not even close. People love to talk about solar as this ultra-pure energy source, but it's also ultra-inferior. Reliability aside, the yield is unacceptably pitiful in every way even when it is usable. Admittedly, wind is not *quite* as unreliable as solar, and has many thousand times better yield, but it does have limited scalability and poor cost-to-yield ratio all the same. The nastiest part is that people know they can't win that argument in developed nations, so treehuggers take that fight to undeveloped nations. They see it fit to shove inferior technologies down the throats of undeveloped nations saying "you shouldn't be using oil or coal, you need to be ahead of the curve." At least shove a *useful* technology down their throats, not solar or wind. And the counterargument they have when nations in Africa can't develop on this garbage is to romanticize tribal lifestyles and culture.

It may be inferior, but if I recall correctly, wind energy is responsible for 25% of Denmark's total energy production, and that number is constantly rising. So, inferior or not, it is very useful, and relatively cheap. Many farmers put one or two of the mills on their fields, to become self-sustaining, and even delivering the unused energy to the main grid.

Just wanted to say that.

[cpiasminc]

It may be inferior, but if I recall correctly, wind energy is responsible for 25% of Denmark's total energy production, and that number is constantly rising. So, inferior or not, it is very useful, and relatively cheap. Many farmers put one or two of the mills on their fields, to become self-sustaining, and even delivering the unused energy to the main grid.

Just wanted to say that.
Well, my "inferior" and "utterly useless" comments were more directed at solar than anything else. While I didn't speak highly of wind power, I don't think of it as completely useless in the sense that it's far superior to the joke that is solar power. It's still a joke in scalabliity compared to a lot of other methodologies, but I'll admit it isn't the biggest most unbelievably laughable joke.

That said, reliability of wind can be drawn to question depending on the area, and unreliable wind power is effectively useless, especially for nations which don't have the infrastructure of a real "grid." For developed and/or developing nations, I think offshore wind farms are actually a pretty sound idea (up to a very limited extent)... not so much for nations with underdeveloped infrastructure, it all boils down to how reliable it is for providing continuous power at high output. It has a number of advantages unique to itself, but those advantages are meaningless when wind power stands alone -- you certainly couldn't have an all-wind power infrastructure.

As it is, nuclear is still king of the hill, but it isn't exactly easy to get started. It's gotten a lot safer than it once was, but you can't really bring it to undeveloped nations and expect to staff it with people who know how to keep a nuclear reactor running within nominal parameters. Then again, you couldn't really do that with just about any major power plant. Wind, solar, and stand-alone petrochemical-powered generators have the advantage of being able to localize them without need for infrastructure and without need for training, and of those, only a generator can really give you "continuous" output as long as you keep it fueled.

[Shadow Voa]

Global Warming is real, the thing is... its not troublesome enough for me since its full and damaging effect wont take place in my life time. I'll be dead and long gone by the time the world is facing some of the major effects scientists are warning about in the future.

So yeah, I wish that we could reduce green house gases, and stop polluting. But if worse comes to worse, I dont really care since once Im gone the Earth isnt my problem, its our childrens and if we dont care about their future by acting now, no need to concern ourselves later down the road.

[rpgamer_2k5]

^ What kind of bullshit is that? Global warming negative affects are occurring throughout the world as super storms (http://youtube.com/watch?v=hTcm9va14c8), and wild fires (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsv-O0LkvM).

We're also seeing many suffering from respiratory problem and seeing a significant decrease in their life expectancy. Hell it may affect a number on this board, your love ones, and if you're going to be so egoistic - the negative effects will hit you hard when it appears in your side.

PS: I suggest you spout such bullshit to those suffering from life threatening: "Global Warming doesn't affect me...Hahaha" :/

[masonite]

Well, my "inferior" and "utterly useless" comments were more directed at solar than anything else. While I didn't speak highly of wind power, I don't think of it as completely useless in the sense that it's far superior to the joke that is solar power. It's still a joke in scalabliity compared to a lot of other methodologies, but I'll admit it isn't the biggest most unbelievably laughable joke.

