A Global Warming Thread

[chess-z]

First off, let me start by saying that if the nearly unanimous scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate change isn't enough for you, you're wrong. No two ways about it. Hats don't stop being hats if you don't believe in them. The same is true of global warming.

The question then becomes "what can we do about it?". Damage has already been done, so we can't completely erase the problem, but we should still try.

What is changes are reasonable? When can we start implementing them? Why do you think so?

 

[SlowPokeBroKing]

The largest obstruction when discussing implementing change is still the overwhelming backlash from the non-scientific community and that really chaps my ***. I've actually heard people say **** like "If a scientist came out against climate change, it would ruin their reputation, so of course it seems unanimous." And that's just so silly.

I'd like for the opposition to name another unanimously agreed upon theory they argue against. At this point, it's seriously like they're arguing against gravity or the roundness of the Earth.

Another thing that really makes no sense is how ordinary citizens firmly oppose it and get so up-in-arms defending their position. If someone came up to me and tried to tell me unicorns were real, I'd just be like, "Yeah, okay. Whatever." But the fact that they're so butthurt about something they believe is a myth just solidifies how much the politicians have warped their worldviews.

 

[DracosWulfgar]

First off, let me start by saying that if the nearly unanimous scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate change isn't enough for you, you're wrong. No two ways about it. Hats don't stop being hats if you don't believe in them. The same is true of global warming. The question then becomes "what can we do about it?". Damage has already been done, so we can't completely erase the problem, but we should still try.What is changes are reasonable? When can we start implementing them? Why do you think so?

First we can try to reduce our burning of fossil fuels, by doing that it gives the natural cycle a chance to catch up to try to fix it.We should start now at doing that but its unlikely it will start untill it becomes to much, most people don't care about nature until it starts bothering them and that is just shameful.Second, stuff like this has happened before. Snowball Ice ages.We also could try to stop cutting trees down everywhere, more and more stuff is becoming tech based anyways, so we could all together stop cutting trees.If we cut the trees down it makes it harder for the natural cycle to reduce the greenhouse gasses, not only that but it would save alot of animals from going extinct as well.

 

[Zolar Czakl]

The problem isn't that we don't know what to do against this, because everyone knows that at this point, the problem is that a lot of governments don't have their priorities straight. The same goes for people with voting power. Problem also is that if you don't agree on most things with a political party that happens to be the 'greenest', you're not going to vote for them.

Also we have somehow still not decided that being an actively global warning-denier should be illegal. Imagine if you had a group of politicans who deny that poverty is a thing, and based on that don't want minimum wages to exist.

\Second, stuff like this has happened before. Snowball Ice ages.\

Which has absolutely zero to do with what we're going through now.

 

[Auraninja]

First we can try to reduce our burning of fossil fuels, by doing that it gives the natural cycle a chance to catch up to try to fix it.We should start now at doing that but its unlikely it will start untill it becomes to much, most people don't care about nature until it starts bothering them and that is just shameful.Second, stuff like this has happened before. Snowball Ice ages.

My big problem is nothing with what you said. To be frank, nobody wants to listen to the experts in the field. I have studied ecology (and I am now in advanced ecology, with topics like niche modeling). There are two people in my immediate family who believe in global warming. Sadly, though he has studied both biology and chemistry, my brother thinks it doesn't make any sense in economics (please don't ask me, I have no idea). My slightly older sister and my mother believe it. My sister and father are in the medical field, but they are held by right wing bias. It is upsetting that I tell my dad that I know about global warming, and he doesn't want to believe me.

Here comes the second point, the professors, especially the ones that focus on ecology, believe it without a shadow of doubt. One of my professors, in a grad class, talked about the discipline in scientific writing, and said towards the end that it is frightening how about half of the US population doesn't agree with it. The federal funded scientists is a BS slogan. The government funds scientists to conduct ecological surveys, but they will not fudge results that are tested with p-values.

In actually, if you go to the scientific databases, such as Springerlink, Web of Knowledge, Wiley Online, and Science Direct, then you won't find this argument. The vast majority of scientific writers have moved on and have understood this while trying to make good models for their own experiment.

