Humans are the Cause of Global Warming

[Whatmore]

I predict, based on my very sophisticated modelling, that while it lasts, this thread will consist of people with opposing views explaining in great detail why these views are correct. At the same time no one will move even a tiny bit toward the view that opposed theirs.

Imagine that happening on a Hifi forum, outrageous.

 

[NorthStar]

...
Like everyone else on this site; I do not have the expertise to evaluate and come to any educated conclusion regarding climatology. So like everyone else, my opinion on this subject conforms to my world view.

Same here. ...I just read what's been published and projected, and try to evaluate intelligently and making good sense of it all.

It does seem to me that the following questions should be asked:

1. If humans are responsible for global warming, is this a good or bad thing?
2. If it is a bad thing, at this point, can we do anything to stop it? If not, then we should work to mitigate the untoward effects.
3. However, if we can 'bend the curve' of global warming by reducing CO2 emissions, why do most environmentalists oppose the only two existing technologies that can replace oil and coal; namely natural gas and nuclear?

1. Yes, the scientists are 95% convinced that humans are big contributors of the climate's changes (global temperature's rise and more water descending on flatter lands from glaciers melting and from mountain's snow as well, as all types of air pollution from fossil-fuel burning into the atmosphere from factories, cars, etc.), and it can't be good; it has to be bad.
We depend too much on the bad stuff (probably for economic reasons) than the smart stuff like wind turbines, human heat energy, solar power, wave power, ocean tides energy, etc.

2. We have to change our ways of living and stop depending on the resources that affect us negatively. Be more positively creating with the health benefit of humanity instead of the financial ones (and totally earth's destructive) from oil and plastic and chemicals and radioactivity. ...Easier said than done. Man doesn't have the reputation of making sacrifices for better generations to come (better world, more healthy, and with better values). ...Tough to compromise for a healthier planet when people can get more healthier (financially).
CO2 emissions have to be eliminated progressively.

3. Natural gas, what is it? ...Fossil-fuel, or some' else? ...Is it safe? Is there enough of it?
Nuclear energy, that too, is it safe? ...For the air, for the oceans, for the people, for humanity?

 

[jazdoc]

So what are you prepared to do? Willing to unplug your stereo to save the planet?

Hope you are not as distraught as the former weather guy from the WSJ:

Poor Tinkebell!

 

[Orb]

Northstar,
yet your point 2 ignores deforestation
So it is academic reducing co2 if all rainforests are destroyed as is what has happened in western countries; just over half of north america in 1600s was classified as forest and now it is non-existent.
This has happened also in Europe, and now we are left with just "3rd world"/BRIC countries who are doing exactly the same....

Modern analysis calculates nearly 30% of all co2 is released from burning forests, and this is a compound effect of released co2 that was stored and also a loss of future absorption.....
One respected independent report/study states the biggest impact humankind has made to the planet is deforestation (rated higher than global warming by industrial co2, pollution,etc).

What is amusing though is how some conservationists want to reduce our reliance upon fossil fuels and yet do not want nuclear power; wind farms/solar is a long way from making up the difference and in fact here in the UK some installations are freaking paid NOT to connect the wind farms to the grid on windy nights due to overloading capacity as it is not needed.

What I am surprised with though; with all the scientists out there and all the funding that exists, why has not more focus been put into fusion energy that will be pie in the sky until it is backed (politically, financially and technically) at a global level just like the Large Hadron Collider was.
Cheers
Orb

 

[NorthStar]

Northstar,
yet your point 2 ignores deforestation

No, I did not; I simply didn't mention it. ...And I feel good from my own physical participation in a grand scale (by replanting those forests for almost 30 years).

So it is academic reducing co2 if all rainforests are destroyed as is what has happened in western countries; just over half of north america in 1600s was classified as forest and now it is non-existent.
This has happened also in Europe, and now we are left with just "3rd world"/BRIC countries who are doing exactly the same....

Modern analysis calculates nearly 30% of all co2 is released from burning forests, and this is a compound effect of released co2 that was stored and also a loss of future absorption.....
One respected independent report/study states the biggest impact humankind has made to the planet is deforestation (rated higher than global warming by industrial co2, pollution,etc).

