Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

What is your opinion of climate change?

  • Yes it is real and humanity is causing it.

  • Yes it is real but part of a natural cycle.

  • It is real but is both man made and a natural cycle.

  • It's a complete scam made to make money.

  • I dont know or care.

  • Yes it is real and humanity is causing it.

  • Yes it is real but part of a natural cycle.

  • It is real but is both man made and a natural cycle.

  • It's a complete scam made to make money.

  • I dont know or care.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This kind of logic is like when a Christian says you should believe in God because it's the safer choice just incase he does exist(ie and if he doesn't what do you have to lose) and yes I have heard that argument made before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

  1. "God is, or He is not"
  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
  3. According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions.
  4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
  5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
  6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
The problem with that correlation is that there are many different religions and beliefs when it comes to God. There is only ONE planet. With this debate, we are looking at the fate of billions of people If one person. It is also an excuse to avoid dealing with climate change.
 
There is a lot more evidence that climate change is real than God existing.

It still doesn't change the fact that the logic behind that argument(it's the safer choice just incase) is what I would expect out of a religious person trying to sell me on their religion.

I should probably add to my list of points I have with the people who heavily promote Climate Change, their talking points many times to me come across like religious zealots. While that that doesn't change the science behind the theory it doesn't help with the presentation. To me science should be be open to opposition to the debate, but to often in the Climate Change movement opposing views are instantly shunned and ostracized. The close mindedness to people who do have the scientific qualifications who may have an opposing view is a huge turn off for me(when it comes to the idea that the theory is 100% based on scientific reasoning)
 
Last edited:
Debate is all well and good. Which is what we are doing. I dont like golden calves either.
 
I just remember a chart Gore used in his movie to show the weather to get progressively hotter each year, it basically was a line that was slowly going up then you see this huge line rocketing up to predict future weather(in terms of heat)

It also wasn't Gore's prediction of the data it was a chart he made up based on scientists data. As I said to me at least it just felt like an overly simplistic view of what would happen if the earth warmed up(and to me the ice caps melting causes cold water flow into the ocean was one huge factor the charts didn't take into consideration)
Are you familiar with the Great Ocean Conveyor?
 
So wait a minute. My article says that polar bears depend on sea ice for survival and your article says that "polar bears do live on ice and satellite photos show the sea ice is down 7.7% in the last decade. So something is happening up there." But the bears are in no danger?

How can their population be increasing when the ice they need is decreasing? Sorry, I dont buy it.

If their is more warmer conditions, the polar bears have more time to hunt and get food
I feel that you're both oversimplifying this a bit. I'd like to reiterate an earlier set of questions and points:

Doctor Evo said:
How much of this population increase is a direct result of reduced hunting pressure from humans? Could these population increases level off and ultimately begin to decline once again when reduced hunting pressure no longer bolsters populations in the face of reduced ice cover?

Also, could you perhaps expand upon your comment about hunting time? Given their rather established behavioral patterns with respect to hunting, and given the rather obvious fact that their cryptic coloration is an enormous aid with respect to their hunting efforts and strategies, I'm not convinced that this will not have an overall negative impact.
 
This kind of logic is like when a Christian says you should believe in God because it's the safer choice just incase he does exist(ie and if he doesn't what do you have to lose) and yes I have heard that argument made before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

  1. "God is, or He is not"
  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
  3. According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions.
  4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
  5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
  6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
It seems to me that the key issue underlying the climate change debate is anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

There is rather definitive evidence that these carbon dioxide emissions are having an effect on the environment that is incredibly harmful, regardless of whether it is actually responsible for an increase in average global temperature.

Given that this is the case, doesn't this debate seem a bit silly? Shouldn't we already be moving to act in order to at least ensure we don't make these problems worse? It would seem that, in the face of this evidence, your reservations seem rather pointless.
 
Are you familiar with the Great Ocean Conveyor?

