Global Warming

Cianos

A lot of people in this thread either didn't watch the video, or did watch it and missed the point completely.

His argument is saying that our only responsible action is to prepare and attempt to combat global warming. If it is a myth, and the greater scientific community have been proven wrong, well that's a good thing - we may have lost out on money, time and effort - but these are trivial when trying to save the world as we know it. The alternative is to not do anything about it, turn a blind eye and before we know it it is too late.

magicbastarder

jor el wrote:

Parts I did find particularly good were

which has absolutely nothing to do with whether global warming is a genuine threat or not, though.
that programme was rubbished from a height, the guy who made it is a chancer.

seamus

I haven't watched the video.

My main problem with it is people's perception of the planet. Human beings are naturally selfish and tend to regard everything in reference to ourselves. We have a good grasp of time and distance, but once you start to talk about great distances, our ability to fathom the proportions becomes diminished. So although people can "imagine" the earth and the universe, what they actually imagine is invariably much, much smaller than the actual scale of these things.

I'm not normally a skeptical person, but I'm skeptical about this, and about our potential impact on the entire planet. There may be *some* cumulative effect, but as a species of living organism we certainly don't have anything close to a monopoly or a majority on generating waste gases.

There's also extensive localisation within the ecosystem. Massive amounts of CO2 pumped into the air in Africa may have some averse effects on Africa and Southern Europe, but may have negligble effects on America.

This ecosystem suits us. The only reason we need to protect it, is so that we can survive. If we end up dying, the earth will carry on. The ecosystem evolves just like everything else. The concentration of gasses changes over time, the organism evolve to suit it, and begin to change the concentration of gasses again. It's also much less fragile or sensitive than you would be lead to believe.

On a whole though, I see no reason why we shouldn't reduce our toxic emissions, and our general waste. Since we tend to group into large collectives of cities, increased emissions and waste will affect the health of the local population more than anything.

magicbastarder

seamus wrote:

as a species of living organism we certainly don't have anything close to a monopoly or a majority on generating waste gases.

There's also extensive localisation within the ecosystem. Massive amounts of CO2 pumped into the air in Africa may have some averse effects on Africa and Southern Europe, but may have negligble effects on America.

do you think the CO2 stays over the land where it was generated?
we have added vast quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere, which wasn't being added before. what's absorbing it all? we disturbed a system in equilibrium.

seamus

magicbastarder wrote:

do you think the CO2 stays over the land where it was generated?

It's certainly not static, but it's not an even spread either. We're all at the mercy of air currents. What I said, I should have clarified was just an example. An increase in CO2 emissions over Africa, for example, doesn't necessarily lead to a uniform rise in global levels.

we have added vast quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere, which wasn't being added before. what's absorbing it all? we disturbed a system in equilibrium.

You'd be arguing long and hard to prove that it was a system in equilibrium. A system in equilibrium would be static and stable. The ecosystem is far from that. It's constantly fighting to attain equilibirum, but it will never get there. All we can do is add to the chaos.

magicbastarder

even if it didn't lead to a uniform level, how does that mollify the effects?
granted, it wasn't in perfect equilibrium. but it's currently at its highest level in (i believe) about half a million years. and the rise started with the industrial revolution, or thereabouts.

Plissken1

People are now also blaming the increase in outdoor heaters, due to the smoking ban as contributor to this so called Warming thingy.

zuutroy

CO2 makes up 1% of greenhouses gases....Human activity contributes 1% of that => we are responsible for 1/10000 of greenhouse gases. Even if that doubled, its still almost nothing.

magicbastarder

zuutroy wrote:

CO2 makes up 1% of greenhouses gases.

source?

stevejazzx

seamus wrote:

I haven't watched the video.

My main problem with it is people's perception of the planet. Human beings are naturally selfish and tend to regard everything in reference to ourselves. We have a good grasp of time and distance, but once you start to talk about great distances, our ability to fathom the proportions becomes diminished. So although people can "imagine" the earth and the universe, what they actually imagine is invariably much, much smaller than the actual scale of these things.

What has interstellar space got to do with the question at hand there young man?

seamus wrote:

I'm not normally a skeptical person, but I'm skeptical about this, and about our potential impact on the entire planet. There may be *some* cumulative effect, but as a species of living organism we certainly don't have anything close to a monopoly or a majority on generating waste gases.

Well bovine flatulence aside, human are responsible for this planets current state of affairs. How much of greenland do peole want to melt before they accept that?
and *some* cumulative effect
what are you on about? We are making massive changes to the landscape of the world becasue of the way we live...

seamus wrote:

There's also extensive localisation within the ecosystem. Massive amounts of CO2 pumped into the air in Africa may have some averse effects on Africa and Southern Europe, but may have negligble effects on America.

Man I don't know where you get your information but I'd love to see it.
Localised effects within areas is possible on short term samll scale evels but ultimately the thinning atmosphere will affeect everyone.

seamus wrote:

This ecosystem suits us. The only reason we need to protect it, is so that we can survive. If we end up dying, the earth will carry on. The ecosystem evolves just like everything else. The concentration of gasses changes over time, the organism evolve to suit it, and begin to change the concentration of gasses again. It's also much less fragile or sensitive than you would be lead to believe.

Again, crazy in scientific terms the earth exists becasue of the Goldilock effect. We have just the right balance. In astronomological terms the earth is easily destrucible, by a comet for example. Also the sun is a dying star so either way earth eventually will be unable to sustain life.

stevejazzx

zuutroy wrote:

CO2 makes up 1% of greenhouses gases....Human activity contributes 1% of that => we are responsible for 1/10000 of greenhouse gases. Even if that doubled, its still almost nothing.

Okay your figures are highly dubious, anywyas the point is that the other greenhouse gases are also a result of human behaviour..very few harmful gases are naturally occuring.

unkel

Of course global warming is happening. I mean the proof is the weather we've had over the last few days. Very hot followed by torrential rains. I reckon Ireland will have a tropical climate within 5 years

seamus

stevejazzx wrote:

What has interstellar space got to do with the question at hand there young man?

Well, interestingly enough, you go off talking about interstellar space at the end of your post...
My point was that people have difficulty fathoming the scale of "big things". The earth is simply much more massive than we have the capacity to imagine in our heads. This can cause an inflated sense of self-importance in a system, or can cause people to have trouble relating one proportion to another.
A good example is the outdoor heaters thing - "The smoking ban is causing more outdoor heaters to be used, which is contributing to global warming". The volume of pollution from these heaters, and the scale of the atmosphere are in proportions which can't be compared without using really tiny numbers.

and *some* cumulative effect
what are you on about? We are making massive changes to the landscape of the world becasue of the way we live...

Massive changes, such as? Let's not forget that a lot (if not most) land creatures alter their environment to suit themselves. They dig holes for shelter, tear branches off of trees, dam up rivers...
Sure, we seem to do it on a much larger scale and with much more wastage. As it is, only 12.5% of the total surface of the earth is suitable for human habitation, of which, only 1.5% is urban. So in terms of making "Massive changes", you'd have a tough time proving that humans have drastically altered more than half of one percent of the earth's surface. In fact, the figure would be considerably less than that.

Man I don't know where you get your information but I'd love to see it.
Localised effects within areas is possible on short term samll scale evels but ultimately the thinning atmosphere will affeect everyone.

What are you referring to when you talk about "thinning" of the atmosphere? Loss of oxygen? Increase in carbon dioxide? It's a closed system. The atmosphere can't get any "thinner" (except through natural means). All we can do is change its composition.

For the record, I'm not denying that this could be happening. I'm just skeptical, as I've said, and pointing out possible counters to the usual arguments.

bonkey

unkel wrote:

Of course global warming is happening. I mean the proof is the weather we've had over the last few days. Very hot followed by torrential rains.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Consider the following list :

- local weather change
- local climactic change
- global weather change
- global climactic change

Of the first three of these four, none is a reliable indicator of the items which come below it on the list. You are taking the furthest removed of these effects and suggesting it acts as proof. It doesn't.

Even if you beef up yout comment and point out that there are global shifts in weather over the last few years, leading to all sorts of weather-related records being broken everywhere, you still are a long cry away from establishing that there is cimactic change. And even if you did establish that, you'd still be some way short of proving that the climactic change which was driving the global weather change which was driving the localised weather change was caused by global warming.

Don't get me wrong. I accept the reality of global warming. I side with those who say that man's activities are a significant factor.

What I don't accept is that this position is helped by people believing the wrong stuff, even if they agree with the conclusion.

magicbastarder

seamus wrote:

As it is, only 12.5% of the total surface of the earth is suitable for human habitation, of which, only 1.5% is urban. So in terms of making "Massive changes", you'd have a tough time proving that humans have drastically altered more than half of one percent of the earth's surface. In fact, the figure would be considerably less than that.

you're saying we can only affect what we can inhabit?

seamus

magicbastarder wrote:

you're saying we can only affect what we can inhabit?

I was referring to his comment on making massive changes to our landscape. I was searching quickly, and I couldn't find any figures for exactly how much land was "occupied" as farms, habitation, or otherwise in use (such as roads).

unkel

bonkey wrote:

You couldn't be more wrong

I was being a wee bit sarcastic

homah_7ft

I didn't think this thread would go down this route. Compare this thread to someone asking about an issue with their computer. Would people get away with posting completely ignorant replies (yes I know it's AH)? Is science really that alien?

stevejazzx

seamus wrote:

Massive changes, such as? Let's not forget that a lot (if not most) land creatures alter their environment to suit themselves. They dig holes for shelter, tear branches off of trees, dam up rivers...
Sure, we seem to do it on a much larger scale and with much more wastage. As it is, only 12.5% of the total surface of the earth is suitable for human habitation, of which, only 1.5% is urban. So in terms of making "Massive changes", you'd have a tough time proving that humans have drastically altered more than half of one percent of the earth's surface. In fact, the figure would be considerably less than that.

Have you see the movie an 'Inconvenient truth? Compare photographs taken over the course of the century. greenland has almost dissapeared!
Thats major i would say! Parts of antartica melting here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4228411.stm
it's all very major.

seamus wrote:

What are you referring to when you talk about "thinning" of the atmosphere? Loss of oxygen? Increase in carbon dioxide? It's a closed system. The atmosphere can't get any "thinner" (except through natural means). All we can do is change its composition.

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/EarthObservatory/ThinningUpperAtmosphere.htm

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/04atmosphere/

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/04atmosphere/

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4650

http://astronomyonline.org/SolarSystem/EarthWeather.asp

zuutroy

If its such an immediate effect and a direct result of our industry, why did global temps fall for 30 years in the middle of last century?