What is amusing though is how some conservationists want to reduce our reliance upon fossil fuels and yet do not want nuclear power; wind farms/solar is a long way from making up the difference and in fact here in the UK some installations are freaking paid NOT to connect the wind farms to the grid on windy nights due to overloading capacity as it is not needed.

What I am surprised with though; with all the scientists out there and all the funding that exists, why has not more focus been put into fusion energy that will be pie in the sky until it is backed (politically, financially and technically) at a global level just like the Large Hadron Collider was.
Cheers
Orb

Orb, do you know what is the major cause of forest fires, besides man? ...That's right, lightnings. ...And lightnings are created by what?

* You mentioned only one aspect of the climate change; deforestation and forest fires. ...Which is included in that 2,000-page scientific report.

And by the way I don't fly no more and I don't drive no more. I bicycle (no motor), I use public transportation, and I have my chauffeur.

And the Large Hadron Collider is another totally different ball game; the beginning of our existence, not the end.

The majority of people might laugh at all of that but I'm not part of that people's majority myself.

I care about the future of our planet and its humanity living on it.
...Today, and way out there tomorrow.

The future lays on recycling our rejects, replanting our forests, reintegrating our criminals back into societies as better people. ...And on using clean energy. If we don't, we're doomed eventually! ...The Earth will be a gigantic ocean full of debris and dead bodies and diseases.
{We are the future food for the fishes of the oceans; no ashes but broken bones.}

 

[rblnr]

So what are you prepared to do? Willing to unplug your stereo to save the planet?

Yes, I would absolutely sacrifice some luxury to save the planet -- wow, how big of me. We might actually have to make some inconvenient choices in the short term at least.

 

[Groucho]

We might actually have to make some inconvenient choices in the short term at least.

It's funny how different we are on this subject. I am completely sceptical about scientists' ability to predict future climate, which at first glance makes me a 'denier'. Unlike you, however, I don't believe that there is anything that can be done to save us, or that will allow 'business as usual' to carry on into the far future. I see the idea of Climate Change as a gift to politicians, scientists and Big Business alike. They salivate at the prospect of what they can do with it, but ultimately there is no intention to fundamentally change how the economy works one iota. You can believe that a few token gestures will set the planet right, but just look at how much 'stuff' is wasted every day compared to your sacrificing a few luxuries - and even then it will probably be arranged that what you sacrifice will simply 'trickle up' to the 1% anyway!

All the easy-to-get-to stuff has been extracted already, so we're already on the downward slope where growth is difficult or impossible. Yet the entire economy depends on growth, so that we can continue to borrow against the future to pay for today's extravagances. Oh dear...

 

[rblnr]

I don't question that we cant grow indefinitely or that the economy works as it should in an equitable way, but we have to separate issues here and focus on what we can do about global warming.

You may question the future modeling -- though James Hansen of NASA would argue that they've been largely correct -- but what's unquestionable is that there's more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before, temperatures and sea levels are rising, the ph of the sea is changing, and it's largely by man.

As for global warming being a gift to politicians and scientists -- I'm not (quite) so cynical. In fact, if weather becomes increasingly extreme, people are more reliant rather than less on government aid -- FEMA, disaster relief etc. as for big business, if it means they will innovate with cleaner techs, I'm ok with it.

 

[Orb]

No, I did not; I simply didn't mention it. ...And I feel good from my own physical participation in a grand scale (by replanting those forests for almost 30 years).



Orb, do you know what is the major cause of forest fires, besides man? ...That's right, lightnings. ...And lightnings are created by what?

* You mentioned only one aspect of the climate change; deforestation and forest fires. ...Which is included in that 2,000-page scientific report.

And by the way I don't fly no more and I don't drive no more. I bicycle (no motor), I use public transportation, and I have my chauffeur.

And the Large Hadron Collider is another totally different ball game; the beginning of our existence, not the end.

The majority of people might laugh at all of that but I'm not part of that people's majority myself.

I care about the future of our planet and its humanity living on it.
...Today, and way out there tomorrow.

The future lays on recycling our rejects, replanting our forests, reintegrating our criminals back into societies as better people. ...And on using clean energy. If we don't, we're doomed eventually! ...The Earth will be a gigantic ocean full of debris and dead bodies and diseases.