We also could try to stop cutting trees down everywhere, more and more stuff is becoming tech based anyways, so we could all together stop cutting trees.If we cut the trees down it makes it harder for the natural cycle to reduce the greenhouse gasses, not only that but it would save alot of animals from going extinct as well.

It cannot be fully prevented. Besides population increase and whatnot, paper is made from pine wood. In fact, the area I'm from has pine trees, but I live in Texas. The pine forests are cultivated, and then burned in order to prevent hardwood trees. You can't make good paper with deciduous trees. If you wanted to say that we should be more smart with our cultivation, then I would agree, but you can't prevent them that quickly.

The oil and gas companies should use more green fuel, but the lobbying with those groups is a force to be reckoned with.

Also, global warming is traced to the industrial age due to a very similar dating technique to that era. It's practically the same way we date fossils, but then we have another universally accepted but still controversial science.

Also, you have blanket arguments. People pretend that Bill Nye is the only person who has made this claim. That is far from accuracy.

 

[Divine Retribution]

The problem isn't that we don't know what to do against this, because everyone knows that at this point, the problem is that a lot of governments don't have their priorities straight. The same goes for people with voting power. Problem also is that if you don't agree on most things with a political party that happens to be the 'greenest', you're not going to vote for them.

Also we have somehow still not decided that being an actively global warning-denier should be illegal. Imagine if you had a group of politicans who deny that poverty is a thing, and based on that don't want minimum wages to exist.

Which has absolutely zero to do with what we're going through now.

As much as I agree that climate change denial is one of the stupidest ideas on the planet, I don't agree that any idea (or the denial of any idea) should be illegal. Not even deplorable **** like holocaust denial should be punished by law, because then you're literally punishing people for thought crime, and you've taken yet another step into the realm of Orwell's nightmare.

That being said, there's basically nothing we can do to reverse climate change. When people say that humans cause climate change, they're slightly misunderstanding the issue. While it's true that humanity is largely responsible for the recent shift in global climate, we're responsible in the same way that a pebble might be responsible for a rockslide. That is to say, we are the catalyst, not the sole contributor, to this most recent warming cycle. If we stopped carbon emissions overnight, climate change would not reverse itself. The damage has already been done, the snowball is already rolling, and we may have to accept the consequences of our actions as there seems to be no feasible way to avoid them.

I'm a bit strapped for time right now, expect a more elaborate post later where I'll go into some of the specifics on this issue and provide some sources.

 

[Auraninja]

As much as I agree that climate change denial is one of the stupidest ideas on the planet, I don't agree that any idea (or the denial of any idea) should be illegal. Not even deplorable **** like holocaust denial should be punished by law, because then you're literally punishing people for thought crime, and you've taken yet another step into the realm of Orwell's nightmare.

I think the government should share responsibility in skewing information (like Ted Cruz). BTW, if Ted Cruz thinks that climate change is a religion, then why don't I have my religious freedom?

That being said, there's basically nothing we can do to reverse climate change. When people say that humans cause climate change, they're slightly misunderstanding the issue. While it's true that humanity is largely responsible for the recent shift in global climate, we're responsible in the same way that a pebble might be responsible for a rockslide. That is to say, we are the catalyst, not the sole contributor, to this most recent warming cycle. If we stopped carbon emissions overnight, climate change would not reverse itself. The damage has already been done, the snowball is already rolling, and we may have to accept the consequences of our actions as there seems to be no feasible way to avoid them.

This has been debated among people in my department. When I asked one of my professors who is big on this matter, he says that the damage has been done, but shouldn't get worse.
In all, we shouldn't chisel in our fate if we have something to do.

The priority of the scientific community is to prevent it from getting worse. Mass extinction is upon us, but we refuse to even try or even give a damn.

I'm a bit strapped for time right now, expect a more elaborate post later where I'll go into some of the specifics on this issue and provide some sources.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have sources. I have the ability to scrutinize them.

