Global warming

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I was reading another thread and some people write "I don't believe in global warming" like its some sort of religion...

For what reason do people not believe in global warming? It's pretty obvious that we do have an effect on this earth, a pretty negative one. We also know that climate change is a pretty natural thing, yet from scientific research it shows it takes much longer than what is happening now.

Co2 can't be good for the environment.

I hear a lot of liberal rockers saying "global warming is a government conspiracy to bla bla bla". Is it a PR stunt? Are they really that thick and paronoid?

I mean, of course people are going to cash in on this, increasing taxes and selling "environmental friendly" products etc etc.

I mean, recycling is a great thing, we don't have as much waste and we get to keep more resources.

Why are people so "hippyish" against global warming. A lot of them fools will say "if you believe that crap then you are a sheep"... I say people should be left to believe what they wish. No need to directly insult people based on their beliefs.

PirateShampoo

Its a myth, the planet goes through cycles, it always has and it always will.

Jesus Wept

TBH, I'm reserving my judgements until I find out what Jim Corr's stance on the matter is.

genericguy

some people are cnuts, essentially. there's too many joe higgins types going around looking for something they can say no to, so that they can feel like they're fightin' da powah.

genericguy

The-Rigger wrote: »

TBH, I'm reserving my judgements until I find out what Jim Corr's stance on the matter is.

he said it's all part of elton john's plan for the establishment of a new world order, to be led by rocket-men.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Its a myth, the planet goes through cycles, it always has and it always will.

This is true, it is a natural occurance. Yet, it doesn't happen as fast as it is now. The change between tempretures and the likes is more noticable. In our life time a lone it will change quite a bit.

Genericguy, this is so true, didn't think about that though It's more of a stand than anything else I guess?

AckwelFoley

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Its a myth, the planet goes through cycles, it always has and it always will.

Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries.

Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.


Its the rate of the change that is alarming.
Yes, we had an ice age infact at least four of them, but they didnt take a few hundred years to come develop. Add a few zeros.

My name is URL

The problem is that the people in charge of stopping it have latched on to it as a bargaining chip to gain support

only an idiot would say that Climate Change isn't happening..
only an idiot would say that it's solely the fault of humans for causing it..
and only an idiot would choose to ignore it because of that...

It's happening, whether it's natural or caused by man, and instead of arguing about it, we should be figuring out ways of dealing with it

Pompey Magnus

Quinton Ripe Choke wrote: »

For what reason do people not believe in global warming? It's pretty obvious that we do have an effect on this earth, a pretty negative one. We also know that climate change is a pretty natural thing, yet from scientific research it shows it takes much longer than what is happening now.

Climate records are extremely poor and hard to guage over long periods, it is unwise to compare climate change rates over the last few years with periods of hundreds of thousands of years.

Co2 can't be good for the environment.

Eh, life would be impossible on Earth without CO2 so in fact it is very, very good for the environment.

I hear a lot of liberal rockers saying "global warming is a government conspiracy to bla bla bla". Is it a PR stunt? Are they really that thick and paronoid?

Well it did get a big boost as a result of the Thatcher governments dispute with the coal miners during the 80s, don't know about consipracy though.

I mean, recycling is a great thing, we don't have as much waste and we get to keep more resources.

Recycling is only cost effective for aluminium, all the rest is done at a loss and usually the recycling process creates more pollution than landfill.

Why are people so "hippyish" against global warming. A lot of them fools will say "if you believe that crap then you are a sheep"... I say people should be left to believe what they wish. No need to directly insult people based on their beliefs.

When people suffer because of the policies suggested to combat global warming then your opinion that people should be left to believe what they want goes out the window. This stuff actually affects people I'm afraid.

PirateShampoo

Well at some point we are going to reach critical mass on population, the pollution will get worse and there will be a global catastrophe, famine, plague etc. Then nature will balance it self out if we are here or not.

Did anybody watch the nature program on Chernobyl, where the wildlife is booming because man has gone?

Somnus

I agree that the earth does go through cycles but it's happening too quick as a result of human activity. It won't be the end of the world though.
Cue massive natural disaster at some point in the future that will wipe out a vast majority of the human race so the world can balance itself out.

Edit: Damn you Pirate , got there jsut before me

There are benefits to global warming !! But nobody ever mentions this!
The damn Sahara was a helluva lot greener about 10,000 years ago

During the holocene optimum the temp was warmer than it is now. This was the warmest period since the ice age. The Sahara was green and forests in Russia extended 200km further North than they do now. A bad thing?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara_2.html

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Earth/Computer_simulations_reveal_three_green_Sahara_episodes_over_120000_years/rssarticleshow/3549438.cms

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14536-stone-age-mass-graves-reveal-green-sahara.html?feedId=online-news_rss20



http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/advantages.htm
^^ That site has a list of advantages and disadvantages.
If the holocene optimum is anything to go by you can add alot more to the advantages list.