Not saying you did not care so hope it does not read like that.
I have been interested and following global warming since the late 80s and the various research throughout each decade.
I think you may not fully appreciate how much deforestation is due to man and not lightening, look at that link I provided earlier to show just how much it affected north america, that is just one small example of what happens globally.
And sorry but defrorestation IS the biggest impact man has had on the planet, the research and statistics show how much the planet relies upon rain forests, without these the climate is screwed as I mentioned before.

Regarding the LHC, well if I had the choice of understanding the creation of the universe and core building blocks, or having a fully functioning fusion power plant that actually could work off He3 (also requries mining the moon) I know what is more important to the planet.
As I mentioned; ironically politically,financial and technical will all came together to try and answer some big arguments in the scientific world with the LHC, and yet a lot of the scientific world moans we need to do more about global warming and we still have disparate fusion projects that is not the answer to reach the required aim of a radioactive free fusion power plant that can power cities.
It is fair to say the LHC is one of the worlds greatest modern achievements, but on the scale of things it does not resolve the planets energy issues.

Without clean fusion using He3 (seriously long way off before first power station is used), the only answer to date is more nuclear power stations and that does not sit well with anyone.
So a lot of the climate debate (not directing this at you but I mean out there) is all about industrial co2 but never about what to replace it with that works (wind/solar cannot realistically do that reliably everywhere and not large scale so need more nuclear power stations), and its never a high priority about the rainforests that mankind (it is known how much deforestation we cause every year) destroys that is both an absorber and when destroyed a large contributor to the annual co2 emissions.
It is only in the last 5 or so years it has been better understood just how critical and the largescale the role of forests are in the discussion of c02 and climate change, but this is still not the primary purpose of those talking about global warming - their focus is industrial co2 and taxation/tradable carbon credits/severely reducing co2 emission/etc.

Just my own observation following this for a long time, and yes I was concerned about global climate back in the 80s and have been ever since, but I am also concerned with how the narrative is being controlled by a certain section of the global warming science community and how it is being skewed, that is not what science is about.
Cheers
Orb

 

[NorthStar]

Not saying you did not care so hope it does not read like that.
I have been interested and following global warming since the late 80s and the various research throughout each decade.
I think you may not fully appreciate how much deforestation is due to man and not lightening, look at that link I provided earlier to show just how much it affected north america, that is just one small example of what happens globally.
And sorry but defrorestation IS the biggest impact man has had on the planet, the research and statistics show how much the planet relies upon rain forests, without these the climate is screwed as I mentioned before.

Regarding the LHC, well if I had the choice of understanding the creation of the universe and core building blocks, or having a fully functioning fusion power plant that actually could work off He3 (also requries mining the moon) I know what is more important to the planet.
As I mentioned; ironically politically,financial and technical will all came together to try and answer some big arguments in the scientific world with the LHC, and yet a lot of the scientific world moans we need to do more about global warming and we still have disparate fusion projects that is not the answer to reach the required aim of a radioactive free fusion power plant that can power cities.
It is fair to say the LHC is one of the worlds greatest modern achievements, but on the scale of things it does not resolve the planets energy issues.

Without clean fusion using He3 (seriously long way off before first power station is used), the only answer to date is more nuclear power stations and that does not sit well with anyone.
So a lot of the climate debate (not directing this at you but I mean out there) is all about industrial co2 but never about what to replace it with that works (wind/solar cannot realistically do that reliably everywhere and not large scale so need more nuclear power stations), and its never a high priority about the rainforests that mankind (it is known how much deforestation we cause every year) destroys that is both an absorber and when destroyed a large contributor to the annual co2 emissions.
It is only in the last 5 or so years it has been better understood just how critical and the largescale the role of forests are in the discussion of c02 and climate change, but this is still not the primary purpose of those talking about global warming - their focus is industrial co2 and taxation/tradable carbon credits/severely reducing co2 emission/etc.

Just my own observation following this for a long time, and yes I was concerned about global climate back in the 80s and have been ever since, but I am also concerned with how the narrative is being controlled by a certain section of the global warming science community and how it is being skewed, that is not what science is about.
Cheers
Orb

Excellent post.

That report was authored by 257 scientists from all around the world; and yet you are uncertain.

* By the way, by spending almost thirty years in reforesting the forests of Western Canada, I know way more than your average person about man-made deforestation.
I thought you would have automatically concluded that.

