[TrashMan]

It is actually correct in a strange and convoluted way. in truth, most of our oxygen is produced by the algae that grows on most of the seas surface, the Rainforests put out a lot more Carbon Dioxide than Oxygen, however, the other environmental impacts of doing so would make it a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Wrong...rainforest put out more O2 than CO2...granted, nut by much, but still.... it's something.

[TrashMan]

Trashman, consider these two questions:

Why is there a place called "Greenland" close to the North Pole?

Why there exists some, well, not exactly Mediterranean, but close to Mediterranean traces of plants in the grounds in this country? 700 km away from the Arctic Circle? [Well I'm only 200 km away from it].

As I said earlier, calculating it by yourself is the way to go.

Mika

Sounds nice but I don't have any mesuring equipment, or expertese or a supercomputer to run various climeate models simulations..

Every shmuch out tehre can fakea few original looking grapsh or charts, throw in some scientific lingo behind it and start claiming hordes of stuff.
I wish I never took this subject for my semminary...

Regardless, form what I read in the scientific journals, it appears there is a consensus that we are causing this ****..

[Bobboau]

well too bad I didn't come in hear erlier...

anyway, this basicly shoulds like Pascal's Wager with global warming replacing God.

[karajorma]

anyway, this basicly shoulds like Pascal's Wager with global warming replacing God.

Pascal's Wager however is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes that there is only on possible deity. It doesn't consider what happens if you believe in God and Flying Spagetti Monster sends you to hell for it.

[Maxwell]

Global warming has more than one planet involved.
...but we have our hands full simply dealing with one.

[Mongoose]

Pascal's Wager however is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes that there is only on possible deity. It doesn't consider what happens if you believe in God and Flying Spagetti Monster sends you to hell for it.

...should I be scared that another person on another forum I frequent just posted the exact same response to the exact same statement about the exact same video, using the exact same example?

The video's a rather interesting way of looking at things.  For the first few minutes, I was wondering, "Okaaay...where's he going with this?", but in the end, he made the point he was trying to make very well.  It may have been vastly over-simplified and perhaps a bit more doomsday than even the most dire current predictions state, but in the end, I suppose it really does come down to a question of risk management.

[karajorma]

...should I be scared that another person on another forum I frequent just posted the exact same response to the exact same statement about the exact same video, using the exact same example?

No. But I should be.

[Mika]

Karajorma, for more links like WeatherOp posted and speculation about the issue:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml -> this actually points out to an article in the Nature, which I can't be arsed to seek through. DIY.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

Is this enough for ya? There is indeed public discussion and data behind this, I'm actually surprised you haven't heard about it as some of the stuff is nearly 10 years old. No-one says they are related. But they might as well be. But note that I didn't say there is a space climate change. I only say they have noticed correlations between these celestial bodies. But of course, you can find correlations with many things. Like global warming and human output of carbon dioxide also. The question is about the credibility of the evidence.

Trashman, the reason why you find it hard to filter out what is relevant and what is not is because no-one really knows at the moment. That is the reason for the schism between "humans did it" and "humans didn't do" it factions. The simulations and the measurement results contradict each other until the scientific sound explanation is given. Granted, the results of each study have been published and used to gain political support more than ever with any other theory, with the exception of Natural Selection perhaps. The thing with weather is that it is something everybody knows something about it and it is easy to make reports that make sense. There has been similar kind of battles between theories going on for a long time, but the background required has prevented them from being published for the general public.

But a good hint would be that no-one can generate a climatic model that would predict the weather two weeks from this on, if even that. Chaotic systems are great. Yet there are simulations ranging over hundreds of years, cited as a true result of things if everything keeps on going like this! Little bit of skeptical attitude for the scientists is a good thing.

If you read through the papers you have collected, you will find that the models are based on certain assumptions. You would be wise to first question those assumptions. That is essentially were the true Science starts. If you can give grounds for yourself why those assumptions are valid, then you are set to go further to actually calculate and predict something. If not, no need to look further.

Then, dividing things between either "we do something to it right now(!)" or "we do nothing at all" are not helping matters either. What if you do it wrong? What if the thing you are doing doesn't help at all? Do you accept a 50 % risk that you are doing it totally wrong? This is why research is needed, until the reasons are indeed found out and effects are repeatable. Then you can start doing something about it. So my suggestion is: Do it right in the first time. There is not another Earth to settle.