I didn't know that exact term(I looked it up) but I know about how currents flow through the oceans which do affect weather

My basic point about icecaps melting causing a change in how water flows would be if you poor cold water into warmer water it should have a distinct effect changing that system which intern would change weather patterns. The only reason i bring up this point is I read one scientist predict that the effects of the earth heating up will result long term not into the earth overheating but at a certain point the current stream will cause the earth to freeze(it should be pointed out in Europe and Asia this is exactly what's happening while the America's seem to be getting warmer)

I posted this picture a couple pages back

Global-Temperature-Anaomalies-Feb-2012-e1331904220417.gif

I think the problem here is if my simple understanding of science can see the so called "loon" who predicted Global cooling has equal or more merit then the Global warming people due to his simple but easy to understand explanation, what the hell does that say about the people who are pushing Global Warming



As for Polar bear I have no clue about hunting to be honest

It seems to me that the key issue underlying the climate change debate is anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

There is rather definitive evidence that these carbon dioxide emissions are having an effect on the environment that is incredibly harmful, regardless of whether it is actually responsible for an increase in average global temperature.

Given that this is the case, doesn't this debate seem a bit silly? Shouldn't we already be moving to act in order to at least ensure we don't make these problems worse? It would seem that, in the face of this evidence, your reservations seem rather pointless.

I personally believe they should come up with clean energy because their is other pollutants that are a bigger threat to the earth. My big beef with the Climate Change/Global Warming thing is it seems like there is to many people into it for the simple fact they want to make a buck(the whole "carbon credits" thing is a huge scam)

In terms of Climate change this one always bugged me as well.

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-River-Thames-Frost-Fair---Through-the-Ice-Ages&id=875278

This harsh, cold weather often deprived many London tradesman of their usual work; the ice was a disaster for river traders as the ports came to a standstill, and many commodities became scarce. The more enterprising of those hard-up workers realised that the freezing of the Thames attracted a great many visitors who came to witness the spectacle, which gave them the idea to set up booths and stalls selling coffee, beers and souvenirs, leading to the first official Frost Fair in 1608.

The fairs quickly grew in size and notoriety, with all manner of winter activities taking place such as ice skating, ice bowling and sledging, as well as playing host to other events that were popular at the time such as fox hunting and bear baiting.

The fairs would attract huge numbers of people, including those from outside the city, who would flock to public houses and hotels in London to join the winter fun. John Evelyn, a writer who cast considerable light on the art, culture and politics of London during the 1600s, wrote one of the most colourful descriptions of the Thames Frost Fair. He wrote:

"Coaches plied from Westminster to the Temple, and from several other stairs too and fro, as in the streets, sleds, sliding with skates, bull-baiting, horse and coach races, puppet plays and interludes, cooks, tippling and other lewd places, so that it seemed to be a bacchanalian triumph, or carnival on the water."

The Frost Fairs were often short lived and became shorter and shorter as the climate grew milder; the demolishing of the old London Bridge also increased the flow of the Thames and further reduced the likelihood of a freeze over.

On the 1st of February 1814, the final ever frost fair began. It was to last just 4 days, during which an elephant was led across the river below Blackfriars Bridge - the last time such a spectacle was ever seen on the Thames.

What caused the River Thames to melt so it didn't freeze over in the early 1800s(this was before human made carbon emissions was even invented). This to me would be an example of Climate Changing without human's being the main fault, so why can't we just be in a similar pattern of Climate just getting warmer because that's how the climate rolls?
 
Last edited:
I didn't know that exact term(I looked it up) but I know about how currents flow through the oceans which do affect weather

My basic point about icecaps melting causing a change in how water flows would be if you poor cold water into warmer water it should have a distinct effect changing that system which intern would change weather patterns. The only reason i bring up this point is I read one scientist predict that the effects of the earth heating up will result long term not into the earth overheating but at a certain point the current stream will cause the earth to freeze(it should be pointed out in Europe and Asia this is exactly what's happening while the America's seem to be getting warmer)

I posted this picture a couple pages back

Global-Temperature-Anaomalies-Feb-2012-e1331904220417.gif

I think the problem here is if my simple understanding of science can see the so called loon who predicted Global cooling has more merit then the Global warming people due to his simple but easy to understand explanation, what the hell does that say about the people who are pushing Global Warming
There are a couple of points that need to be addressed here.

1) The increase in cold water entering the ocean systems will actually accelerate warming until there is no cold water entering the system (that is to say, there is no ice left to feed that water into the system). This is why the result may be an eventual ice-age, and this will be localized to certain regions on the planet.

Is your issue, then, that the graphs simply didn't portray this eventual ice-age, or did you somehow come under the impression that warming simply wouldn't occur in the first place? I have a suspicion that you may have misinterpreted this particular phenomenon.