And you are absolutely correct; deforestation all across this continent is bad for a balanced echo-system, for our natural environment, and for the entire planet.
And open-sky mining is another rape form. ...And in my own country here, Canada, things aren't well at all! ...Plus all that crude oil leaking and exploding and killing!
Obama asked our prime minister to get his act together and clean up! ...Good for you Mr. Harper, because you do indeed need to clean up! ...Internally and externally.

The best I can do is to write him a letter and tell him the facts; like it or not.
But he knows the tune, the one sang by some of our great artist/environmentalists here in my own country. ...Richard Desjardins, Raoul Duguay, Neil young, ... just to name few.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Excellent post.

That report was authored by 257 scientists from all around the world; and yet you are uncertain.

* By the way, by spending almost thirty years in reforesting the forests of Western Canada, I know way more than your average person about man-made deforestation.
I thought you would have automatically concluded that.

And you are absolutely correct; deforestation all across this continent is bad for a balanced echo-system, for our natural environment, and for the entire planet.
And open-sky mining is another rape form. ...And in my own country here, Canada, things aren't well at all! ...Plus all that crude oil leaking and exploding and killing!
Obama asked our prime minister to get his act together and clean up! ...Good for you Mr. Harper, because you do indeed need to clean up! ...Internally and externally.

The best I can do is to write him a letter and tell him the facts; like it or not.
But he knows the tune, the one sang by some of our great artist/environmentalists here in my own country. ...Richard Desjardins, Raoul Duguay, Neil young, ... just to name few.

Bob - No mention of Bruce Cockburn?

 

[rbbert]

Deforestation is a huge problem.

 

[NorthStar]

Bob - No mention of Bruce Cockburn?

Yeah, I forgot. :b

Deforestation is a huge problem.

Agree, but not the only one.

 

[rbbert]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/s...tml?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1&

 

[mdabb]

When I have environmental / climate change discussions with people I encounter most do not even know what it is really. So if you don't understand, or even try, it's easy to deny. I've seen people get down right angry over it.


So..... a video from the National Academy of Sciences.


Climate Change: Lines of Evidence

 

[rbbert]

Oh but look again at post #39 I don't know whether to laugh at its absurdity or cry that people actually believe that global warming is a conspiracy myth..

 

[Alrainbow]

There are more trees on the plan it now then before the Industrial Age began 100 years ago. So deformed ting is not the cause. There is however two things we should consider about every 10k years we enter a ice age. And the preempt is a high carbon dioxide in the air. We have a rise in carbon dioxide. The other thing to consider is us there are billions of us and most every thing we do is add carbon dioxide to the air.
Al

 

[jap]

 

[mdabb]

Terrorism, nuclear Iran & N.Korea, religious extremists (Muslim & Christian - yes), etc., sure they are all big issues. No matter what most people believe the U.S. can't solve issues with might. There are no winners in a modern world war thanks to technology. Those issues will only get solved when people are willing to get honest.

.........And why should people be concerned about "global warming" ? After all it sounds like something pleasant. Who doesn't enjoy warm weather!


Climate change is a "world" problem with serious consequences. Especially for those who live along the equator & coasts. So basically the majority of the world's population. What kind of problems do you think we are gonna have in the world then? We can't even properly manage the disaster from storms like Katrina or Sandy. Let's increase the chances of having bigger & more frequent disasters.


How long do you drive your car with the "check engine" light on? Until it's junk?

 

[Orb]

If a butterfly can cause a tornado the other side of the world... then what the heck does massive cloud seeding do as operated by both America and China!!!!
Oh wait... the butterfly effect does not cause tornados
But more seriously with scientists talking about global warming or weather pattern changes; they blithely ignore the massive amount of cloud seeding China does and I think America does to some extent, and a subtly lesser topic ignore localised weather pattern generators that modern day cities are proved to cause due to thermal temperature/humidity/etc generated not from co2-etc but infrastructure and population density.

Weather patterns will become more and more complex and unfortunately the basic models just will not work anymore IMO, everything cannot be put on the door of traditional co2-etc IMO.
Espcially as I pointed out earlier just how devastating deforrestation (from industry and population growth) has been since the 1600s.

Cheers
Orb