Mika

[Mika]

Also checked through the video. It seems to be pretty much a logic table that starts with two separate questions:

1. Is the global warming caused by humans?
2. Should we do something about it?

Here I spot an important question regarding point 2: If we do something to it, what exactly could we do? The author never answers this question. Talking about doing something doesn't really help if we don't know what to do.

Also regarding the alternative futures he is placing, these are perfectly logical consequeces by given prequisites which he has given. Now, anyone familiar with mathematical logic will quite soon find out that the world does not behave according to laws of mathematical logic. By analogy, there are examples of using mathematical logic successfully for asking direction from a crook and a knight with a simple question. But it only works if we assume that the crook always lies and the knight always speaks the truth. And that you have nothing to fear from the crook if you are standing next to him, so to speak.

So, the whole table he lists is based on assumptions like these. There is more, to say at least. When doing something for the global warming, assuming of course that something could be done, it will only be the developed countries that will give it a try. I wouldn't bet on India or China, whose carbon dioxide emissions are getting higher and higher. Are you ready give away even more competitive advantage for these countries, who don't give rats ass of the global warming? What about the massive influx of people towards warmer regions of the globe, if the emissions were to be cut? You know, houses are not heated up by magic. Are you willing to speed up the shift of global power?

Given the scenario above, the tensions would likely to increase greatly between different countries, leading to more possibilities of war, even thermonuclear war. If you add these on the upper left box, what would be the best course of action? All it seems to me is that this guy would actually risk for WWIII, total destruction of human kind and the planet in an attempt to do something good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Also, this post serves also as an example of leading people towards the solution you wish them to find out, as the original video clip also. Reminds me of days I thought anarchism was a good idea (and probably is, it is the humans which are wrong).

Mika

[TrashMan]

What should we do? Theres DOZENS of things we could to to bring CO2 emmisons down significantly. That's an easy one...Problem is very few have actually started doing it.


EDIT: Chaina and India are ALLREADY doing more agaisnt Global Warming than the US is....

[Mika]

EDIT: Chaina and India are ALLREADY doing more agaisnt Global Warming than the US is....

From this I deduct that you have never been in either country witnessing the situation by your very own eyes.

I would be interested to hear what we could actually do to drop the CO2 emissions. List a few things so I can relate it to the situation here. As a background, recently they found out that we have exceeded the CO2 output limit given by the EU.

Mika

[TrashMan]

Use more energy efficint devices.
Use car pooling.
Increase use of renewable energy sources.
More recycling.

And that's jsut for starters...

[Mefustae]

EDIT: Chaina and India are ALLREADY doing more agaisnt Global Warming than the US is....

From this I deduct that you have never been in either country witnessing the situation by your very own eyes.

I would be interested to hear what we could actually do to drop the CO2 emissions. List a few things so I can relate it to the situation here. As a background, recently they found out that we have exceeded the CO2 output limit given by the EU.

You found plenty of articles on extraterrestrial climate change, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find something on curbing CO2 emissions.

The main thrust of lower emissions lies in finding alternative power sources, shifting from a chronic reliance on the finite supplies of Oil and Coal. Furthermore, initiatives to curb emissions in other areas of industry and even stretching into residential and commerical sources also stand forefront in a CO2 reduction initiative, such as tackling the emissions made by automobiles. As TrashMan said, there are dozens of ideas, and the main reason nobody important will seriously consider them is because they'll cost us. Money, jobs, financial security. What the bloke in the video was trying to convey was that this is by far the lesser of two evils considering the potential of full-blown Global Warming.

When doing something for the global warming, assuming of course that something could be done, it will only be the developed countries that will give it a try. I wouldn't bet on India or China, whose carbon dioxide emissions are getting higher and higher. Are you ready give away even more competitive advantage for these countries, who don't give rats ass of the global warming?