 

[SlowPokeBroKing]

I could not care less about ordinary citizens in disbelief other than how annoying they sound. Politicians, on the other hand, need to be fined or removed from office. It's literally putting money in front of the welfare of the people. That's wrong and needs to change, but then again, that's not just in relation to climate change.

 

[DracosWulfgar]

My big problem is nothing with what you said. To be frank, nobody wants to listen to the experts in the field. I have studied ecology (and I am now in advanced ecology, with topics like niche modeling). There are two people in my immediate family who believe in global warming. Sadly, though he has studied both biology and chemistry, my brother thinks it doesn't make any sense in economics (please don't ask me, I have no idea). My slightly older sister and my mother believe it. My sister and father are in the medical field, but they are held by right wing bias. It is upsetting that I tell my dad that I know about global warming, and he doesn't want to believe me.Here comes the second point, the professors, especially the ones that focus on ecology, believe it without a shadow of doubt. One of my professors, in a grad class, talked about the discipline in scientific writing, and said towards the end that it is frightening how about half of the US population doesn't agree with it. The federal funded scientists is a BS slogan. The government funds scientists to conduct ecological surveys, but they will not fudge results that are tested with p-values. In actually, if you go to the scientific databases, such as Springerlink, Web of Knowledge, Wiley Online, and Science Direct, then you won't find this argument. The vast majority of scientific writers have moved on and have understood this while trying to make good models for their own experiment.It cannot be fully prevented. Besides population increase and whatnot, paper is made from pine wood. In fact, the area I'm from has pine trees, but I live in Texas. The pine forests are cultivated, and then burned in order to prevent hardwood trees. You can't make good paper with deciduous trees. If you wanted to say that we should be more smart with our cultivation, then I would agree, but you can't prevent them that quickly.The oil and gas companies should use more green fuel, but the lobbying with those groups is a force to be reckoned with.Also, global warming is traced to the industrial age due to a very similar dating technique to that era. It's practically the same way we date fossils, but then we have another universally accepted but still controversial science.Also, you have blanket arguments. People pretend that Bill Nye is the only person who has made this claim. That is far from accuracy.

I understand that. I was not clear on the stop cutting trees part, I meant we could stop slashing and burning, I know we still need to use trees but there are trees that regrow faster and can be made in to better paper that is not pine wood ( I am allergic to pine anyways ) , But if I also think we should be smarter with our cultivation. I am studying ecology as well.Also I think we all should try to be better with everything we do, I understand though that always cant happen.

 

[Zolar Czakl]

As much as I agree that climate change denial is one of the stupidest ideas on the planet, I don't agree that any idea (or the denial of any idea) should be illegal. Not even deplorable **** like holocaust denial should be punished by law, because then you're literally punishing people for thought crime, and you've taken yet another step into the realm of Orwell's nightmare.

That being said, there's basically nothing we can do to reverse climate change. When people say that humans cause climate change, they're slightly misunderstanding the issue. While it's true that humanity is largely responsible for the recent shift in global climate, we're responsible in the same way that a pebble might be responsible for a rockslide. That is to say, we are the catalyst, not the sole contributor, to this most recent warming cycle. If we stopped carbon emissions overnight, climate change would not reverse itself. The damage has already been done, the snowball is already rolling, and we may have to accept the consequences of our actions as there seems to be no feasible way to avoid them.

I'm a bit strapped for time right now, expect a more elaborate post later where I'll go into some of the specifics on this issue and provide some sources.

In my opinion, brainwashing people with false arguments to make them think something that is dangerous the more people think that thing, goes far beyond 'thought'. If you have the power and/or means to persuade someone of your views, you shouldn't be able to abuse that power.

 

[Zora]

That being said, there's basically nothing we can do to reverse climate change. When people say that humans cause climate change, they're slightly misunderstanding the issue. While it's true that humanity is largely responsible for the recent shift in global climate, we're responsible in the same way that a pebble might be responsible for a rockslide. That is to say, we are the catalyst, not the sole contributor, to this most recent warming cycle. If we stopped carbon emissions overnight, climate change would not reverse itself. The damage has already been done, the snowball is already rolling, and we may have to accept the consequences of our actions as there seems to be no feasible way to avoid them.

