Climate Change Debate Thread

There's a really interesting documentary on Netflix called "Chasing Ice," which documents the efforts of glacier photographers to record a time lapse of glacial change. At one glacier, they recorded about ten miles of ice melting from 2000-2010, whereas in the previous 100 years, only 8 miles had melted total. Essentially, they recorded a lot of photographic evidence showing that climate change is happening at an accelerated rate.

I thought it was pretty informative, and I do think humans are, at least in part, to blame for the issue. You can't have so many industrialized nations, with so much variance between pollution standards, and not expect the environment to be affected. I think it's silly for us to change our environment so drastically to suit us, and then step back and say we couldn't possibly have contributed to the environment's further changing.

That being said, I'm fairly certain the earth will change and eventually adapt to new weather patterns, geographical changes, etc. Really, I just don't think humans will adapt so readily if we don't make changes.

Uh oh... this thread has the potential of being quite the "Pandora's Box" for heated debates LOL.
Check out the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle

I think that, regardless of my opinion, it would be would be wise for the sake of a healthy discussion to not directly.put any point of view down in the poll itself.

I love that we can have wonderful talks about heated issues here and it is (I think) always nice to give everyone equal footing, when possible.

I love your posts And know that you always strive towards fairness and open-mindedness but I know that when I clicked on this poll I felt like my view was kind of being made fun of, so I felt hesitant to answer.

The legitimate scientists who deny global warming would fit in a matchbox.

Glacier loss, logging and farming changing the reflectivity of the earth's surface surface, greenhouse gasses and holes in the ozone layer are all happening. Is it human intervention of just the natural build-up to the next ice age? Who cares?


The next ice age will come, and with it sea levels will drop 100 metres and the air will become so cool and dry that practically all life on will be extinguished - not species, but numbers of organisms, with humans being reduced to a few hundred million. It might be 100 years away or 10,000 years, but it will wipe out humanity as it exists today. Before that a solar flare or volcanic eruption could pretty much wipe out humanity anyway. We are like bugs in a puddle after it rains, we can't see the puddle drying up but but our time is most definitely finite.

Trouble is, the way things are going, we may not be around to "enjoy" the next ice age.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a personal hero of mine, a genuine scientist who can argue with a total moron and never lose his cool--wish I had a tenth of his smarts.

I... once again... fully agree with your way of thinking luna!
Couldn't say it any better... so i'll leave it to that

Here's the way I see it. Yes, there are cycles our planet goes through of climate change. They don't just happen though. There are natural phenomenon that cause the shifts back and forth. Just as those phenomenon contribute the human race is also contributing. We're accelerating the change and *may* tip it further in the warming direction than it has been before.

To me, making changes to prevent this trend or "saving the planet" as they say isn't a war against business. It's about reducing our footprint so that the natural change in climate isn't as drastically altered. It's about ensuring our survival. Not the planet. Sure some species will go with us if we fuck things up too badly but the planet will endure. It'll be us who is gone.

Methinks we all need to work on renewable cleaner and greener resources but I'm not buying into the Man-Made global warming BS Obama and others are spewing.

http://www.petitionproject.org/



Kyoto is the bedrock of international law that serves as the legal foundation used by all nations for their individual actions taken to reduce global CO2 emissions. The United States, the lone non-signatory, is now the only major polluter to have met the standard.

Today the EIA simply reports that U.S. CO2 emissions in 2012 were the lowest since 1994. Though amazing in itself, it is not headline news. Meeting the Kyoto Protocol standard should be front page news.

U.S. Meets Kyoto Protocol Standard

The downloaded data shows that U.S. total CO2 emissions for coal, oil and natural gas were 5,584 (million) metric tons in 1997.

It also shows that U.S. CO2 emissions rose to 6,023 (million) metric tons of CO2 in 2007 before they began to fall.

In 2012, U.S. CO2 emissions fell to 5,293 (million) metric tons. That is 291 (million) metric tons less than they were in 1997 and 730 (million) metric tons less than their 2007 peak.

Drum roll please…
291 (million) metric tons below 1997 levels is a 5.2% reduction in CO2 emissions. It EXACTLY meets the Kyoto requirement! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/u ... racing-it/

Bocefish said:

Methinks we all need to work on renewable cleaner and greener resources but I'm not buying into the Man-Made global warming BS Obama and others are spewing.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Kyoto is the bedrock of international law that serves as the legal foundation used by all nations for their individual actions taken to reduce global CO2 emissions. The United States, the lone non-signatory, is now the only major polluter to have met the standard.

Today the EIA simply reports that U.S. CO2 emissions in 2012 were the lowest since 1994. Though amazing in itself, it is not headline news. Meeting the Kyoto Protocol standard should be front page news.

U.S. Meets Kyoto Protocol Standard

The downloaded data shows that U.S. total CO2 emissions for coal, oil and natural gas were 5,584 (million) metric tons in 1997.

It also shows that U.S. CO2 emissions rose to 6,023 (million) metric tons of CO2 in 2007 before they began to fall.

In 2012, U.S. CO2 emissions fell to 5,293 (million) metric tons. That is 291 (million) metric tons less than they were in 1997 and 730 (million) metric tons less than their 2007 peak.

Drum roll please…
291 (million) metric tons below 1997 levels is a 5.2% reduction in CO2 emissions. It EXACTLY meets the Kyoto requirement! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/u ... racing-it/

Click to expand...

But you don't say how many American corporations, major polluters have moved business outside USA since 1994, thus having an effect on those percentages or that America's biggest export to China is garbage.

JordanBlack said:

But you don't say how many American corporations, major polluters have moved business outside USA since 1994, thus having an effect on those percentages or that America's biggest export to China is garbage.

Click to expand...

I didn't say a lot of things, but if you believe that's the reason, please enlighten us.

ok, since theres an actual thread on it i get to chime in! yay!


alright. when i first heard about global warming i thought "horse malarky!" admittedly i was around 12 and hadnt gotten past basic earth sciences yet, so my opinion was sort of useless. 20 plus years later (creeping up on 30 later! sheesh) ive had time and opportunity to look over the data some.

the first big objection to global warming as a phenomenon which is real is the natural warming cycles of our planet. we do indeed experience cycles in average temperature. these cycles tend to swing by millenia, several millenia at a minimum, also as our earth ages our orbit shifts which can and will increase average temperatures over a period of an eon or so.

without getting too link postish i cant show yall the raw data, but it is out there. all of the above is true and verifiable if you care enough to look.

it is also true and verifiable that our rate of increase has been significantly higher since the industrial revolution. the question is why?

"global warming" refers to an increase in average temperature and associated phenomena. so what causes it in theory? well the greenhouse effect is considered the primary culprit. this is when an increase in gasses, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2) build up in the atmosphere. this causes sunlight that comes in from sol to not be reflected back out into space at the same rate it otherwise would.

CO2 levels can be measured over time, even back before the industrial revolution in several ways. the easiest is to take a core sample of arctic or antarctic ice. for the purposes at hand im not going to dig into the exact numbers. i will state that by more than one sample, over decades and by different organizations it is observable that CO2 levels are vastly higher then they were pre industry. the rate of increase has climbed as industry has, along a rather steep curve.

so, from this information i conclude that a greenhouse effect can and does take place. other gasses contribute to the geenhouse effect but just measuring the CO2 alone is enough to make one wonder about what the end limit is for survivability as a species. (and since were doing global warming i wont go into the other by products of industry that can and do cause other forms of harm to us)

now. since the greenhouse effect is not some pipe dream how do we look and see if it is happening and if it is a problem?
to my mind the easiest way to check is oceanic levels and salinity. if the average temperature increases then more freshwater ice will melt. if this happens then there should be a measurable increase in oceanic levels and a corresponding decrease in salinity. well guess what? such levels have been observed to do exactly those things. our oceans are slightly higher and slightly less salty than they were a few hundred years ago.


now, all of that can be caused by other phenomemna than global warming as caused by humans. is it though? well the only way to be sure of that is to calculate what things should be based on the natural cycles with a fudge factor in place for a decaying orbit and random flares of solar output.
these calculations have been made. low ball estimates show as much as a 2 degree increase in average temperature (aka global warming) over and above what should be happening based on the above circumstances.

this leads me to conclude that global warming is a discrete and concrete phenomenon (meaning real and measurable)


the next phase of thought must be along the lines of "so what"? 2 degrees? is that a big deal? well the answer is not yet. at this point if things stayed as they are without further increases the bio system would adjust and adapt probably within a century or two. we as humans wouldnt notice much more than an increase in the severity of storms and maybe the extreme of temperature from season to season.

our bio system could probably even handle another degree or two before we noticed really bad effect such as coastal flooding (which would eventually make us say goodby to around 50 miles or so of coastland at conservative estimates) and hey, lets face it places like new york, baltimore, san francisco, norfolk, miami, santa barbara, arent a big loss, they can afford to have real estate values increase or go away depending on how much land gets swallowed by the sea right?

of course long before we humans started being discomfitted by these things other species would feel the pinch. fisheries have trouble staying viable if salinity changes as much as 1 percent. based on estimates in a hundred years or so we're looking at as much as a 5 percent shift. bye bye tuna, salmon, cod, halibut, flounder etc...

and who cares if polar bears go extinct really? weve still got plenty of other cool land predators to keep ecological balance. plenty of wolves in the arctic and sub arctic areas. oh wait, what? we hunted them to endangered status? uh-oh..... well ignore that then. even without predators sea birds will still find nesting spots and hatch new young, maybe theyll increase since they arent being eaten. assuming they find nesting spots anyway.

enough sarcasm lol. my point is that when one chain of the eco system breaks others must take up the strain or it collapses. sure, no matter what happens to or with global warming life will continue in some way, even if its nothing but bacteria and algae and such. my reason for wanting controls in place is purely selfish. i sort of like this once salubrious green orb (thanks kurt vonnegut, ive always wanted a place to use that phrase). humans for all their evils and problems are a beautiful and amazing species. our civilization is a wonderful thing. the 8th wonder of the world if you ask me (and thats in any of the lists). after a certain point the probable consequences of global warming would make advanced civilization difficult to untenable. beyond that we could fail as a species entirely.


now all that does not mean i think we should go back to the stone age, repudiate industry and all its benefits. not at all. but what we must do is make sure we dont over burden the system, make sure that we clean up our industrial poop so to speak. make sure that the changes we cause in our atmosphere and environment move slowly enough for it to adapt over time. thats all. it isnt easy to do by any means, and it is more expensive in the short term. but on a big picture scale we might have to sacrifice some logging and change the cars we drive among other things to slow things down.
over a period of thousands of years our gaea is a tough old broad. she can handle it. when it shifts to a few centuries not so much.

MIT's Richard Lindzen, one of the most-respected climatologists on the planet, speaks to the second annual International Conference on Climate Change in New York. Lindzen warns that scientists who embrace global warming alarmism are not necessarily good researchers. And that skeptics of global warming are not necessarily good researchers either. The point, he argues, is to stay focused on the facts as they can be determined and to follow the science, not the political debate.

He speaks about the Greenhouse Effect around the 5 minute mark of the vid.

As far as the polar bears becoming extinct by 2020 that Thinkprogressive.org predicted:

http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazi ... _bears.asp

Granted, the population numbers have been startling. Research from 1984 to 2004 showed that the western Hudson Bay population, which includes the Churchill bears, had declined from 1,194 to 935. The trendlines from that study suggested that by 2011, the population would fall to as low as 676.

Fast-forward to today and a new study, which reveals that the current polar bear population of western Hudson Bay is 1,013 animals.

Wait … what? More bears than there were 10 years ago? Nearly double the prediction? “Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world,” says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Government of Nunavut. “There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past.”

“That’s false,” says Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, the international advocacy organization that, in 2008, successfully pushed to have polar bears listed as “threatened” in the United States. “Polar bear populations are in decline. That means individual bears are starving and drowning.”

Polar bears can weigh more than 500 kilograms, they drag seals out of the ocean with their claws, and on occasion they will attack human beings. In short, these animals are not known for their subtlety. And yet a deep dive into the current science behind polar bear population dynamics produces results that are complicated, contradictory and often quite controversial. For the segment of the media that traffics in sound bites, it’s easy to declare that polar bears are on the verge of extinction … or that this is just another example of the climate-change myth. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between.

Click to expand...

plenty of wolves in the arctic and sub arctic areas. oh wait, what? we hunted them to endangered status?

Click to expand...

Wolf OVERPOPULATION is now the problem.

Click on image to enlarge

Bocefish said:

The point, he argues, is to stay focused on the facts as they can be determined and to follow the science, not the political debate.

Click to expand...

That is the most reasonable response. The superficial arguments for climate change are no doubt valid. Yes we are burning billions of tons of fossil fuels and releasing into the atmosphere carbon which has been bound into the earth over the last million years, and we also have the farting of billions of cows contributing as well. How much of an impact these changes are having is the thing that needs investigation, not endless hand wringing over the fact that it is happening.

The logging of the Amazon rain forests was supposed to mean the end of the world, but when someone noticed that it was making no difference and wondered why, they also discovered the vast majority of oxygen generation was being done by algae in the top 10 metres of the world's oceans. Logging of the Amazon is still an local ecological disaster, but its not going to make the world end any time soon. I suspect this is the case with a lot of other things as well.

Loss of diversity, the increased level of toxins in the soil, air and water, and any long term impact on the ocean is what I'm worried about. Increased sea levels and changing climate will have a significant impact on human habitation, but we are at the warmest and wettest part of the current interglacial, so in the greater scheme of things these changes will not wipe out all life on earth. What will happen is large chunks of the planet will become uninhabitable and other bits will open up to habitation. It will be bad and it will be expensive, but the impact will primarily be felt in first world countries that have the most to lose.

Controlling emissions, reducing the release of toxics, and especially limiting the release of non biodegradables like plastic into the environment, to reduce the rate of change would be my goal.

Red7227 said:

Bocefish said:

The point, he argues, is to stay focused on the facts as they can be determined and to follow the science, not the political debate.

Click to expand...

That is the most reasonable response.

Click to expand...

Although that is 100% how I view it, that was a copy and paste from whoever uploaded the video. Guess I should have put that in quotes.

Red7227 said:

Controlling emissions, reducing the release of toxics, and especially limiting the release of non biodegradables like plastic into the environment, to reduce the rate of change would be my goal.

Click to expand...

I try to do my part with the little things like minimizing personal energy and water use. I also think the jury is still out on solar and wind power, electric or hybrid cars. In the long run, a lot of people believe it's just like switching cigarette brands on the overall negative impact.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1280 ... er_reviews

I agree, we should follow the science and not politics. Richard Lindzen, however is the same scientist who claimed that tobacco does NOT cause cancer. He has connections to both the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry. It appears that he's a ONCE competent scientist who went to follow the politics...for money.

Nordling said:

I agree, we should follow the science and not politics. Richard Lindzen, however is the same scientist who claimed that tobacco does NOT cause cancer. He has connections to both the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry. It appears that he's a ONCE competent scientist who went to follow the politics...for money.

Click to expand...

NOT true:

http://www.climateconversation.wordshin ... famations/

Warmist's alarming predictions vs. reality...



http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/glo ... rom-space/

LadyLuna said:

Some people think global warming isn't happening.
Some people think global warming is happening, but isn't a problem because it's supposed to happen anyway.
Some people think humans are entirely to blame for global warming.

What do you think?

---

My personal beliefs were stated in another thread, but I'll repeat them here.

Global warming is definitely happening. It would be happening whether we were here or not. But I think we're helping it along. Will it get worse than it would've been without us? I don't know. Maybe it'll just happen faster with us here. Either way, we need to learn how to make cities that either float, or can sustain us under the water.

How many species of animals did we kill which would've survived the warming? That's another area entirely.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

this all reminds me of when they were saying the Y2K bug was going to cause planes to fall from the sky and crash.

the Y2K bug existed in some computers, but not the computers Apple made.

Dell computer cited "not selling as many Y2K bug fixes as anticipated" as the reason their stock price went down.

the funniest part was when the people saying planes would crash were on tv news with the words "experts on the change of the milennium" listed under their name on the tv screen.

the Global Warming issue seems to be just as much human error as human philosophy.

more importantantly, what if it is human destiny?

God said:

LadyLuna said:

Some people think global warming isn't happening.
Some people think global warming is happening, but isn't a problem because it's supposed to happen anyway.
Some people think humans are entirely to blame for global warming.

What do you think?

---

My personal beliefs were stated in another thread, but I'll repeat them here.

Global warming is definitely happening. It would be happening whether we were here or not. But I think we're helping it along. Will it get worse than it would've been without us? I don't know. Maybe it'll just happen faster with us here. Either way, we need to learn how to make cities that either float, or can sustain us under the water.

How many species of animals did we kill which would've survived the warming? That's another area entirely.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

this all reminds me of when they were saying the Y2K bug was going to cause planes to fall from the sky and crash.

the Y2K bug existed in some computers, but not the computers Apple made.

Dell computer cited "not selling as many Y2K bug fixes as anticipated" as the reason their stock price went down.

the funniest part was when the people saying planes would crash were on tv news with the words "experts on the change of the milennium" listed under their name on the tv screen.

the Global Warming issue seems to be just as much human error as human philosophy.

more importantantly, what if it is human destiny?

Click to expand...

Destiny? What exactly do you mean? That The Force has proclaimed that it's our destiny to have our planet fucked up?

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" -Pogo

Bocefish said:

Nordling said:

I agree, we should follow the science and not politics. Richard Lindzen, however is the same scientist who claimed that tobacco does NOT cause cancer. He has connections to both the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry. It appears that he's a ONCE competent scientist who went to follow the politics...for money.

Click to expand...

NOT true:

http://www.climateconversation.wordshin ... famations/

Click to expand...

He can deny his denialism all he wants.

In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).[7]
Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[8]
A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."[9]

Click to expand...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

That doesn't prove squat except that he made some money. If you're saying he was bribed to lie about global warming, prove it. His research was funded exclusively by the same government who's politicians are playing smoke n' mirrors. He accepted consulting fees and travel expenses, so what?

The guy you presented, conveniently omitting his name (James Hansen) who said Lindzen stated that smoking didn't cause cancer is, on the other hand, a lying paid mouthpiece.

James Hansen’s former NASA supervisor Dr John Theon told a Senate committee James Hansen was “never muzzled”, has “embarrassed NASA” and that his climate models are “useless”. It’s time for NASA to act.

Click to expand...

Bocefish said:

That doesn't prove squat except that he made some money. If you're saying he was bribed to lie about global warming, prove it. His research was funded exclusively by the same government who's politicians are playing smoke n' mirrors. He accepted consulting fees and travel expenses, so what?

The guy you presented, conveniently omitting his name (James Hansen) who said Lindzen stated that smoking didn't cause cancer is, on the other hand, a lying paid mouthpiece.

James Hansen’s former NASA supervisor Dr John Theon told a Senate committee James Hansen was “never muzzled”, has “embarrassed NASA” and that his climate models are “useless”. It’s time for NASA to act.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Uh, wrong. John Theon is the liar. He was never Hansen's supervisor in any human-recognized sense. Personally, I despise James Inhofe and reject any of his pals out of hand. but YMMV.

Nordling said:

Bocefish said:

That doesn't prove squat except that he made some money. If you're saying he was bribed to lie about global warming, prove it. His research was funded exclusively by the same government who's politicians are playing smoke n' mirrors. He accepted consulting fees and travel expenses, so what?

The guy you presented, conveniently omitting his name (James Hansen) who said Lindzen stated that smoking didn't cause cancer is, on the other hand, a lying paid mouthpiece.

James Hansen’s former NASA supervisor Dr John Theon told a Senate committee James Hansen was “never muzzled”, has “embarrassed NASA” and that his climate models are “useless”. It’s time for NASA to act.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Uh, wrong. John Theon is the liar. He was never Hansen's supervisor in any human-recognized sense. Personally, I despise James Inhofe and reject any of his pals out of hand. but YMMV.

Click to expand...

I guess these guys are lying too then, lol : http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index. ... d53cd3d320

When I said 'legitimate' scientists, I meant ones unlike the one above who have been employed to protect corporate interests.

If you were on a spaceship (surrounded by hard vacuum), you had air recyclers etc, though you'd been gradually removing them as they took up space and seemed unnecessary. Now imagine you started cooking, and burning food - a lot. More smoke was being produced from the cooking than the air recyclers could cope with - because you're cooking more than normal AND you've removed half the filters.

What happens to the smoke? What do you think happens to toxins and smoke and other pollutants in the atmosphere - they just disappear by magic? They wouldn't, for example, rise to the outer edge of the atmosphere and then be unable to go any further, enclosed by - well, atmosphere - and/or cools and turns to liquid - acid rain anyone?

So I want to hear where climate-deniers think all those gases, toxins and smoke go. Do they just disappear? How about toxic waste dumps - I guess they do no harm either right? So why not build schools on the sites?

Bocefish said:

That doesn't prove squat except that he made some money.

Click to expand...

Don't be obtuse, you know very well that his recieving significant payrolling from energy interests makes his research suspect and his scientific neutrality absolutely worthless. His science, unfortunately, is meaningless because he whored it out for cash.

Jupiter551 said:

Bocefish said:

That doesn't prove squat except that he made some money.

Click to expand...

Don't be obtuse, you know very well that his recieving significant payrolling from energy interests makes his research suspect and his scientific neutrality absolutely worthless. His science, unfortunately, is meaningless because he whored it out for cash.

Click to expand...

Charging consulting fees and travel expenses is hardly "payrolling" him or his research, but people will believe whatever they want to despite the facts. If you can't dispute the science, attack him personally. Same old political ploys. Stick to the facts and science instead of implying someone was bribed.