Bollocks. You're just spouting the same, tired argument of "why do we have to do something of those guys aren't'. Aside from the obvious notions of Western Nations setting an example, pioneering new technologies, and setting up specifically designed protocol and treaties to offer incentives to cut emissions, the fact remains that... no, that's about it. Pioneering new technologies to give to the developing world, collectively drafting bonuses and penalties to nations who combat CO2 emissions, and just setting an example. More than enough reasons for the West to push ahead, rather than just whining that some people aren't mandated to do it just now.

Given the scenario above, the tensions would likely to increase greatly between different countries, leading to more possibilities of war, even thermonuclear war. If you add these on the upper left box, what would be the best course of action? All it seems to me is that this guy would actually risk for WWIII, total destruction of human kind and the planet in an attempt to do something good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Thermonuclear war from a mass migration of people uncomfortable with the weather? You're reaching a bit, aren't you?

The fact remains total annihilation at the hands of tensions because we acted when we didn't need to are all around less likely than those that would occur if we didn't act when we needed to.

More recycling.

Recycling can actually shoot more CO2 into the atmosphere than just using the product once, so that might not really be on the top five list of anti-CO2 initiatives.

[Goober5000]

One point people seem to be ignoring is that water vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

[IceFire]

I agree with that, I like the environment too, and I agree that we need to do out best to protect it. But trying to save the environment by screaming mass destruction and all is not the way to go. If that does backfire and if the people see they have been lead on, I really doubt they will care about anything natural then.

True...and the sensationalized mass destruction thing I think its more invented by the media for storytelling purposes and probably carried on by the scientists to get anyone to listen to them.  I mean people have been talking about climate change for a long while but only since everyone started talking about "big bad things" did anyone pay any attention.  Its got more truth to it than Bush's Iraq WMD's and it seems to be having a similar effect in at least making the subject a top one.  In Canada environment and healthcare are at the top of the political/media agenda and the minority Conservative government has come up with not one but somewhere in the neighborhood of three different environmental initiatives to try and get people to vote for them in the next election.  I've read varying things about how effective these are going to be but ultimately I'm just happy to see some kind of action taken.

I think some people have it in their heads that because we're "cutting" back on emissions it means somehow their fun is going to be ruined. I don't think that has to happen.  I read allot about cars and some enthusiasts don't seem to get how an efficient hybrid engine is likely going to be the way to produce some rocking sports cars in the future.  The all electric Tesla Roadster has a 0-60mph in the 4.0 second range and not a single emission coming from the tail pipe.  Chevy has a concept car called the Volt which is actually pretty ingenious for GM and has a very small gasoline motor that generates electricity and then feeds that through a battery system, regenerative breaking like on a standard hybrid, and ultimately its driven by electric motors.  They are saying that you'll be able to run potentially for weeks without a fill up of gas with the whole system working together during the average commute.  Build enough cars like any of those (not to mention hydrogen which will probably be somewhere in the future) and you can cut emissions significantly (one of the larger contributors) so you don't have to give up your car, don't necessarily have to give up the performance, and you get some really cool high tech solutions to the problem.  Brilliant.

Also...new energy efficient lightbulbs.  They will be mandatory for standard home lighting in a few years.  Costs a bit more per bulb but they last many times longer and use less than half the amount of power for the same or more output.  If everyone goes around their house and puts these in where practical (I know you can't use them for everything just yet) then the cumulative effect is that we're not using nearly as much power to light our homes, saving on the electric bill, and ultimately don't need to push as many pollutants into the atmosphere to turn on our lights.

So on and so forth.  I'm a favour of many small but significant changes that can be made with the right kind of funding...which were starting to see...that will have dramatic impacts on the overall scheme of things.  These things need to happen with industry too.  We've got two big steel makers in my area and one of them decided to up efficiency, installed scrubbers and all sorts of filtering technologies to their various mills, and ultimately have managed to cut their emissions (and continue to do so) and they are raking in the cash and doing quite well with all of the money saved over the long term.  The other company didn't go that route...stuck to the cheap method and now they are in dire straits because they couldn't look long term and didn't want to go the green route.  Not saying this would always be the case but there are many examples of how saving the environment is good for business and doesn't destroy a way of life either (you have some modifications to it sure but its not gone).  But its better to do it now and keep improving things now instead of when it might be too late...if thats the case.  And if its not the case then I see no huge loss...

What will happen is that some industries will die out and ultimately others will replace them.  But there is change involved and people are, as we know, afraid of change.  I see this as positive change.

[Mika]

Finding ways to cut down CO2 from the internet is not too hard. But finding the ways that actually make sense is a lot damn harder.

- About energy efficient devices, what are they exactly? You mean energy efficient display cards, computers, electronics? No matter how much electronical industry trumpets the energy saving capabilities of computers, take a look at the transformer behind the thing and read the wattage it takes. Then do the same for the stuff ten - twenty years old. I make a dangerous assumption that you are likely to find out that the wattage number is actually increasing.

There is no bloody way to get the new shiny Pentium running with as low wattages as the trusty old 486. If there were, it would have been done due to the corporate interests involved. Yet I still find the same people who are worried about global warming talking about which new graphics card to buy, in these forums also. Also, the energy saving modes are simply put total bull****. It is never as efficient as shutting the damn thing down while you are not using it. One of the most efficient ways to cut down power consumption (directly related to CO2 emissions) is to shut that computer of yours down while not using it. Downloading something overnight classifies as "not using your computer".

I admit that the normal house equipment saving capabilities have gone better and better year by year. Washing machines and refrigerators seem to work with less power as before, that is a sign of progress. But, let's talk about the vacuum cleaners. What is the wattage number you have in your vacuum cleaner? Which number would you or your mother be likely to choose? Okay, this is a moot point as the time the cleaner is connected to electricity network is quite low so that the effect is insignificant. But keep an eye for the similar examples in the household equipment that are actually connected to the network all the time.

- Due to the price of the fuel, car pooling is naturally done when it is possible here. Do you mean you are not? But given the distances one has to travel, dropping the use of cars is not possible. I suppose most of the people have noticed that the cars done before the time of the additional security and safety features were as efficient as the best cars today. Take a standard Mazda 323 model 1985, IIRC it took something like 5.5 l / 100 km in conditions here (and the well-kept models still do). I don't drive a car to crash with it. Yet the safety features are actually required by EU and effect the buying decision heavily.

- List the renewable sources of energy.

Quote from Goober5000:
One point people seem to be ignoring is that water vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Shhh, not so loud. If the normal people find this out most of them understand there is nothing that can be done about it.

Mika

[Mika]

Then about the hybrid cars: will not work here. I'm yet to find an electrical system that can withstand temperatures ranging from -40 to 40 degrees of C, including the occasional rain and snowing. I'll again assume this to hold on the countries around the same latitude, meaning that the whole of Canada and Northern part of US, the whole of Scandinavia, half of Russia and northern parts of China cannot make the change. Getting an economic car is not an option if it only works three months of the year. Besides, the manufacturing of the economic car is not that environment friendly as people tend to think, given the complex material processing required. You are effectively transferring the CO2 emission from one place to another, or creating local environmental problems around.

Removing lightbulbs and replacing them with LEDs seems to be a good idea, dropping from 80 W to 20 W consumption has indeed an effect. One the other hand I recently saw an webpage that was advertising for cleaner illumination techniques. One look at the origin of those LED bulbs then shot down the whole argument of "clean". I understand that this is because it is not so cheap to manufacture them in US or Europe, which is partly because the outsourcing countries do not obey the environment pollution laws and partly because of the standard working hours are not in effect there. With investing ten times more on the LEDs you could have them produced in Western Countries where there is at least an attempt for environmental protection and CO2 emissions. Yet you still choose the cheaper alternative. Why?

Regarding the argument "they are not doing it", is an old argument, but I think you do not actually understand what it means. It is not a coincidence it comes back at to you everywhere. We are talking about 25 % of the total population on the Earth here! I find it mightily important that they do it also and at the same time. Let me put it this way: are you ready to give up your personal freedom in order to stop global warming? Note that at this point no-one is even sure if it can be stopped!

And yes, I'm sure we all go along nicely when the northern hemisphere must be abandoned. It is not like the influx of population has ever caused any conflicts anywhere. I actually know only one place that has been able to absorb and settle an amount of refugees that equals to 10 % of the total population number in that country. And that happened within one year. The prequisite was that the refugees were original people of that country who had to leave their homes behind when that part of the land had to be given up and that country was scarcely populated. I think explaining your average French farmer that he has to give up his lands due to a possible threat of Global Warming in order to preserve the refugee people from the Northern part might take more than one try.

So, we are talking about these kind of numbers here, and I'm sure there is plenty of room left in Europe so that we could fiddle in. Not to mention that the current superpowers would have no interest of keeping themselves floating till the last point, and simply taking and weaker obeying. Thanks to our kind human nature, that kind of stuff has never happened anywhere.

So in conclusion, I think resulting wars could happen perfectly as easily as this guy thinks Global Warming can be stopped.

Mika

[Ghostavo]

One point people seem to be ignoring is that water vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Those people may have figured out (and correctly) that the amount of water in the atmosphere hasn't increased. Also even if it had increased, one would only need to wait a few days for it to precipitate (the more water, the faster it precipitates). Can you say the same about carbon dioxide?

[TrashMan]

Can you say chain reaction?

Can you say we're ****ed? Becoause we are...I ain't making no investment plans for hte future...

[Mefustae]

Can you say chain reaction?

Can you say we're ****ed? Becoause we are...I ain't making no investment plans for hte future...

Alarmist attitudes like that don't help anyone. In fact they tend to polarise people and stunt any constructive discussion, which makes it more difficult for actual progress to be made.

Regarding the argument "they are not doing it", is an old argument, but I think you do not actually understand what it means. It is not a coincidence it comes back at to you everywhere. We are talking about 25 % of the total population on the Earth here! I find it mightily important that they do it also and at the same time. Let me put it this way: are you ready to give up your personal freedom in order to stop global warming?

Giving up my personal freedom?! What on Earth you talking about? Regardless, I would hope that most people would indeed sacrifice a small part of their "personal freedoms" to preserve the planet for future generations. Remember, the planet ain't ours, it's just own loan from our grandchildren.

Also, it's worth noting that - if I remember correctly - North America remains the highest greenhouse gas emitter on the planet, and will remain so for quite some time until Asia surpasses them. I still fail to see the logic that nations such as the US should, in good conscience, delay action on cleaning up their act just because China will inevitably pollute more than them. Could you explain to me the logic in that? Because i'm still not getting it.

Note that at this point no-one is even sure if it can be stopped!

So we must therefore do nothing? Yep, why try when there's a possibility we've already lost!

And yes, I'm sure we all go along nicely when the northern hemisphere must be abandoned. It is not like the influx of population has ever caused any conflicts anywhere. I actually know only one place that has been able to absorb and settle an amount of refugees that equals to 10 % of the total population number in that country. And that happened within one year. The prequisite was that the refugees were original people of that country who had to leave their homes behind when that part of the land had to be given up and that country was scarcely populated. I think explaining your average French farmer that he has to give up his lands due to a possible threat of Global Warming in order to preserve the refugee people from the Northern part might take more than one try.

Again, what refugees are you talking about? I'm not entirely sure I get where you're coming from. Whatever you're talking about, the fact that even a small rise in sea-level will displace anywhere from tens of thousands to tens of millions of people probably outweighs the number of refugees cast out by... whatever you're referring to. What are we talking about here?

So, we are talking about these kind of numbers here, and I'm sure there is plenty of room left in Europe so that we could fiddle in. Not to mention that the current superpowers would have no interest of keeping themselves floating till the last point, and simply taking and weaker obeying. Thanks to our kind human nature, that kind of stuff has never happened anywhere.

Come again? Anyway, this whole talk of displacement does give me an idea. Wouldn't a rising sea-level recreate long-dried inland oceans around the world? I mean, it's been a while since i've taken a good look at Australian paleogeography, but I seem to remember there being a significant ocean stretching across South Australia and Victoria. Now, would the recreation of this ocean because of rising sea-levels - again, correct me if i'm wrong on this - create vast swaths of newly arable land from what was once desert?

Think I might go read up on this.

So in conclusion, I think resulting wars could happen perfectly as easily as this guy thinks Global Warming can be stopped.

Still not clear on what would cause these wars, but you're right; wars would indeed occur. Of course, wars will occur whatever the hell we do, so we should take that as a given and move onto the other dangers.