Stansted University says we will live longer and be healthier in a warmer world
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html

A warmer globe would likely result in the polar jet stream's retreating towards higher latitudes; in the Northern Hemisphere the climate belt would move North (Lamb 1972, p. 117-118; Giles 1990). Thus an average annual 3.7deg.C increase in temperature for New York City, for example, would give it the climate of Atlanta. NYC's summertime temperatures, however, would not go up commensurably: the average high temperature in Atlanta during June, July, and August is only 2.2deg.C warmer than New York City's and the latter city has on record a higher summer temperature than does the capital of Georgia. Summer temperatures generally differ less than winter temperatures on roughly the same longitude and differ less than average temperatures.

A sample of 45 metropolitan areas in the United States shows that for each increase of a degree in the average annual temperature, July's average temperatures go up by only 0.5 degrees while January's average temperatures climb by 1.5deg.[2]. Since warming will likely exert the maximum effect during the coldest periods but have much less effect during the hottest months, the climate change should reduce deaths even more than any summer increase might boost them.

PirateShampoo

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Well at some point we are going to reach critical mass on population, the pollution will get worse and there will be a global catastrophe, famine, plague etc. Then nature will balance it self out if we are here or not.

Did anybody watch the nature program on Chernobyl, where the wildlife is booming because man has gone?

Be a good idea to heat the planet up so and expand the land we can grow on.
Has anyone been to Phoenix Arizona? The city in the desert? The US grows a hell of alot of wheat there using irrigation. Same in Western Australia just north of Perth they have the Wheatbelt. The west of Australia is pretty much desert except in the south and extreme north. Anyway point is we can deal with global warming and humanity has proven itself capable of living well and comfortably and profitably in these areas.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html

Known for its massive ice sheets, Greenland is feeling the effects of global warming as rising temperatures have expanded the island's growing season and crops are flourishing. For the first time in hundreds of years, it has become possible to raise cattle and start dairy farms.

Jesus Wept

The-Rigger wrote: »

TBH, I'm reserving my judgements until I find out what Jim Corr's stance on the matter is.

Got a txt back from Jim; apparently it's the new Y2K... ...yadda yadda... something about lizards... ...etc etc... and then a joke that's so offensive to all races I won't be repeating it.... ... he had potato waffles for his tea.


So I'm agin it.

PirateShampoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Be a good idea to heat the planet up so and expand the land we can grow on.
Has anyone been to Phoenix Arizona? The city in the desert? The US grows a hell of alot of wheat there using irrigation. Same in Western Australia just north of Perth they have the Wheatbelt. The west of Australia is pretty much desert except in the south. Anyway point is we can deal with global warming and humanity has proven itself capable of living well and comfortably and profitably in these areas.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html

And what will happen when man is forced into desert areas and there isn't enough fresh water to water crops and drink.

Like i said its all about critical mass. At some point it will implode.

soundsham

who cares we'll all get the benefits of a warmer climate
some other gimp can fix it when we're gone.......


ah ok so I'll help......reducing screen brightness to save the world

dr.bollocko

Load of crap.

galwayrush

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Load of crap.

Yep, it's happened before a few times, bloody nature.:p

jumpguy

I'm more annoyed that global warming has become the fixation when it comes to human's effects on climate. Has everyone forgotten about deforestation, acid rain, radioactive pollution, water pollution depletion of the ozone layer, etc? These things have immediate and severe consequences but you'd bearly find a breath about them in the press these days, it's all global warming this and that.

As regards global warming, whether humans caused it or not, it's a problem that needs to be tackled/slowed by us somehow. Pumping CO2 into the air at alarming rates, and cutting down the very tree's that absorb it isn't helping. I think global warming is a combination of natural planet rhythms and human interference. We exasperate the cycle. For example, in 2006 (I think), if nature had it's way, the North Pole would've shrunk to 6 million square kilometers. A pretty big shrinkage, just for nature all by itself. However, thanks to the excess greenhouse gasses due to humans, instead in went to less than 4.5 million square kilometers (don't quote me on that figure). Smaller than it would've been if it was natural cycles alone.
There's evidence of these cycles alright, but the speed at which this one is taking place is unprecedented.

PirateShampoo

PirateShampoo wrote: »

And what will happen when man is forced into desert areas and there isn't enough fresh water to water crops and drink.

Like i said its all about critical mass. At some point it will implode.