I'm a bit strapped for time right now, expect a more elaborate post later where I'll go into some of the specifics on this issue and provide some sources.

That's ********.

We have a very good climate record and can compare the impact natural climate forcings (sun and volcanoes) and anthropocentric climate forces (carbon emissions and aereosols), we can only obtain agreement between the historical record when we include anthropogenic climate forcings. Source: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/causes-climate-change , see image in top right.

Additionally, only solar activity and carbon emissions increase the temperature, and over the long-term temperature anomaly has been higher than any time in recent history (define recent history as past 10,000 years or so, i.e. Holocene). We know solar activity has been steady (source), so cannot explain the recent spike in temperature anomaly. Furthermore, solar radiation causes radiative forcings through visible light whereas carbon emissions cause radiative forcings through infrared light; infrared light must be emitted by the earth proper. We may look at the vertical profile of temperature as a function of height, and find most of the heat is trapped nearest the earth (source), suggesting the source is near earth (i.e. infrared light, i.e. carbon emissions are culpable).

point in case, humans are the main causers of climate change; resolving the climate change as a first step requires reducing our carbon emissions. Ignoring the problem or pretending we're a pebble in a rockslide is denial of the problem itself.

 

[DracosWulfgar]

The problem isn't that we don't know what to do against this, because everyone knows that at this point, the problem is that a lot of governments don't have their priorities straight. The same goes for people with voting power. Problem also is that if you don't agree on most things with a political party that happens to be the 'greenest', you're not going to vote for them.Also we have somehow still not decided that being an actively global warning-denier should be illegal. Imagine if you had a group of politicans who deny that poverty is a thing, and based on that don't want minimum wages to exist.Which has absolutely zero to do with what we're going through now.

All througout our earths history there has been fluctuations in the atmosphere. When it got too hot the evaporation and raining increased which knocked the gasses out of the air and into the ground.Then the earth got colder faster thus an increase snow and ice, which than reflected the solar rays causing it to become a snowball like planet.Then it got warmed up with the volcanoes releasing gasses and heat.This cycle has happened and is what is happening right now plus with more emissions from fossil fuel burning from us humans.

 

[SlowPokeBroKing]

All througout our earths history there has been fluctuations in the atmosphere. When it got too hot the evaporation and raining increased which knocked the gasses out of the air and into the ground.Then the earth got colder faster thus an increase snow and ice, which than reflected the solar rays causing it to become a snowball like planet.Then it got warmed up with the volcanoes releasing gasses and heat.This cycle has happened and is what is happening right now plus with more emissions from fossil fuel burning from us humans.

No offense, but based on your very limited terminology and overly simplified explanation, I'm inclined to believe you have a limited knowledge of the issue. I honestly don't mean to be antagonistic, but it sounds like you'd benefit from being further educated on the subject.

 

[Divine Retribution]

I think the government should share responsibility in skewing information (like Ted Cruz). BTW, if Ted Cruz thinks that climate change is a religion, then why don't I have my religious freedom?

Uh... What? How is that relevant to anything? I don't recall claiming that climate change is a religion or even mentioning that idiot Cruz. And yes, if a government official is skewing information they should be held responsible, but ordinary citizens should not be legally punished for being stupid. That borders too much on fascism for my tastes.

This has been debated among people in my department. When I asked one of my professors who is big on this matter, he says that the damage has been done, but shouldn't get worse.
In all, we shouldn't chisel in our fate if we have something to do.

The priority of the scientific community is to prevent it from getting worse. Mass extinction is upon us, but we refuse to even try or even give a damn.

I guess I should clarify; despite my slightly defeatist attitude in my previous post, I'm not saying we should sit around and do nothing in the face of a potential worldwide disaster. I'm only saying we're not going to be able to completely fix the problem.