That said, reliability of wind can be drawn to question depending on the area, and unreliable wind power is effectively useless, especially for nations which don't have the infrastructure of a real "grid." For developed and/or developing nations, I think offshore wind farms are actually a pretty sound idea (up to a very limited extent)... not so much for nations with underdeveloped infrastructure, it all boils down to how reliable it is for providing continuous power at high output. It has a number of advantages unique to itself, but those advantages are meaningless when wind power stands alone -- you certainly couldn't have an all-wind power infrastructure.

As it is, nuclear is still king of the hill, but it isn't exactly easy to get started. It's gotten a lot safer than it once was, but you can't really bring it to undeveloped nations and expect to staff it with people who know how to keep a nuclear reactor running within nominal parameters. Then again, you couldn't really do that with just about any major power plant. Wind, solar, and stand-alone petrochemical-powered generators have the advantage of being able to localize them without need for infrastructure and without need for training, and of those, only a generator can really give you "continuous" output as long as you keep it fueled.


can i ask what makes it so useless? i understand that its relatively inefficient, so a very large surface is required for any kind of benefits to be had, as well as a large proportion of sunlight and heat - but here in australia we have those :) there's so many hundreds of square km's sitting in the middle of woop woop doing nothing for noone, surely solar would help :)

or is the infrastructure needed simply not viable at the moment?

is there something else i don't know?

[rpgamer_2k5]

^ The costs of building and maintaining solar infrastructure is huge and yet it still falls short producing energy efficiently. Hence it isn't viable in the third world.

This may change if more Western nations used such energy solutions, so that we could see an increase in innovations and a decrease in costs. The problem is that we're not seeing this happening especially when the petrol firms dictates the Western world's economic policies.

[Sephiroth_VII]

Well, my "inferior" and "utterly useless" comments were more directed at solar than anything else. While I didn't speak highly of wind power, I don't think of it as completely useless in the sense that it's far superior to the joke that is solar power. It's still a joke in scalabliity compared to a lot of other methodologies, but I'll admit it isn't the biggest most unbelievably laughable joke.

That said, reliability of wind can be drawn to question depending on the area, and unreliable wind power is effectively useless, especially for nations which don't have the infrastructure of a real "grid." For developed and/or developing nations, I think offshore wind farms are actually a pretty sound idea (up to a very limited extent)... not so much for nations with underdeveloped infrastructure, it all boils down to how reliable it is for providing continuous power at high output. It has a number of advantages unique to itself, but those advantages are meaningless when wind power stands alone -- you certainly couldn't have an all-wind power infrastructure.

As it is, nuclear is still king of the hill, but it isn't exactly easy to get started. It's gotten a lot safer than it once was, but you can't really bring it to undeveloped nations and expect to staff it with people who know how to keep a nuclear reactor running within nominal parameters. Then again, you couldn't really do that with just about any major power plant. Wind, solar, and stand-alone petrochemical-powered generators have the advantage of being able to localize them without need for infrastructure and without need for training, and of those, only a generator can really give you "continuous" output as long as you keep it fueled.

Well, like you suggested, we mostly built them at sea, since it's very rare for there to be no wind out there. It's very reliable when used right, and doesn't produce extremely toxic waste like fission energy.

Global Warming is real, the thing is... its not troublesome enough for me since its full and damaging effect wont take place in my life time. I'll be dead and long gone by the time the world is facing some of the major effects scientists are warning about in the future.

So yeah, I wish that we could reduce green house gases, and stop polluting. But if worse comes to worse, I dont really care since once Im gone the Earth isnt my problem, its our childrens and if we dont care about their future by acting now, no need to concern ourselves later down the road.

Well, some scientists predict that the water level will rise significantly over the next 40 years, which is definitely within both our lifetimes. Also, don't you care at all that future generations will suffer for what we're doing today?

