Global Warming

[Northern Neil]

Do immense temperature and climate changes even in interglacials take place over as little as two decades?

[Faustus]

acknowledged by even the most acrimonious opponents of this concept on an international level (eg, the Bush administration), how do we deal with hard facts?

 

The use of the word is revealing in itself. Can you give one example of a statement or quote that would fit that definition?

 

I watch the "political" side of this issue closely, and I'm aware of none that could be fairly attributed.

Caldrail speaks eloquently to the "other" side of the issue without my adding more there.

 

Faustus

[Ludovicus]

Do immense temperature and climate changes even in interglacials take place over as little as two decades?

 

 

I've seen reports that the last ice age ended abruptly, possibly in as little time as within a quarter century.

 

My quarrel with the global warming denyers is that they tend to discount humanity's huge footprint on the planet. In their arguments it's as if we're just one other species. Rain forests are disappearing fast. Some mega-cities such as Bejing are over hung continually by dark clouds of contaminated air. One time pasture and farm land from my home state of Ohio are now vast areas of paved streets and driveways. Coal fires have been sending up carbon dioxide for the past 200 years and the denyers claim that none of this has altered the earth's cycle!

Edited July 21, 2008 by Ludovicus

[ASCLEPIADES]

The use of the word is revealing in itself. Can you give one example of a statement or quote that would fit that definition?

"Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science".

GW Bush; June 11, 2001

[caldrail]

Do immense temperature and climate changes even in interglacials take place over as little as two decades?

 

 

I've seen reports that the last ice age ended abruptly, possibly in as little time as within a quarter century.

 

Temperatures rose dramatically by 7 degrees in a few years at one point, triggering an accelerated melt that flooded Doggerland (the 'North Sea' Plains). Evidence of human withdrawal from rising sea levels has been found in the english channel.

 

My quarrel with the global warming denyers is that they tend to discount humanity's huge footprint on the planet. In their arguments it's as if we're just one other species. Rain forests are disappearing fast. Some mega-cities such as Bejing are over hung continually by dark clouds of contaminated air. One time pasture and farm land from my home state of Ohio are now vast areas of paved streets and driveways. Coal fires have been sending up carbon dioxide for the past 200 years and the denyers claim that none of this has altered the earth's cycle!

It may well have had some impact, but the CO2 given off by volcanic activity still outweighs our contribution by a long way. Currently volcanic activity is mild compared to the huge events that have scarred the planet. At least twice the earths crust has literally cracked, once in Siberia, the other in India, both forming chains of hills from the lava that spewed out. Its anybodies guess how much CO2 was given back then.

 

Also, the sun increases in temperature by 5% every billion years due to the increase in heavier elements after the fusion process. That means the sun is currently 25% hotter than when the earth started. Maybe not significant on our scale, but even more evidence that climate will change constantly.

[Northern Neil]

It may well have had some impact, but the CO2 given off by volcanic activity still outweighs our contribution by a long way. Currently volcanic activity is mild compared to the huge events that have scarred the planet. At least twice the earths crust has literally cracked, once in Siberia, the other in India, both forming chains of hills from the lava that spewed out. Its anybodies guess how much CO2 was given back then.

 

Also, the sun increases in temperature by 5% every billion years due to the increase in heavier elements after the fusion process. That means the sun is currently 25% hotter than when the earth started. Maybe not significant on our scale, but even more evidence that climate will change constantly.

...but also, the earth's capacity for re-absorbing the CO2 is diminished due to human activity, and that must be added, in the equation, to the net CO2 output we make. All the above facts may be true, but that does not mean we shouldnt alter our lifestyles in order to do something about it. In any case, to a degree that decision is being made for us anyway. I have been running my transit off cooking oil and used fish and chip fat for well over a year now due to rising prices, and similarly, two of my friends have junked their gas fires and bought woodburning stoves. In fact, they wonder why they didnt do this earlier, given that the fuel is freely available in the town's skips, and it heats the house more efficiently.

[Faustus]

The use of the word is revealing in itself. Can you give one example of a statement or quote that would fit that definition?

"Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science".

GW Bush; June 11, 2001

Salve A,

 

we are slipping sideways here from the topic, but I'd like for terms used here to mean something:

Rancorous:

Bitter and sharp in language or tone; rancorous: an acrimonious debate between the two [candidates]. Rancor: Bitter, long-lasting resentment; deep-seated ill will. SYNONYMS: enmity , hostility , antagonism , animosity , animus

(These nouns refer to the feeling or expression of deep-seated ill will. Enmity is hatred such as might be felt for an enemy: the wartime enmity of two nations, [for example].)

 

Is any opposition to beliefs held by one, when opposed by another, or not held by another for any reason, whether "reasonable" or not to be defined by the word(s) rancor, resentment, ill will or enmity hostliy, antogonism, animosity......?