At the very least, we should seek to minimize damage by moving important infrastructure away from coastal areas and providing more regulated storm shelters in areas of high hurricane risk. I also think it would be worth investing in the long term in research and technology that might help us repair the ozone hole caused by aerosols and other pollutants and perhaps find a way to minimize natural methane emissions or even remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.

-snip-

See above.

I
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have sources. I have the ability to scrutinize them.

I find it a bit odd that you'd doubt me in the first place being as I have given you no reason to, and we seem to be mostly in agreement. Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding you? As for sources, I used this publication from the IPCC as the source for most of my post. I used this article in regards to the potential of a methane feedback loop fueling climate change. This article on Science also helped me grasp how much methane feedback contributes to global warming currently, and how much it could potentially contribute in the future, however be aware it requires you to be registered on their website in order to view it.


So as promised I'll go into a bit more detail here. Bear in mind climatology is not my field of study (I'm taking a physics major), so I'm not going to pretend to be an expert or even particularly learned in this field.

First, let's get the basics out of the way first. In recent times climate change is largely fueled by three major factors; an increase in greenhouse gasses, an increase in aerosols, and deforestation and agriculture. This is something that isn't even really debated in the scientific community. I'm not here to argue this point, although if you wish to debate about it, I'd be interested to see what sources or evidence you can provide against the literally hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and studies in favor of anthropogenic climate change.

Among the greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate change is methane, a natural gas found in a number of places, among which are frozen peat bogs found across the world above the arctic circle. This methane has been trapped in permafrost for thousands of years.

The reason why I say it may be too late to stop global warming is because we may have already triggered a feedback cycle. Essentially, global warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions causes glaciers to melt in arctic regions, releasing massive quantities of methane that were previously trapped inside glaciers, permafrost, and methane clathrates in the ocean. This methane exacerbates the greenhouse effect, which results in more deglaciation, releasing more methane, and creating a feedback loop that essentially results in climate change spiraling out of control.

I don't see what we can do to stop this, although if you (or the people in your department) have any ideas I'm all ears.

 

[DracosWulfgar]

No offense, but based on your very limited terminology and overly simplified explanation, I'm inclined to believe you have a limited knowledge of the issue. I honestly don't mean to be antagonistic, but it sounds like you'd benefit from being further educated on the subject.

No I am not benefiting.I am taking online courses for my home-schooling, I don't need this to learn more.I am sorry for sounding like that. I am working on explaining things better because I always seem to come off wrong, I don't always get to talk about stuff like this with my family so I don't always know how to word things properly.

 

[SlowPokeBroKing]

No I am not benefiting.I am taking online courses for my home-schooling, I don't need this to learn more.I am sorry for sounding like that. I am working on explaining things better because I always seem to come off wrong, I don't always get to talk about stuff like this with my family so I don't always know how to word things properly.

It's not so much that you sounded harsh or contrarian as much as you sound like you have only a base knowledge on the subject. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but the outlook you posted is a common (and misinformed/biased) one. The world would benefit a lot if people took more time listening to the experts (experts being people who have decades of experience studying the subject in depth using technology and mathematics our minds couldn't dare comprehend) rather than saying, "I learned about the ice age in high school and climatologists are wrong."

Again, not meaning that to sound sassy. But it really is something citizens of the US really need to work on. It really is okay to be uninformed, or even wrong, about something as long as you're willing to put in the time to understand fully and don't use said lack of information to skew facts, change opinions, or make decisions at the expense of others.

 

[DracosWulfgar]

It's not so much that you sounded harsh or contrarian as much as you sound like you have only a base knowledge on the subject. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but the outlook you posted is a common (and misinformed/biased) one. The world would benefit a lot if people took more time listening to the experts (experts being people who have decades of experience studying the subject in depth using technology and mathematics our minds couldn't dare comprehend) rather than saying, "I learned about the ice age in high school and climatologists are wrong."Again, not meaning that to sound sassy. But it really is something citizens of the US really need to work on. It really is okay to be uninformed, or even wrong, about something as long as you're willing to put in the time to understand fully and don't use said lack of information to skew facts, change opinions, or make decisions at the expense of others.

