JT52

Why is it when anyone, such as Gore, tries to raise awareness about critical issues thy're ridiculed and despised so strongly by some? Yes, he uses a lot of energy in doing what he does, but if it gets more people to conserve or gets the government off it's entropied lazy a&$ and do something, then it will be more of a benefit for all in the long run.

Let's say, just for a moment, that Gore is wrong and all the evidence about Global Climate Change is wrong and everything's just hunky-dory. Why is taking care of the planet (which, in case you haven't noticed, happens to be our only home (hurry up and invent the warp drive, somebody!)) so repulsive to some. That being environmentally concious is somehow less American (assuming you're from America). I just don't get it.

ModoVincere

Government will not be the solution to this perceived problem.
I don't pretend to know for sure that the climate is changing due to CO2 or man made effects. If it is, the answer will lie in changes from the market place, not governance.
The US government is comprised primarily of elected officials. These officials will only do what is going to buy more votes to keep them in power. Rationing gas, taxing the crap out of gas and diesel, or any other mechanism to control the use is going to be unpopular with the majority of voters in this country.
Look for better products to do what you are asking of the government.

GGDub

It depends on the the geologic period. In the cretaceous period (in which many of today's coal bearing formations were formed) for example everything thrived (dinosaurs at first, then mammals in the late Cretaceous/Early Tertiary). More CO2 = more plants = more food = more animals. The issue of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the issue, the Earth and its ecosystem will adapt to this. The issue is how fast, given the amount of human beings on the planet, the average temp on the earth will rise. The Earth has dealt with much worse catastrophes in the past, the meteor impact 65 million years ago (which is postulated to be the cause of Dinosaur extinction) being one of them.

GGDub

I definetly agree with you with regards to using energy to spread the message. But lets face it, owning a 10,000 sq ft house, plus other houses has no use in spreading the message. This is where I for one, see Gore as a hypocrite. I don't care if he purchases carbon offsets, he's still like every other celebrity, an overly conspicuous consumer.

bragi

I don't think you understand what a theory is, in the scientific sense. A hypothesis is basically a well-reasoned guess; I've seen A happen in the past, so I'm guessing B will happen in the future. It is, in every sense of the word, a guess. String theory is an example of a hypothesis: good guess, no evidence yet. A theory, on the other hand, is a hypothesis that, through repeated experiment or observation, is very well supported. An example of a theory is evolution. It started out, very briefly, as a hypothesis, but even Darwin poured on the evidence. Since Darwin's time, the evidence has accumulated to the point that it's ovewhelmingly convincing. Global warming qualifies as a very well-supported theory as well. Data has piled up on top of data: the world is getting warmer at a much greater than normal rate, and given the properites of NO3, CH4, and CO2, all gases that humans are pumping into the atmosphere at huge rates, it's not surprising that we're a primary cause of the problem. The IPCC is, by its nature, a very conservative group, perhaps too conservative for our good, and even they are saying we're all F****ed if we don't do something drastic, and soon. I'm much more inclined to believe IPCC than I am to believe odd contrarian web sites with conservative agendas, largely funded by oil companies, and I'm certainly not going to believe anyone who uses the rantings of mad shepherds in the ancient world to tell me what I should believe about the atmosphere, or anything else, for that matter. Say what you will about science, it does one thing that religion has yet to do: it delivers the goods. If you're deathly ill with pneumonia, and given a choice between prayer and antibiotics, which one would you choose?

Bikepacker67

Science is a liberal plot to turn your kids into *****exual muslim terrorist feminazi communist queers.
If global warming was real Jesus would have made us out of asbestos.

turkdc

Quit breaking my balls please. My point is that I am not sure if the scientific evidence is totally convincing. Yes we have some melting polar ice but we don't know how long that has been there (with total certainty). In fact I would guess that NO ONE in this discussion has done any research personally on the age of the polar ice, or the earth for that matter. You all take it on FAITH that the earth is _______ years old and you blindly accept the "observed theories" that you haven't even observed yourself.

I appreciate the discussions we have had about the carbon cycle (isn't that what Lance rides?) and I 100% agree with Roody's explanation of carbon storage until we get to the last point. I am not sure that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes climate change and quite frankly I don't think there is any way to know for sure if it does or not.

Before you jump on me and start the name calling let me ask you a question. If I said I believed something that I had never really first hand observed and that this "something" had the power to change the temperature of the earth and If we perform certain rituals of self sacrifice (like turning out unused lights and cycling instead of driving) we could influence it - you would think I was a religious nut.

Just because you read it in Scientific American doesn't make it true.

turkdc

What is the normal rate at which the world warms up?

thimblescratch

Turkdc, I appreciate your desire to not blindly follow what is shoved down our throats. That is important. But think about the big picture for a moment. If we are using up our resources and polluting the air we breathe and are poisoning our own fishbowl, and yet people don't stop to think about it for a second... does it matter if Global Warming is real, if a world crisis is what it takes for us to quit poisoning ourselves and tapping out every last inch of viable resource?
Also, is it worth the risk if it IS true?
What's wrong with hedging our bets for future generations?
What is wrong with coming to grips with what we are truly doing to every living species on this earth, including humans?

That said, I believe there is some evidence that you can see yourself (I'm sure we could all dig into an ice cap and have no clue what we are looking for). Shifted growing cycles, disrupted ecosystems - the kind of things the natural order of things adapts to at a normal rate. But what we are doing is changing everything, and it is affecting living things all over the globe. If you have a diverse garden you may have noticed some strange things happening.
The evidence may speak to global warming, but even if it's not C02, it is obvious that it is something WE are doing, and it is related to our consumption-->waste cycle.
But I'd rather err on the side of caution, even if I didn't believe it was C02. If it's not C02, it's something else. But it all points back to one thing - us.

cooker

Heating your house with wood is fine if you supply it from your own woodlot, or if you are buying firewood from a sustainable operation.

cooker

Are military actions part of the market place?

ModoVincere

Not in my book. Please 'splain further.

turkdc

Thimblescratch, I have said all along that I believe that we should conserve our resources. I drive an 8 year old compact car and I drive it as little as possible. I hate SUV's and the ignorant soccer moms who drive them. I don't however believe everything I hear and furthermore I try to think critically about ideas that are put before me.

The problem with these discussions is that they quickly turn into an orgy of name calling and personal attacks. I am afraid that an attitude like that turns off a lot of people to the message of conservation. How many of the aforementioned soccer moms are going to listen to the reasons why they shouldn't be driving a 12 passenger truck to haul themselves around if the reasons are coming from an *******?

I commend you Thimblescratch because you were the first person in the thread to acknowledge that there was some rationale behind the things I was writing and not just suggest that I am uneducated. I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they want to believe. As Dale Carnegie says, however, "you get more bees with a drop of honey than a gallon of vinegar". This is advice we could all benefit from. If those of us who care about the environment start spreading the message with love and understanding of where our listener is coming from instead of berating them we might gain a bigger following.

The founder of my profession once said "You never know how far reaching something you may think, say or do today will affect the lives of millions tomorrow."

I love you all and hope that I haven't offended anyone with my discussion. Keep the rubber side down.

acroy

sorry I offended your sensibilities, the post was supposed to be humorous
We tend to get our chamois in a twist over this stuff - I'm a fellow biker and my hat's off to you all for being the same. I bet we could have a blast debating this stuff around a campfire with a bunch of beers. One thing I dislike about online forums is how quick & easy it is to get mean and say things we’d never say in person – I admit I’m guilty . Reminiscent of the cager-ball syndrome.

Anyway, To the point, you're right, I don't accept the current theory of climate change, for a few reasons

the current theory is just that: current. Not long ago there was worry we were heading into a global cooling period. My baby-boomer parents remember this, yours probably do too. The scientists back then weren’t dumb, and the analysis of available data they had said global cooling. Now the data analysis says we have warming. What will the data tomorrow say? The current theory seems to change an awful lot, awful fast. I believe the recent UN-released report cut projected warming in half: quite a change, no? Makes me skeptical… One thing is certian, the more we learn, the more we learn how little we know. Climate change is a complex, poorly understood system.

The current theory is based on extrapolation of 1-3% absolute temp change. We have core samples, tree rings, etc. We base our analysis of said samples on comparing it to 50-100 years of good climate data. I am not comfortable extrapolating thousands of years into the past, and decades or hundreds of years into the future. I am an engineer and am paid to perform pilot experiments and scale them up: and can tell you first-hand, such massive extrapolation seldom works. In any other field, such massive extrapolation is not accepted as scientific!

The current theory, as mentioned before, sure seems to come from a lot of folks with social axes to grind. Now I’m sure some of them have the ax because of the current theory, and are reasonable people. But when a purely scientific issue becomes political, I get suspicious Call me jaded, but no matter how cynical I get, I just can’t seem to keep up…. Where does the money trail lead? How does this push around the power structure?

Further, the earth’s climate has changed drastically; several times, with no human intervention.

As turkdc says, I’m not convinced. I ‘taint no expert either and have done none of my own research, and don’t know anyone personally involved in research I can trust. One site I do read for info is realclimate.org, which seems about as fact-driven as anything else out there, and has a decent sense of realism. Check out their comparison of sunspot activity to congressional power balance…

And finally, to identify myself, I am a God-fearing Christian and thus believe that not is it only common sense not to poo in our own fishbowl (as thimblescratch says), but we are charged with being good stewards of the Earth. Thus I’m car-light, ride a bike to work, live below my means, give to charities…. I ain't perfect by a long shot, but sometimes I try to be good

cooker

When food and oil get scarce, people aren't going to let "the markeplace" sort it out, they're going to start killing each other.

Bikepacker67

They already are.
You don't really think we went into Iraq to spread freedom, do you?

Saddam Hussein not only controlled the oil in his country, but was also a perceived threat to Saudi Oil.
That's why he had to go... we couldn't have cared less about gassed kurds, torture chambers, mass executions - that's why we turned a blind eye to them for 20 years while Iraq was our "ally".

Roody

Good point, I guess I'll say the eras when oil was created were a good time to be a plant OR a dinosaur -- but still not such a great time to be a mammal.

I wish I were a hard core environmentalist -- one who believes that the earth will survive, no matter what we do, so it's all good. But I have this strange love for my own species. I don't want us to be the first species to put itself on the endangered list.

Of course I don't really think that global warming per se will extinguish humanity, but it is part of a trend. Our mad scientist experiments with the earth, sea and air should be stopped. Now.

thimblescratch

turkdc, and acroy, thanks for the level-headed posts.
I am sure you get passionate about these issues as we all do, and sometimes it is hard not to lash out. And I totally agree, there is no way you can win an debate by calling the other person names. Unless you want to call me a treehugger, which is fine, because I am one
Conservation is extremely important, and many people on these forums realize that. So I am glad you differentiated conservation from global warming. They go hand in hand but I see why you are skeptical of the theory.
I am a firm believer that most things are politically driven, either by government or big business, and usually both (they are sometimes one in the same or one in the pocket of the other). So I am a firm believer in 'follow the money' too. But here's where I start scratching my head...
The government has been acknowledging and accepting the theory but very reluctant to get behind doing anything *about* global warming. That would mean upsetting the oil companies, and the auto industry, and basically every industry as they all pollute and emmit vast quantities of C02. And even when I watched the Democratic Debate last month (or whenever that was), many, if not most, of the candidates, when asked a question about global warming, or what they are doing to personally reduce emissions, blatently did not answer the question - usually they responded by talking about the war in Iraq, totally steering away from the topic. The fact is, there is no industry that will swoop in and make vast profits from global warming in the immediate future (and that is all they care about). Green technology sector will become big, but there is very little of that sector currently. So you can't really follow the money there. Huge potential, but current money? A drop in the bucket. When I follow the money on global warming, I find future huge losses for the biggest companies and huge changes in our ways of life. The politicians do not want to touch this one. They will reluctantly admit it is true and then steer as far away as possible from it. And that, to me, is just as good as scientific consensus (of which there is much). And environmentalists (who slow industrial progress/profits) are the bane of political existance so I really doubt they are influencing anything.
When you follow the money, what do you see?
I still see us fighting in Iraq to secure oil, and we are over here driving cars and consuming goods and disposing of them as if nothing is happening. I see money in oil and our government and people doing everything in their power to cling onto it and prevent change. In comes Global Warming theory, which has many scientists from all sociopolitical angles supporting it, throwing a huge curveball to our 'business as usual' life. I don't see a point to denying global warming. If immenent global disruption is what it will take to change most of our country's mindset, then it has its place. I have a question though, what if evidence comes out the truly disputes global warming? What will happen then? People will hate environmental awareness and pass it all off as false crap. And that terrifies me. So I pray to God that never happens. Because C02 or not, we are really crapping in our fishbowl. C02 emmissions are just the details.

I personally think there is more than enough scientific data to support it global warming. But every person can decide for themselves, and I think it's great to be skeptical of things and not be sheep. And yet we are all learning things, because the one thing we need to truly know is that we don't know everything. So best of luck in your journey and much love to you too.

Bikepacker67

Ya but look at it this way:
The Earth (or rather our sun) has about 4 billion good years left (after that, it gets REALLY hot). That's plenty of time for the evolutionary process to produce an actually intelligent species.

The sooner we get out of the way, the sooner the earth can heal itself. Unfortunate but true.

Roody

But one observaton trumps all in supporting global warming theory. That is the robust observation that carbon-containing gases in an atmosphere do hold in solar heat. This is based on observations and experiments in chemistry and physics, and not based on political, social or religious beliefs. I really don't see how any sane and knowledgable person could rationally deny a phenomenon that has been observed many times over many years.

Granted, that robust observation does not "prove" that anthropogenic carbon release is causing the current rise in global mean temperatures. But the observation does give most scientists good grounds to "predict" that it will. The only way to "prove" anthropogenic warming would be to allow it to occur, then observe and record the observations. That would make a great experiment, and would lay the issue to rest once and for all. And it seems to be the route that a few people would have us take.

Personally, I think this is a rather risky route. Although my region might actually profit from global warming, many regions might not. Scientific "predictions" are based on probablility. The majority of climate scientists "predict" with >90 % probablility that current global warming is anthropogenic and will result in a certain degree of adverse events for people and other organisms in various parts of the world.

Obviously you would place this probability much lower. How low would you go? Zero % probability? 50 %? At what point would you feel it is wise to act politically on the probability? 75 %? 99.9 %? Keep in min that you will never have 100 % certainty until AFTER the event has happened or failed to happen.

ModoVincere

That's not military action of which you speak, unless you are make a reference to the middle east conflict.
Then of course, the debate would be why are we in this conflict. Some would argue that it had a lot to do oil, while others would argue that it had to do with removing Saddam Hussein and whatever WMD's he might have had (Sarin, mustard gas, and a possible nuclear weapons development program). Some even believe Saddam was supporting Al-quaeda by allowing training camps and recruiting.
I've heard that Iraq supplied some of the fake papers used by the 9-11 hijackers, but that was on a radio program that probably has some bias to begin with, so I can't say how accurate that is.

Are you predicting mass looting and pillaging due to oil shortage? Do you think the oil is going to run out in a very short time period?

thimblescratch

Also, even though we have >90% certainty that global warming is occuring, the biggest businesses who will lose out on it, like oil, will be the ones to convince people that there is much less certainty than there is.
Also beware because they use the same kind of tactics that the smoking industry used to convince people that smoking was not harmful.
https://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f.../warming200605

cooker

The oil doesn't have to run out to create international conflict, it just has to flow more a bit more slowly. There are already riots occuring due to increased food prices due to the diversion of corn to ethanol. When the markeptplace determines that poor people will starve so rich people can drive, the marketplace isn't going to be allowed to continue to function.

acroy

No doubt, co2 is a greenhouse gas, it's measurable and repeatable in the lab.

I doubt the "man causes global warming, global warming kills man and half the rest of the globe" (i am exaggerating a bit) scenario because:

We're talking a change of 1-3% absolute temp, i have a hard time believing a 3% difference in 100 years will cause noticeable adverse effects on the globe.

The earth has been around a looong time, we and our accurate measurements have not. We have no idea why the earth has gone through cyclical ice ages, only conjecture. Yet 3% global warming is a disaster? hmmm, my personal bs meter redlines on this.

There's a lot we still don't know. for example, the cloud effect, and how extra co2 in the air will encourage all plant life.

Modeling global warming is one thing. Modeling climate change due to global warming is much more complex and fraught with uncertianty.

as far as what % I give it, i'm a fencesitter, i'd say 50/50 right now. but as above, i'm not convinced even if global warming happens, that it would be bad. It might be great!

Given the above, and the prediction that no matter what we do, we're on course for global warming for the next millenia or so, my gut instinct is to
a) live conservatively
b) let the hi price and eventual scarsity of fossil fuels cause them to become obsolete
c) encourage others to live as good stewards
d) keep learning

do you have a good reference for global warming indued climate change modeling? the UN report indicates that the models tend not to agree, or match observed data.
cheers

ericy

Well, sea level rise may force mankind to abandon scores of coastal cities. That would hardly be described as a great outcome....

Here's a fun tool that shows you where the coastline will be around the world for various amounts of sea level rise....

https://flood.firetree.net/