[curryking1]

can i ask what makes it so useless? i understand that its relatively inefficient, so a very large surface is required for any kind of benefits to be had, as well as a large proportion of sunlight and heat - but here in australia we have those :) there's so many hundreds of square km's sitting in the middle of woop woop doing nothing for noone, surely solar would help :)

or is the infrastructure needed simply not viable at the moment?

is there something else i don't know?

It mainly has cost to do with it.

For one, you have to clean the mirrors really often, especially in places with lots of dirt and sand to be thrown around, that would probably get worse as the mirrors can get scratched I bet.

Also to clean them you need a considerable amount of water, and that also is part of the cost reason in maintaining the thing.

There's a lot of reasons why solar can be so ideal, but there's a lot of other reasons why it isn't really that ideal lol. Not working without sun of course, that's huge, so you can't really depend on this thing very heavily for a lot of power. They do store power, but it could make lots of problems if I remember right.

They are also really, really expensive to get started up. A solar panel (correct me if I'm wrong here) alone for a house costs like 5 to ten thousand dollars depending on size I guess, and to reap the rewards I think it takes quite a long time to get the cost benefit of the free sun.

I'm pretty sure that NDP Jack Layton fixed his house with a solar panel, and IIRC it was 5 thousand.

Personally, I think Nuclear is still the way to go, because the simply amazing amount of power it can produce. It has very vocal critics, but I personally believe that Nuclear energy is currently the best choice for electricity on massive scale. I'm personally glad that they are making expanding, I think, the Nuclear power plant in Toronto, but I should also say I don't know the local issues that might arise with it like is it too close to something or wahtever or in a bad spot, but in general, I would be supportive of Nuclear power.

Global Warming is real, the thing is... its not troublesome enough for me since its full and damaging effect wont take place in my life time. I'll be dead and long gone by the time the world is facing some of the major effects scientists are warning about in the future.

So yeah, I wish that we could reduce green house gases, and stop polluting. But if worse comes to worse, I dont really care since once Im gone the Earth isnt my problem, its our childrens and if we dont care about their future by acting now, no need to concern ourselves later down the road.

Do you have any young relatives? Do you plan on having your own children?

The whole point is that we should act now. It's not because we haven't done stuff in the past we shouldn't start somewhere, and hardly that we should just 'let our kids deal with it and fix it.' We are the kids, and then our kids will be those kids, and their's after them.

[Sephiroth_VII]

^I think fusion energy is what we should work at, frankly, since it produces way less radioactive waste, and creates more power.

[curryking1]

I don't really know much about fusion energy, so.. lol. With knowing nothing, I would guess it's pretty expensive and pretty novel in that it hasn't been used very often?

For now I think Nuclear is the way to go, the waste doesn't take up exorbant amounts of space, even though of course it's super dangerous, it has a place to go for now.

Maybe it's something for the future when it's more feasible, if in fact cost and it not being used often is a reason it isn't being used now.

[Viper]

The snow on Kilamanjaro is widely used as a visual proof of Global Warming.

They just proved it's not by Global Warming. It's large scale freezer burn; sublimination.

I never did understand how something that remains below freezing constantly could be accused of melting so fast due to rising temperatures.

[cpiasminc]

They are also really, really expensive to get started up. A solar panel (correct me if I'm wrong here) alone for a house costs like 5 to ten thousand dollars depending on size I guess, and to reap the rewards I think it takes quite a long time to get the cost benefit of the free sun.
And for all that, they really don't yield anything worth mentioning. Even with the highest grade highest efficiency cells (which are many times more expensive than the stuff made available for homes) you could cover every last inch of Australian land with solar panels, and you still wouldn't generate enough power to sustain Las Vegas alone. Granted Las Vegas is no ordinary city, but that should at least give you some idea of the scale of ineffectiveness.

On a scale of say, a poor 3rd-world country trying to power medical facilities, for instance... the best solar panels their money can buy isn't even enough to power fluorescent lights throughout a clinic the size of an average home, even in continuously sunny desert conditions.

Personally, I think Nuclear is still the way to go, because the simply amazing amount of power it can produce. It has very vocal critics, but I personally believe that Nuclear energy is currently the best choice for electricity on massive scale.
Having worked in the field before, and also having a father who's currently in that line of work (namely working at a GE test and support facility), I can say that nearly all the critics are American. There have been a lot of improvements in the safety and reliability and even efficiency end of things. The US hasn't adopted or even remotely considered any of these things, primarily because Three-Mile-Island happened. The country is entirely unreceptive to new reactors since then, and the NRC has put their foot down with an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude that means you have to go through an arduous (several years-long) process to prove that the existing process is indeed "broke."

I think fusion energy is what we should work at, frankly, since it produces way less radioactive waste, and creates more power.
Certainly, if someone ever gets to the point where it passes break-even, it's a far superior source. And beyond just waste products, there's a huge safety factor. Compared to fission reaction plants, where a single mistake can have disastrous results, a screw-up with a fusion generator means self-shutdown because the working conditions can no longer be maintained. Of course, that's exactly what makes fission so efficient since it's basically self-sustaining... meaning fusion not only has to surpass break-even, it has to pass it by a large enough extent to be competitive.

The snow on Kilamanjaro is widely used as a visual proof of Global Warming.
Somehow, the very idea of a "visual" proof of global warming sounds misguided to me.

[Sephiroth_VII]

Certainly, if someone ever gets to the point where it passes break-even, it's a far superior source. And beyond just waste products, there's a huge safety factor. Compared to fission reaction plants, where a single mistake can have disastrous results, a screw-up with a fusion generator means self-shutdown because the working conditions can no longer be maintained. Of course, that's exactly what makes fission so efficient since it's basically self-sustaining... meaning fusion not only has to surpass break-even, it has to pass it by a large enough extent to be competitive.

Exactly, fission is the future. problem is that no countries are really looking into it. Most countries focus on wind and solar energy which are, like you said, highly inefficient compared to other energy sources. If only the research into fission would get priority, the first reactor could probably be ready in no more than a few decades(very rough estimate)

[rpgamer_2k5]

They just proved it's not by Global Warming. It's large scale freezer burn; sublimination. That doesn't disprove global warming at all. The ice cap retreating in Mount Kilimanjaro occurred earlier due to its orientation w.r.t. sun.

However this doesn't mean that the IPCC report is debunked or counters the argument that increased carbon emission is due to human activity. It doesn't suggest that enhanced green house effect is normal. If so, do provide peer-reviewed evidence.

I never did understand how something that remains below freezing constantly could be accused of melting so fast due to rising temperatures. Here's a study that explains what occurred:

“All ice bodies on Kilimanjaro have retreated drastically between 1912–2003. Despite air temperatures always being below freezing, areal retreat of plateau glaciers is governed mostly by solar radiation induced melt on vertical walls that characterize their north and south margins [Mölg et al., 2003].... (Cullen et al.) Therefore Mount Kilimanjaro retreated due to solar radiation.

Now keep in mind that enhanced green house effect translates to higher level of solar radiation. While solar radiation has reached ice bodies well before industrialization, it's now even more intensified thanks to the excessive increase in green house gases. Is that positive by any means?

Hence for global warming to be a hoax, one would have to link the enhanced green house effect to non-human activities. That has yet to occur. The US Energy Information Administration states: More than 98 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions can be traced to the combustion of fossil fuels (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg98rpt/carbon.html) suggesting that enhanced green house effect is due to human activity.

We can observe other green house gases and we'll see a relationship due to human activities. However the fact is that enhanced global warming has had numerous negative effectives including rising sea levels, significant increase in asthma, cancer, cholera, dengue fever, malaria, decrease in biological fitness and and what-not. This does not even include other forms of pollution promoted by humans and are just as distressing.

We shouldn't be nullifying environmentalist just because some scientists made an error. Btw,

Somehow, the very idea of a "visual" proof of global warming sounds misguided to me. As do I. The visual effects involve multiple effects that include enhance greenhouse effect. Increased fertilize or sewage waste entering animal habitats have increased negative effects. I doubt the population would be able to handle the full story on pollution that humans (mainly in the Western world) produced.

[Viper]

Whoa, where did I say it was proof it wasn't happening based on Kilo? I merely pointed out that one of the biggest rants used to 'prove' global warming has been debunked.


The reason for a visual aide is simply due to the visual nature of people. "Seeing is believing", as it were. For most people to take action or demand change they must be 'shown' the dire issues. It must hit home. Visualizing helps bridge the gaps between scientific discourse, political babble and the end user.

[=NukeBlaze=]

People, by nature, are very linear creatures.


There is, however a correlation between temperature and pressure. You can boil water at room temp, if you wanted, by dropping the pressure( grab a long plastic tube, fill it with water, and leave the bottom end open and lift it about 10 meters and the water in the top will boil. As far as a mountaintop, I am curious of the barometric pressure there because the lack of would shift the melting/vapor points into lower temperatures regions below 0 C.

The top of Kilimanjaro it is about 0.451 atm pressure , so water should become a liquid at roughly -20 C due to the pressure change.

I am not saying this is key, I am saying it is something to consider.

I just want the NASA satellites to complete their outfitting to integrate the IR radiation gradient of the earth. Point temps are an average, large scale integration from satilits might provide clearer information although with a new set of problems with cloud cover compensation, monitoring, etc.

[Shadow Voa]

Global Warming is real, the thing is... its not troublesome enough for me since its full and damaging effect wont take place in my life time. I'll be dead and long gone by the time the world is facing some of the major effects scientists are warning about in the future.

So yeah, I wish that we could reduce green house gases, and stop polluting. But if worse comes to worse, I dont really care since once Im gone the Earth isnt my problem, its our childrens and if we dont care about their future by acting now, no need to concern ourselves later down the road.

Well, some scientists predict that the water level will rise significantly over the next 40 years, which is definitely within both our lifetimes. Also, don't you care at all that future generations will suffer for what we're doing today?

I just want to get that point across, especially the ending there. We can all talk about doing good for the future of our children and world, but if everyone doesnt act and believe in the cause then its fruitless. There's a lot of people in the world, and ideally they all want the same thing, but it doesnt mean they are all willing to do what it takes to meet that end.

[masonite]

so you don't want to act because if its only you that acts nothing is going to happen? and everyone else will make the decision for you? sounds like the same argument people in america make to justify not voting...

[Phoenix]

While I'm not too sure that "acting" is really something that can help avoid/slow global warming, it's a very bad mentality to just assume that you aren't significant. If everyone thought that way, no one would do anything.

[cpiasminc]

Well, one thing I can sort of see with what he's saying is that the movement isn't really as far-reaching as it might appear to be in a developed nation like the US. Especially with a consumption-heavy culture like the US. It's a country where people who complain about gas prices (which are the cheapest on the planet) will just as easily drive a Hummer touting that it's their god-given right, and that it's inexcusable that they should have to change anything about their lifestyle -- it's always the other guy's fault.

That said, what would really be needed to get things moving is some form of legislative motions to drive investment in these sorts of things. And as I said before, even if the environmental impact isn't felt within our generation, it's still possible for the economic impact to be felt, and selling the idea would be easier if you played that angle.

[masonite]

That said, what would really be needed to get things moving is some form of legislative motions to drive investment in these sorts of things. And as I said before, even if the environmental impact isn't felt within our generation, it's still possible for the economic impact to be felt, and selling the idea would be easier if you played that angle.


the problem is that the attitude of not wanting to change anything or make an effort extends to governments where they only live one term at a time - and a maximum of 3 terms. long term problems are always left for the next guy - who delays them to give to the next guy, etc.

[Black Dragon37]

The world is full of apathy, but who cares?