I understand and I am sorry. All of my family members say I do that and I am working hard on not sounding like that.I am the only other family member branching out, trying to learn all that I can. I am just tired of my dad and grandparent and great-grandparents telling me what job I should take, you are right though and I do sound stupid.Until I can actually be smarter I am just going to stay out of the debate forums for now.

 

[SlowPokeBroKing]

I understand and I am sorry. All of my family members say I do that and I am working hard on not sounding like that.I am the only other family member branching out, trying to learn all that I can. I am just tired of my dad and grandparent and great-grandparents telling me what job I should take, you are right though and I do sound stupid.Until I can actually be smarter I am just going to stay out of the debate forums for now.

Don't think of yourself as stupid. Nothing stupid about wanting to learn.

 

[Auraninja]

I understand and I am sorry. All of my family members say I do that and I am working hard on not sounding like that.I am the only other family member branching out, trying to learn all that I can. I am just tired of my dad and grandparent and great-grandparents telling me what job I should take, you are right though and I do sound stupid.Until I can actually be smarter I am just going to stay out of the debate forums for now.

You shouldn't worry too much about it, over the past decade I was here, I made plenty of mistakes, and the debate forum was definitely not an exception. You just learn from mistakes and move on.

Uh... What? How is that relevant to anything? I don't recall claiming that climate change is a religion or even mentioning that idiot Cruz. And yes, if a government official is skewing information they should be held responsible, but ordinary citizens should not be legally punished for being stupid. That borders too much on fascism for my tastes.

I was talking about Ted Cruz's interview with Glenn Beck. That part had nothing to do with you. As people have said earlier, ordinary citizens can believe whatever they want.

I guess I should clarify; despite my slightly defeatist attitude in my previous post, I'm not saying we should sit around and do nothing in the face of a potential worldwide disaster. I'm only saying we're not going to be able to completely fix the problem.

At the very least, we should seek to minimize damage by moving important infrastructure away from coastal areas and providing more regulated storm shelters in areas of high hurricane risk. I also think it would be worth investing in the long term in research and technology that might help us repair the ozone hole caused by aerosols and other pollutants and perhaps find a way to minimize natural methane emissions or even remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.

No disagreement there. I just think time (albeit a probably long span) will eventually allow reversal if our actions were to be greener.

So as promised I'll go into a bit more detail here. Bear in mind climatology is not my field of study (I'm taking a physics major), so I'm not going to pretend to be an expert or even particularly learned in this field.

First, let's get the basics out of the way first. In recent times climate change is largely fueled by three major factors; an increase in greenhouse gasses, an increase in aerosols, and deforestation and agriculture. This is something that isn't even really debated in the scientific community. I'm not here to argue this point, although if you wish to debate about it, I'd be interested to see what sources or evidence you can provide against the literally hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and studies in favor of anthropogenic climate change.

I have said quite the opposite.

Among the greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate change is methane, a natural gas found in a number of places, among which are frozen peat bogs found across the world above the arctic circle. This methane has been trapped in permafrost for thousands of years.

The reason why I say it may be too late to stop global warming is because we may have already triggered a feedback cycle. Essentially, global warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions causes glaciers to melt in arctic regions, releasing massive quantities of methane that were previously trapped inside glaciers, permafrost, and methane clathrates in the ocean. This methane exacerbates the greenhouse effect, which results in more deglaciation, releasing more methane, and creating a feedback loop that essentially results in climate change spiraling out of control.

My main belief as to what we should do with climate change is to take action. I would rather try and fail than fail to try.

I don't see what we can do to stop this, although if you (or the people in your department) have any ideas I'm all ears.[/QUOTE]

 

[Leviticus20:13]

Man cannot change the climate. Global warming or climate change is politics,not science. The govts of the world are just using this theory as an excuse to impose more laws that violate our God given rights, especially property rights. Environmental regulations do nothing but increase the cost of everything from food to transportation to electricity. Environmental regulations cause poverty and make life harder for people.