Global Warming 2.0 (thread reopened; let's keep it civil)

[Moonwalker]

The earth, including the surrounding space (which probably still is is underestimated on climate change) is not a simple man-made rocket engine. I think that the nature and humankind is not that much sensitive like some people and scientists fear.
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/flawed..html

 

[Urwumpe]

The earth, including the surrounding space (which probably still is is underestimated on climate change) is not a simple man-made rocket engine. I think that the nature and humankind is not that much sensitive like some people and scientists fear.

And still it could be far more sensible and fragile than you think. Because you don't know it.

 

[Moonwalker]

And still it could be far more sensible and fragile than you think. Because you don't know it.

Of course.

 

[Omhra]

landmark moment...

 

[Urwumpe]

[Staff note: these next two posts were moved here from the 'Global Warming Poll' thread.]

Global Warming is a observed fact, which does not depend on the way you measure it.

That it could be caused by human activities is absurd, but not the fact, that it could be extremely augmented by human activities. The amount of scientific evidence for this hypothesis has grown a lot in the last five years. It is especially not ridiculous, regarding the fact how many landscapes in the world are extremely shaped by human actions. We change the face of Earth, and that at increasing rate.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

[O-F Staff note: this paragraph moved here from the duplicate GW poll thread. Let's please keep the debate in the main thread here so we don't have duplicate threads on the same topic. Thanks.]

My 2 cents:
The planet is warming, that as much has been proven. And it surely can't hurt to try to reduce emissions, find alternatives, etc. But we should look to reduce emissions purely for the benefit of our own health, and to find alternatives to fossil fuels once they run out. If people think that doing this would stop the planet warming, I think they would be wrong. It may slow it, but not stop it. To say that mankind alone is causing global warming is ridiculous. The planet has warmed (and cooled) many times before humans were ever around. The planet will always right itself for whatever imbalances have been caused - the notion that humans are harming & destroying earth alone is, in my opinion, as I said, ridiculous. Earth is far more powerful,than mankind can ever be. Global warming/environmental damage is surely an issue, but the big media frenzy it is today is all a big plot by someone, somewhere, to gain something.

Global Warming is a observed fact, which does not depend on the way you measure it.

That it could be caused by human activities is absurd, but not the fact, that it could be extremely augmented by human activities. The amount of scientific evidence for this hypothesis has grown a lot in the last five years. It is especially not ridiculous, regarding the fact how many landscapes in the world are extremely shaped by human actions. We change the face of Earth, and that at increasing rate.

I would agree that humans have dramatically impacted & changed the landscapes of the earth. All you have to do is look at the earth from orbit at night to see how many human cities there are. But I think that, if earth really doesn't like what we are doing, it can rip down what we have taken a century to build in just a few minutes.

But with this notion, it would be fair to assume that earth is not liking what we are currently doing to it. Just name all the natural disasters that have occurred in the last 5 years. Is this a sign that earth has had enough of mankind's pillaging of natural resources. This is not necessarily related to global warming, and I do think that consumption of natural resources is a big issue - in terms of what are we going to do once they are all gone?

 

[Moonwalker]

Oh no, not another one

Anyway, climate always changes. It is either cooling or warming. The earth has no thermodynamic balance obviously. There seems to be a slight global warming trend (which does not mean that every single place is warming) since weather record, slightly interrupted from the 1940's to the 1970's, and continued until a few years ago. However, it is currently not warming for a very few years. So, at least to me, it is very interesting how this continues within the following years.

I think nobody is able to predict the future climate. Of course it is possible to try so using computers, but if the reality one day will look like the latest, another latest and then finally like the latest latest model (until there is another latest, and finally latest model), that's different for now. Only the future knows...

Obviously, climate changed already, and that sometimes significantly, before there was any human on the planet. So humans are more than rather likely not the cause of climate change. It might be possible that humans have contributed to the current warming trend (everything and nothing is possible theoretically), but how much, and if at all, I personally don't see this yet and I'm rather sceptical about it, regardelss of what scientists, and even bulks of non-scientists, do prophesy.

However, the current climate is not bad (beside the fact that people always complain about climate and weather and a bad future almost for as long as human records exist). Today humans live almost everywhere, after increasing about sixfold within the past 205 years.

I personally think that some climatologists tend to underplay past local climate changes and catastrophes, not seen for many centuries anymore, to highlight current global temperature trends for public and political attention. It is surprising how many people are fascinated by a single value, which might not even be accurate. To generally put such a complex system like the earth atmosphere into a single average temperature value is the most inaccurate thing possible. The Earth simply has no single temperature.

 

[BHawthorne]

[O-F staff note: these two posts moved here from the duplicate 'GW Poll' thread. Let's please keep the debate (including 'jabs') in this thread so we don't have duplicate threads. Otherwise we'll have to lock the poll thread. Thanks.]

What bothers me about these type of threads is that everyone is instantly an expert and then go off digging around google for like minded links to back up their personal theories about anything, not just Global Warming. The critical failure of the internet as a viable source of reputable information comes into play when you know any old lunatic could put up a quality website claiming the moon is made of green cheese. If it's on wikipedia it must be true.

I vote for Option #4, I have no freaking clue. Matter of fact I will elaborate on that, I think 99% of everyone else have no freaking clue about it either, because there is less than 1% of the population that specialize in this type of science, and those people -- just like everyone else in the world are shaped by their own personal motivations and bias -- scientist or not. Objectivity + Internet = Impossible. hehe

 

[Moonwalker]

What bothers me about these type of threads is that everyone is instantly an expert and then go off digging around google for like minded links to back up their personal theories about anything, not just Global Warming. The critical failure of the internet as a viable source of reputable information comes into play when you know any old lunatic could put up a quality website claiming the moon is made of green cheese. If it's on wikipedia it must be true.

I vote for Option #4, I have no freaking clue. Matter of fact I will elaborate on that, I think 99% of everyone else have no freaking clue about it either, because there is less than 1% of the population that specialize in this type of science, and those people -- just like everyone else in the world are shaped by their own personal motivations and bias -- scientist or not. Objectivity + Internet = Impossible. hehe

I could not more agree. One of the best posts I've ever seen on the topic so far.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

What bothers me about these type of threads is that everyone is instantly an expert and then go off digging around google for like minded links to back up their personal theories about anything, not just Global Warming. The critical failure of the internet as a viable source of reputable information comes into play when you know any old lunatic could put up a quality website claiming the moon is made of green cheese. If it's on wikipedia it must be true.

I vote for Option #4, I have no freaking clue. Matter of fact I will elaborate on that, I think 99% of everyone else have no freaking clue about it either, because there is less than 1% of the population that specialize in this type of science, and those people -- just like everyone else in the world are shaped by their own personal motivations and bias -- scientist or not. Objectivity + Internet = Impossible. hehe

So then, what is the answer? We all just ignore the issue & hope it goes away? That is why the media continue to push whatever opinion they want people to believe, & people still fail to act either one way or the other. Because most people don't want to "come down off the wall" & take a side. I appreciate your point - that not many people know the answer, & that all people can give is opinion, not fact. But the fact remains that the issue is there, and in order to solve it, people must make a decision as to which theory they believe in - whether their opinion is correct or not

 

[RisingFury]

When it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter if global warming is man-made or not. We've discovered a link between CO2 and warming, and we've measured warming - a very fast warming, actually. What matters is that we do something about it.

It's true that from an objective point of view, we can't really define when the climate is "normal", so we have to use a subjective definition. And that would be the current climate. Why? Because us humans like to live at room temperature, with no freak weather phenomena taring our cities apart.

It's also true that climate has always been changing. But these changes were slow and gradual, giving lifeforms time to adapt to the new conditions. The current warming is happening much much faster.

Indeed life on Earth has already started responding. Some 100+ species of animals have started migrating slightly towards the poles. This might be ok in the short term, but we can't all live at the poles after a while.

Humans populate a lot of Earth and we can't just run away this time. It's been known for a long time that heat in the atmosphere drives (or contributes to) some weather phenomena, like lightning storms, hurricanes, flash floods,... so increased temperature means more "fuel" for these types of weather effects. And that in tern means more humans get put at risk.

That alone should be a reason to decrease the output of CO2. Even if the human CO2 levels contribute minimally to the warming, it's still worth eliminating as many of those as possible, to get us more time to find either a permanent solution, or to adapt our lifestyle to the new conditions.