 

Does that definition not then bar any (reasonable) debate, and in so doing render debate moot? was there any unreasonablness in the President's words? At the time of Kyoto, the US Senate voted, July 21 1997, 95 to 0 against "Kyoto". This, treaty vote, was taken under a Democrat President (Clinton) and a Democrat Senate. It seems that all the comments made by Bush in the example above were still actually true at the time, and would not fit the definition of "acrimonious".

 

One can easily accept a terminology that said: "spirited debate", or "debate seemingly based on narrow national interests" etc. The terms used by the president were not rancorous. Terms used by others might well be termed in that way.

 

Faustus

Edited July 22, 2008 by Faustus

[Northern Neil]

we are slipping sideways here from the topic,

The actual topic started out as a cheap joke - see the first post on this thread!

[Faustus]

we are slipping sideways here from the topic,

The actual topic started out as a cheap joke - see the first post on this thread!

 

Thanks NN,

 

I know that, and I've been there. This may not have all turned out the way you intended at the start, which is interesting in itself, but it has been worthwhile and valuable. Hats off to you!

 

Faustus

[Northern Neil]

Cheers, Faustus. As you may have gathered, I am of the 'green' opinion in this debate - but I can see both sides. My view is that even if there is only a 5% chance it may be us causing the whole thing, then we need to change things. Odds of 1 in 20 that our lifestyles may change our world into another Venus are not odds I like to disregard...

[ASCLEPIADES]

S

The use of the word is revealing in itself. Can you give one example of a statement or quote that would fit that definition?

"Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science".

GW Bush; June 11, 2001

was there any unreasonablness in the President's words?

Salve, F.

You're right, my word selection was poor. My bad, I here offer an apology for that.

Where I said "acrimonious", what I meant was just a "strong", "fierce" and "unreasonable" opposition against the idea.

 

The "unreasonableness" in that quotation from the Bush administration lies in the fact of considering themselves entitled to rate the scientific status of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their conclusions (... "not based upon science").

 

Even if for political or economic reasons any of us considers the IPCC conclusions as "bad science" (???), "bad science" was still "science" last time I checked.

 

Actions speak louder than words, and by their own subsequent more reasonable actions, the Bush administration has basically validated the IPCC conclusions, being them comfortable or not with that fact.

[caldrail]

...but also, the earth's capacity for re-absorbing the CO2 is diminished due to human activity, and that must be added, in the equation, to the net CO2 output we make.

Our contribution is outweighed by the methane produced by herbivorous animals. Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2, whose absorbtion is part of the normal eco-chemical cycle on earth. The oceans are scrubbing CO2 all the time, its part of earths checks and balances, as well as supplying it. CO2 is given off by earths fauna. If you want to reduce our contribution, then you need to reduce human population. That would solve a lot of ecological concerns, given that the need to create new land for agriculture or profit is reducing forestation and thus reducing the CO2 absorbtion. Its less of a case of what we're producing, more of what we're sticking spanners in.

 

All the above facts may be true, but that does not mean we shouldnt alter our lifestyles in order to do something about it.

Are you going to dictate what lifestyle I should lead? The increased conformity and overcontrol by authority is a growing trend in Britain, where the ecological problem is less pronounced than some other nations. The third world nations who are destroying their forests aren't going to change their lifestyle - surely thats a more important issue?

 

In any case, to a degree that decision is being made for us anyway. I have been running my transit off cooking oil and used fish and chip fat for well over a year now due to rising prices, and similarly, two of my friends have junked their gas fires and bought woodburning stoves. In fact, they wonder why they didnt do this earlier, given that the fuel is freely available in the town's skips, and it heats the house more efficiently.

And how much reduction of the worlds CO2 has this resulted in? Not being funny, but the religious overtones of ecological movements gets on my wick. Even if you total everybodies elses efforts it doesn't amount to a huge volume compared to that obtained naturally. The earths climate changes, it is changing, there's stuff all you can do to stop it, so just deal with it. Survival of the fittest still applies to our own species however grandiose our self-opinion might be. Plenty of succesful species have hit the dust because the world has changed under their noses. Truth is, human beings really can't control their enviroment but they can control us, so they will increasingly regarding these eco concerns.

 

The real issues are that -

 

1 - There's too many human beings

 

2 - We're too dependent on our nests/infrastructure

[Northern Neil]

The fact that naturally occuring CO2 outweighs ours, and that some environmental movements have religious overtones, is of no consequence, and should not, in themselves, make us say: 'Oh, well in that case I wont bother trying to put things right.

[Kosmo]

Was it possible for the International Panel for Climate Change to find that there is no climate change? The Wikipedia article on IPCC says that "The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena" and it's functions are more like that of a publishing house. Does not sound too authoritative for me.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Nowadays, denying a significant human contribution to the current climate change is like denying Evolution.

 

We're talking here about extremely hard facts; their existence and impact are not dependent on our mere convictions.

 

When a tree falls in the forest, it does make noise, no matter who hears it.

 

Main argument that has been required so far for even the most recalcitrant politicians has been... time.

 

Simply stated, we would deny it basically because we don't like to face it; more or less like not going to the dentist.

Edited July 23, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES