Global Warming! We're all going to die!

[Wondering]

It just seems weird to me all the doomsday stuff people throw around. I mean, the earth was hit by a giant meteor that whiped out most of the life on it, and now it still sustains life... People have to get over this idea that the earth is this static sphere where all changes are irreversable by nature. You don't run around talking about the oxygen levels and how much we breath is going to affect how much oxygen is left on the earth, it will be replenished naturally.

 

I agree with you on that point, but I think when people think that way, they are misunderstanding what researchers are trying to say. The reason we should be concerned is because we aren't prepared to deal with the changes that the earth can have. The answer to global warming is not a doomsday warming, but warnings shouldn't be overlooked either.

[Michaelangelica]

I agree with you on that point, but I think when people think that way, they are misunderstanding what researchers are trying to say. The reason we should be concerned is because we aren't prepared to deal with the changes that the earth can have. The answer to global warming is not a doomsday warming, but warnings shouldn't be overlooked either.

 

I don't know if global warming is real or not. I have not read enough about it. It is certainly contentious.

It feels to me that it is getting hotter (Jan 1 at 40++C was a killer -even hardy roadside plants expired -a week of that and we would have had few plants alive.) and weather is more extreme. In Australia drought has alternated with devastaing cyclones. But personal observations and feelings are not science.

 

If you believe that global warming is real you should look at the "Terra preta" discussion here. One of the scientific articles postulates that if the world agricultural community were to adopt some Terra preta farming teqniques we could sequester (retire?) all of the carbon we have pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

 

Those that think that another ice age is ahead might feel that this is a bad thing.

 

My prophesy is that Tera preta farming will be adopted eventually world wide and a lot of cabon will be taken out of the equation.

Where does that leave us???

 

Michael

[Cedars]

I agree with you on that point, but I think when people think that way, they are misunderstanding what researchers are trying to say. The reason we should be concerned is because we aren't prepared to deal with the changes that the earth can have. The answer to global warming is not a doomsday warming, but warnings shouldn't be overlooked either.

 

Even though I am skeptical of the dire predictions and mankinds effects on global climate via CO2, I hate to discourage people who are looking at this with an environmental concern. I think most of what is occuring globally is a naturally driven event by solar and plate tetanics and big issues, which means there is little mankind can do to avert the big picture on climate.

 

But what alarms me is the proposed solutions to what may be a non-issue on the global level. The proposals of Kyoto for example do not address the issue in a realistic way. What Kyoto proposes is some countries will have to make a huge monetary investment on top of what has already occured and exempts two countries which, if predictions hold true, will surpass all global emissions of CO2 in a very short time. I find the logic of Kyoto flawed because of this and other factors.

 

For example, China, and India should be held to the same standard as the rest of the big emittors. While they increase their technologies, they are not being required to use the most current and less pollution generating technologies that are available. What will occur if this trend continues unchecked is the total emmissions per person in each of these countries will exceed the per person emmission of the USA. This defeats the purpose. Once signed and agreed to, how exactly will the world change its mind and the rules to bring these other countries to the same emmissions standards.

 

The focus would better serve the globe if it was written to hold each country responsible for the future of the globe by accounting for the future in the proposals.

[Qfwfq]

I mean, the earth was hit by a giant meteor that whiped out most of the life on it, and now it still sustains life...

Does that mean we don't need to worry for the future generations? :surprise:

 

You don't run around talking about the oxygen levels and how much we breath is going to affect how much oxygen is left on the earth, it will be replenished naturally.

Only if people would quit overexploiting forests, and replenish them instead, and enough to make up for the increased emissions, but that takes time. Trees don't grow overnight.

 

The Economist had a very good article recently on illegal logging around the world. These people deserve what's going to happen to all of us.

 

BTW I read the article you linked to and found it ludicrously incompetent. One of the positive responses he got was remarking on how people like him are being outcast and harassed... just like "Creation Scientists". Quite significant, I'd say.

[InfiniteNow]

Would it help you to decide where you stand if we just called it something different?

 

Let's say...

 

"Atmospheric Composition Change." Do we, our actions, and our society have an impact on that?

[Michaelangelica]

Would it help you to decide where you stand if we just called it something different?

 

Let's say...

 

"Atmospheric Composition Change." Do we, our actions, and our society have an impact on that?

pretty hard not to agree with that.

The question is how significant is human "Atmospheric Composition Change." lined up against all the other variables?

I happen to be reading Ian Plimer's book "a short history of planet earth" (ABC press)

He makes the point that there are dozens of factors in play, including water vapour, volcanism, bacteria, solar flares, solar radiation, solar wind, solar cycles, natural cycles of planetary motion, (orbital eccentricity), ice rafting events, natural alternating ice house/greenhouse events, tectonic plate movement, planetary spin speed variations,movement of magnetic pole etc etc

Frankly it's all a bit much to take in.

 

Of course we could all stop worrying about "Atmospheric Composition Change."

by reversing the last 150-200 years of it by taking up Terra preta farming and gardening!:thumbs_do

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/3451-terra-preta.html

[Turtle]

pretty hard not to agree with that.

The question is how significant is human "Atmospheric Composition Change." lined up against all the other variables?

...Frankly it's all a bit much to take in.

 

So if something is hard, then don't bother? Is it any surprise that as we humans develop evermore complex understanding that we encounter evermore complex questions?

The mix of variable parameters you mention from the book appear 'a bit much to take in' if viewed from a linear modeling perspective, but we have new types of modeling such as fractals & complex systems analysis which accomodate these parameters.

What I see lacking as we specialize in more & more topics, is an understanding of the generalizations we may draw from them. Atmospheric Composition Change by any other name is as not disconnected.:thumbs_do

[Wondering]

Ok, i just have to say this...

 

I understand that debate is a good thing, and is important. However, I think that some people may be paying more attention to articles, books, and people who say that global warming isn't happening, isn't dangerous, or isn't caused by humans just because they subconsiously want that to be true. I respect that other people can think what they want, but from what I've read global warming is happening, and does have bad effects, and yes, we do play a part! It's not like I just go around reading crazy doomsday people ranting on about it either. NASA reports all this, even when they don't want to, but it's getting to the point that they have to. I wish that I could see the affected parts myself, all I can see is that our winters in northern Canada are getting shorter and milder, but I know people that have seen worse effects. My sister's friend in highschool went on a researching ship with scientists and saw where ice should have been and melting permafrost destroying peoples homes. Where they started their trip, they weren't allowed outside without someone with a gun because the polar bears are being driven into that town.

 

How can people ignore these things? Maybe people are just ignorant and they don't care. Maybe they just live in denial. Maybe it is a subconsious thing.

[Cedars]

Ok, i just have to say this...

 

I understand that debate is a good thing, and is important. However, I think that some people may be paying more attention to articles, books, and people who say that global warming isn't happening, isn't dangerous, or isn't caused by humans just because they subconsiously want that to be true. I respect that other people can think what they want, but from what I've read global warming is happening, and does have bad effects, and yes, we do play a part!

 

How can people ignore these things? Maybe people are just ignorant and they don't care. Maybe they just live in denial. Maybe it is a subconsious thing.

 

Just a few weeks ago you claimed you did not know much about global warming, admitted your local library had little info and began your exploration into the global warming controversy. I respect an honest enquiry into these things. It is my own explorations of different opinions that has me skeptical of the hyperbole surrounding the current media focus on 'global warming' and 'we're all gonna die' scenarios. I am very skeptical that less than 0.5% of the atmospheric condition (greenhouse gasses) can account for the climate changes that are occuring on the earth.

 

Science is not perfect. Medicine is a good example of how easy it is to make mistakes when promoting certain behaviors and having problems later surface due to intangables or cause and effects not being explored before promoting an idea as 'truth'. Look at how medicine suggests laying babies down to sleep as an example. First change and easiest to document was, dont let your babies sleep on their bellies cuz when they spit up they drown because their necks are not strong enough. So millions of parents put their children to bed on their backs. A few years later medicine reversed itself because more babies died from the solution than the original 'problem'.

 

I dont think anyone is saying climate change isnt happening, history shows climate change happens. What is being debated is whether human impact is the source of this change as presented in the media today. Doing research into this does require exploration of the history of climate, atmosphere, oceans, and a host of other sciences to get the 'big picture' on the whole of the earths climate. It requires the analysis of multiple disciplines to be able to see the entire picture. As with all science, the theories will be changed, added to, subtracted from, and it will take time to get an understanding that encompasses the 'truth'.

 

New link for today. Historic Oxygen levels. The amount of oxygen has been dropping for the last 75 million years.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/issue20/images/large/pq1991262002.jpeg

 

From this article:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/20/10955

[Qfwfq]

And we're making it drop even quicker. What else but vegetation is there to replenish oxygen from carbon dioxide?

[Wondering]

Just a few weeks ago you claimed you did not know much about global warming, admitted your local library had little info and began your exploration into the global warming controversy. I respect an honest enquiry into these things. It is my own explorations of different opinions that has me skeptical of the hyperbole surrounding the current media focus on 'global warming' and 'we're all gonna die' scenarios. I am very skeptical that less than 0.5% of the atmospheric condition (greenhouse gasses) can account for the climate changes that are occuring on the earth.

 

Science is not perfect. Medicine is a good example of how easy it is to make mistakes when promoting certain behaviors and having problems later surface due to intangables or cause and effects not being explored before promoting an idea as 'truth'. Look at how medicine suggests laying babies down to sleep as an example. First change and easiest to document was, dont let your babies sleep on their bellies cuz when they spit up they drown because their necks are not strong enough. So millions of parents put their children to bed on their backs. A few years later medicine reversed itself because more babies died from the solution than the original 'problem'.

 

I dont think anyone is saying climate change isnt happening, history shows climate change happens. What is being debated is whether human impact is the source of this change as presented in the media today. Doing research into this does require exploration of the history of climate, atmosphere, oceans, and a host of other sciences to get the 'big picture' on the whole of the earths climate. It requires the analysis of multiple disciplines to be able to see the entire picture. As with all science, the theories will be changed, added to, subtracted from, and it will take time to get an understanding that encompasses the 'truth'.

 

New link for today. Historic Oxygen levels. The amount of oxygen has been dropping for the last 75 million years.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/issue20/images/large/pq1991262002.jpeg

 

From this article:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/20/10955

 

Well, I do know more about it now. Not as much of the scientific stuff, but some. Can I just ask you if you recycle or conserve energy? Do you care about air pollution or deforestation?

[Cedars]

Well, I do know more about it now. Not as much of the scientific stuff, but some. Can I just ask you if you recycle or conserve energy? Do you care about air pollution or deforestation?

 

Recycling:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/community-polls/6231-do-you-recycle.html

 

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/6163-home-waste-recycling.html

 

Without going into alot of detail, I have recycled or had a significant involvement with the recycling of around 1 million pounds of steel in the last 25 years.

 

I was involved with a lawsuit against a major energy corporation regarding the dumping of a certain chemical prior to the changes in the laws regarding such things. It took 16 years to resolve, but the company did end up cleaning up the area.

 

As far as conservation, I drive one of the most economical cars available by choice.

 

I am slowly redoing my house to bring it to a higher standard for energy effiency.

 

My current location is considered deciduous woods.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snas/deciduous_description.html

 

Currently I am struggling with aging oaks which are starting to die from various natural causes and locating new trees to replace these giants when the finally expire. I dont mow much of the area I own and I allow "weeds" to grow. I dont use pesticides, herbicides, or any of the other common yard chemicals. I dont poison mice.

 

I contribute with both time and money, to several local organisations which are promoting wildlife and habitat in large areas. Each time I float my canoe down the river I bring a garbage bag to collect garbage others have left along this river.

 

I have attended local planning meetings to fight housing developments that bend existing rules on minimum standards including how many houses per acre.

 

If you dont mind, could you respond with your own accounting of self responsibility in regards to the environment and your impact on it?

[Zythryn]

Cedars, I applaud your enviornmentally kind works and efforts.

I am curious though, you stated

 

"I am very skeptical that less than 0.5% of the atmospheric condition (greenhouse gasses) can account for the climate changes that are occuring on the earth."

 

But you then indicate that for enviornmental reasons, you do you best to minimize your intact of fossil fuels. Given your first statement, is this because you feel it MIGHT be an issue and given the stakes, better safe than sorry (even though you are skeptical).

Or is it that you feel the dire consiquences are overstated, but enviornmental care is worthwhile for its own sake (again, I applaud you if this is the case:)).

 

Personally your efforts outweigh my own, although I am working hard to catch up:)

 

Mark

[Cedars]

Cedars, I applaud your enviornmentally kind works and efforts.

I am curious though, you stated

 

"I am very skeptical that less than 0.5% of the atmospheric condition (greenhouse gasses) can account for the climate changes that are occuring on the earth."

 

But you then indicate that for enviornmental reasons, you do you best to minimize your intact of fossil fuels. Given your first statement, is this because you feel it MIGHT be an issue and given the stakes, better safe than sorry (even though you are skeptical).

Or is it that you feel the dire consiquences are overstated, but enviornmental care is worthwhile for its own sake (again, I applaud you if this is the case:)).

 

Personally your efforts outweigh my own, although I am working hard to catch up:)

 

Mark

 

 

There are multiple factors involved with my decisions to live as I do. The primary motivation is that I feel a responsibility to give back to nature for what I have harvested, whether its providing me shelter, food, clothing, entertainment, or any of the many things that because of nature, I am able to do, be, have, etc...

 

Energy conservation is a part of the drive. Oil seems to be a finite source of energy. Drilling, transportation and refinment of crude to petroleum have their impact on environment and one of my personal philosophies is not to take more than I need.

 

Energy conservation has its own personal monetary benefit for me. I dont spend near the money on gas as people who drive SUVs for example.

 

Of course, like everyone else, I am not perfect in my endeavors.

[Zythryn]

There are multiple factors involved with my decisions to live as I do. The primary motivation is that I feel a responsibility to give back to nature for what I have harvested, whether its providing me shelter, food, clothing, entertainment, or any of the many things that because of nature, I am able to do, be, have, etc...

 

Energy conservation is a part of the drive. Oil seems to be a finite source of energy. Drilling, transportation and refinment of crude to petroleum have their impact on environment and one of my personal philosophies is not to take more than I need.

 

Energy conservation has its own personal monetary benefit for me. I dont spend near the money on gas as people who drive SUVs for example.

 

Of course, like everyone else, I am not perfect in my endeavors.

 

 

Once again, I whole heartedly applaud you!!

My confusion about your stance is dispersed. That is a great viewpoint:)

 

Mark

[Wondering]

Recycling:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/community-polls/6231-do-you-recycle.html

 

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/6163-home-waste-recycling.html

 

Without going into alot of detail, I have recycled or had a significant involvement with the recycling of around 1 million pounds of steel in the last 25 years.

 

I was involved with a lawsuit against a major energy corporation regarding the dumping of a certain chemical prior to the changes in the laws regarding such things. It took 16 years to resolve, but the company did end up cleaning up the area.

 

As far as conservation, I drive one of the most economical cars available by choice.

 

I am slowly redoing my house to bring it to a higher standard for energy effiency.

 

My current location is considered deciduous woods.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snas/deciduous_description.html

 

Currently I am struggling with aging oaks which are starting to die from various natural causes and locating new trees to replace these giants when the finally expire. I dont mow much of the area I own and I allow "weeds" to grow. I dont use pesticides, herbicides, or any of the other common yard chemicals. I dont poison mice.

 

I contribute with both time and money, to several local organisations which are promoting wildlife and habitat in large areas. Each time I float my canoe down the river I bring a garbage bag to collect garbage others have left along this river.

 

I have attended local planning meetings to fight housing developments that bend existing rules on minimum standards including how many houses per acre.

 

If you dont mind, could you respond with your own accounting of self responsibility in regards to the environment and your impact on it?

 

Hey Cedars, sorry I haven't responded to your post for a while.. been giving my brain a break for a while.. lol. Anyways, I think what you do is awesome. I think that you're attitude towards the enviroment is a very good one. If more people thought like you do about nature, then the earth would probably be in better shape right now. Personally, I don't do as much for the environment as i would like to. I don't drive, which is good, but that just cause i don't have my license yet (I'm 20 but I just waited a long time to get it). Being 20 and going to school, I live in a very tiny apartment with not a lot of room for recycling bins. Its probably a bad excuse, but I wouldn't be able to drive them to the recycling depot anyway. One good thing about the small apartment though is that I don't use much energy. As far as cars go, I am going to get one and probably drive it more than if I lived in a warmer part of the world. lol. Hopefully I can get one with a low fuel comsumption and one day get a better car. Anyways... I got bored with this website for a while but I think I'm back into it now, lol. I don't think I'm quite done with this post but I'm really tired and have to go get some sleep. :) I can't even think of the name of that gas made from sugar cane and grains and stuff right now... i'll get some sleep and get back to this. :)

[Michaelangelica]

This was interesting

Considering we get most of our oxygen from Plankton and they are already suffering from pesticde exposure

http://www.calacademy.org/thisweek/Archive/2003/20031008.html

Warming Oceans Killing Ocean Plankton

 

The floating gardens of the ocean are dying--and their demise has been linked to warming waters. Known as phytoplankton, these microscopic plants are the foundation of the marine food web and absorb the greenhouse gases known to warm the atmosphere. Scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that oceans experiencing the most severe phytoplankton losses between the 1980s and 1990s were those that warmed the most. To make matters worse, they report in the Journal of Geophysical Research Letters, winds that normally fertilize the oceans with iron in the form of dust have calmed. The result: the North Pacific, which experienced a 0.7 degree Fahrenheit rise in sea surface temperature, lost 9 percent of its plankton, while the North Atlantic saw a 1.26 degree temperature increase and suffered a 7 percent plankton dropoff. The loss of plankton is likely reverberating throughout the marine food chain, with its most visible effects being declines in penguin, whale, and seal populations.

San Francisco Chronicle