2) When discussing climate change, we must consider average global temperatures. That means that while some regions may be experiencing short-term cooling trends, this does not in any way, shape, or form contradict the prediction of an increase in average global temperature. The figure you've provided also does not contradict this prediction.


SV Fan said:
I personally believe they should come up with clean energy because their is other pollutants that are a bigger threat to the earth. My big beef with the Climate Change/Global Warming thing is it seems like there is to many people into it for the simple fact they want to make a buck(the whole "carbon credits" thing is a huge scam)
Actually, it's well established that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is having enormously harmful effects on the environment. This would be true even if it weren't responsible for an increase in average global temperature, as I mentioned earlier. Carbon dioxide is currently an enormous problem.
 
Last edited:
What caused the River Thames to melt so it didn't freeze over in the early 1800s(this was before human made carbon emissions was even invented). This to me would be an example of Climate Changing without human's being the main fault, so why can't we just be in a similar pattern of Climate just getting warmer because that's how the climate rolls?
The argument that the climate does change in the absence of human interference does not preclude the possibility that humans can have an impact on global climate. It seems that this is what you're arguing.

There are lines of evidence to suggest that excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is at least partially responsible for these current phenomena (these often involve studies of things like radiative forcing, for example). It is a mistake to ignore these lines of evidence simply because climate is capable of changing on its own.
 
The argument that the climate does change in the absence of human interference does not preclude the possibility that humans can have an impact on global climate. It seems that this is what you're arguing.

There are lines of evidence to suggest that excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is at least partially responsible for these current phenomena (these often involve studies of things like radiative forcing, for example). It is a mistake to ignore these lines of evidence simply because climate is capable of changing on its own.

Fair enough argument but the Global Warming people seem to want to act like Climate remained stagnant for eternity and it's only gone to crap in the past 150 years(and it's 100% humans fault). My favorite line is "it's the warmest year in the history(and they usually emphasize this word) of us taking temperature", you then look and they didn't start recording temperature till the 1860s(what an insignificant test period when you consider the Earth is believed to be 4.5 billion years old)

By the way here is a fun graph of temperature averages in Greenland which the Climate changers are trying to fear us into believing it will melt away

Kobiashietal2011c.gif


All I can say is when it gets as warm their as the 600s then I will start worrying
 
Last edited:
SV Fan, if you want a simple experiment that will prove to you the excess carbon dioxide caused my humans is harmful to the environment and causes things to warm up, I have one for you. Get in bed, pull the covers up over your head and make sure there is no fresh air getting in. You will soon notice that the temperature begins to rise. Next, you will notice that the air quality begins to go down. In a fairly short time, I'd wager you would abort the experiment for a breath of fresh air.

That is pretty much what is happening. We, the nearly 7 billion humans, and our factories, cars, and other airborne pollutants are generating large amounts of CO2. Since the atmosphere is only so big, and we keep cutting down the trees that turn CO2 into oxygen, it's only a matter of time before we have to stick our heads out from under the blanket. Sadly, once we reach that point, it won't be that easy.
 
SV Fan, if you want a simple experiment that will prove to you the excess carbon dioxide caused my humans is harmful to the environment and causes things to warm up, I have one for you. Get in bed, pull the covers up over your head and make sure there is no fresh air getting in. You will soon notice that the temperature begins to rise. Next, you will notice that the air quality begins to go down. In a fairly short time, I'd wager you would abort the experiment for a breath of fresh air.
Carbon dioxide isn't causing the temperature increase under the covers...
 
And the cause would be, what? The temperature of the person's breath?
Are you actually suggesting that a blanket only works to keep you warm if your head is underneath it? Think about it.
 
Are you actually suggesting that a blanket only works to keep you warm if your head is underneath it? Think about it.

I know that the blanket insulates you and keeps your body heat in, thus keeping you warm. However, you understand the point of the experiment.
 
I know that the blanket insulates you and keeps your body heat in, thus keeping you warm. However, you understand the point of the experiment.
Yeah, I realized I misinterpreted what you were saying. However, the increase in temperature when you put your head under the covers has extremely little to do with carbon dioxide (the effect of the added carbon dioxide is negligible). That hasn't changed, regardless of the misunderstanding.

You were actually on the right track with this post:

Hotwire said:
And the cause would be, what? The temperature of the person's breath?

Basically. Your experiment is insufficient to demonstrate the effects of added carbon dioxide because you're not changing one variable: you're changing at least two. You're pumping both carbon dioxide AND relatively huge additional amounts of heat energy into the system.

Also, the carbon dioxide does extremely little to bolster the blanket's ability to insulate. The blanket is extremely effective on its own. More effective than our own atmosphere. That's why I say its effect would be negligible, especially in comparison with the effect of the added heat energy. Their relative magnitudes don't even compare.

It just isn't a great experiment/analogy.
 
Last edited:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/03/science/la-sci-humans-climate-change-20121004

Centuries before the Industrial Revolution or the recognition of global warming, the ancient Roman and Chinese empires were already producing powerful greenhouse gases through their daily toil, according to a new study.

The burning of plant matter to cook food, clear cropland and process metals released millions of tons of methane gas into the atmosphere each year during several periods of pre-industrial history, according to the study, published Thursday in the journal Nature.



Although the quantity of methane produced back then pales in comparison with the emissions released today — the total amount is roughly 70 times greater now — the findings suggest that man's footprint on the climate is larger than previously realized. Until now, it was assumed by scientists that human activity began increasing greenhouse gas levels only after the year 1750.

"The quantities are much smaller, because there were fewer people on Earth," said study leader Celia Sapart, an atmospheric chemist at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. "But the amount of methane emitted per person was significant."

Sapart's conclusions were based on an analysis of ice core samples from Greenland. The layered ice columns, which date back 2,000 years, contain tiny air bubbles from different periods of history, and provide scientists with a view into the atmosphere's changing chemistry.

The first period of methane production captured in the ice cores — roughly from the years AD 1 to 300 — encompassed the tail ends of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty, when charcoal was the preferred form of fuel. The second period of elevated methane emissions occurred during what's known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly, from roughly 800 to 1200, and a third was found during the Little Ice Age between 1300 and 1600.

Methane is one of a few gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. It forms naturally when plant and animal matter decomposes in airless environments, and it's also released when vegetation burns. However, when methane is produced by burning, it contains heavier carbon isotopes than methane generated through decomposition.

By using a mass spectrometer to study the air trapped in the ice cores, Sapart and her colleagues were able to determine the ratio of methane produced by burning and by decomposition. The study notes that not all cases of burned vegetation were the result of human activity; forest fires, particularly in times of drought, would also contribute to so-called pyrogenic methane production. The research team used mathematical models to account for this naturally burning vegetation and other fluctuations in atmospheric methane content.

"The results show that between 100 BC and AD 1600, human activity may have been responsible for roughly 20-30% of the total pyrogenic methane emissions," the authors wrote.

The research appeared to be the result of very careful and very difficult examination of carbon isotopes and could impact global warming estimates for the pre-industrial period, according to Ed Dlugokencky, a methane expert at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

"The study gives further evidence for a contribution to the global methane burden from anthropogenic sources," said Dlugokencky, who was not involved in the study.
 
Last edited:
I dont believe that climate change is always purely man made. There are many factors in what makes a climate, but humans are certainly part of the puzzle.
 
This isn't relevant to your current conersation, but was watching the Daily Show last night. I knew China had some smog issues, but damn, Beijing. The news clip he played showed, and talked about the smog. So thick you have to wear a mask, and leaves a slight orange hue in the air. Inhailing the air is akin to second hand smoke. A fire raged for 3 hours, but no one realized because they couldn't see it through the smog. It leaves a thin film on everything. You can even see it from space.

I know we have our fair share of smog here in the US. It's just that if your pollution reaches that point, I'd think you'd do everything in your power to prevent things from getting worse. I'd never want to live in an area that polluted.
 
It's a sad state of affairs when people can look at something like that and deny that there's a problem. What's even sadder is that these same people fail to realize that this is an issue of self-preservation and self-interest rather than some sort of nature-loving idealism.

There's no nice way to put it: the people of whom I speak are idiots.
 
Yeah, I have an ex student that teaches there with her husband....they are both big joggers and they hate the days like this, and people wonder why the US didn't want to sign the Kyoto Protocol....they wanted to make our emmissions output regulations heavier than that of China. I would call BS on that myself....China should have the strictest regulations of all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,265
Messages
22,075,583
Members
45,875
Latest member
shanandrews
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"