The Sahara was greener the monsoons were stronger during the holocene optimum. They get on fine in Arizone they use irrigation. Groundwater, desalination. Its all possible. Population is an issue regardless of warming or not. In fact if you read my posts you would see that in a warmer world the amount of arable land increases from the Sahara to the Tundra!

jumpguy

jumpguy wrote: »

I'm more annoyed that global warming has become the fixation when it comes to human's effects on climate. Has everyone forgotten about deforestation, acid rain, radioactive pollution, water pollution depletion of the ozone layer, etc? These things have immediate and severe consequences but you'd bearly find a breath about them in the press these days, it's all global warming this and that.

As regards global warming, whether humans caused it or not, it's a problem that needs to be tackled/slowed by us somehow. Pumping CO2 into the air at alarming rates, and cutting down the very tree's that absorb it isn't helping. I think global warming is a combination of natural planet rhythms and human interference. We exasperate the cycle. For example, in 2006 (I think), if nature had it's way, the North Pole would've shrunk to 6 million square kilometers. A pretty big shrinkage, just for nature all by itself. However, thanks to the excess greenhouse gasses due to humans, instead in went to less than 4.5 million square kilometers (don't quote me on that figure). Smaller than it would've been if it was natural cycles alone.
There's evidence of these cycles alright, but the speed at which this one is taking place is unprecedented.

THREAD SPOILER:

Its called climate change now because they cant stand over the phrase "global warming" anymore

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Charco wrote: »

Climate records are extremely poor and hard to guage over long periods, it is unwise to compare climate change rates over the last few years with periods of hundreds of thousands of years.

It's not that hard actually... You find an increase of 1 degree over a period of about 25 years, the same increase would take 250 years thousands of years ago... It is comparable.



[Eh, life would be impossible on Earth without CO2 so in fact it is very, very good for the environment.[/quote]

I meant an excess, which is what we are pumping out at the moment, this is not good for anything.

Recycling is only cost effective for aluminium, all the rest is done at a loss and usually the recycling process creates more pollution than landfill.

Who said anything about money?

When people suffer because of the policies suggested to combat global warming then your opinion that people should be left to believe what they want goes out the window. This stuff actually affects people I'm afraid.

Who are effected by combating global warming? A lot of people are already effected by global warming as it is. Be it minor or major problems.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Load of crap.

Why? Do you have a proper argument? :rolleyes:

dsmythy

Thoughtful non-hysterical article from the bbc on the subject recently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

I didn't know the hottest year on record was 1998 and we havn't surpassed it yet. If the increase in temperatures are meant to be so stark and sudden the warming really ought to be getting it's act together.

The article asks whatever happened to global warming. The answer is it is now been renamed climate change. So it can get cooler, warmer, wetter whatever and it fits nicely for them.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

dsmythy wrote: »

Thoughtful non-hysterical article from the bbc on the subject recently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

I didn't know the hottest year on record was 1998 and we havn't surpassed it yet. If the increase in temperatures are meant to be so stark and sudden the warming really ought to be getting it's act together.

The article asks whatever happened to global warming. The answer is it is now been renamed climate change. So it can get cooler, warmer, wetter whatever and it fits nicely for them.

1998 was 11 years ago, that is so small it is actually insignificant on the earths time line...

Maybe climate change is a better name for it, more accurate. Global warming wasn't a great name for it at all. Why do you say "it fits nicely for them". Who is "them"?

SLUSK

Quinton Ripe Choke wrote: »

I was reading another thread and some people write "I don't believe in global warming" like its some sort of religion...

For what reason do people not believe in global warming? It's pretty obvious that we do have an effect on this earth, a pretty negative one. We also know that climate change is a pretty natural thing, yet from scientific research it shows it takes much longer than what is happening now.

Co2 can't be good for the environment.

I hear a lot of liberal rockers saying "global warming is a government conspiracy to bla bla bla". Is it a PR stunt? Are they really that thick and paronoid?

I mean, of course people are going to cash in on this, increasing taxes and selling "environmental friendly" products etc etc.

I mean, recycling is a great thing, we don't have as much waste and we get to keep more resources.

Why are people so "hippyish" against global warming. A lot of them fools will say "if you believe that crap then you are a sheep"... I say people should be left to believe what they wish. No need to directly insult people based on their beliefs.

If you say that the earth is warming, which data are you basing this on? Which methods have been used to measure the temperature, ground based stations, satelite readings?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

SLUSK wrote: »

If you say that the earth is warming, which data are you basing this on? Which methods have been used to measure the temperature, ground based stations, satelite readings?

General reading of many articles. I don't filofax them in my brain so I don't have links. I can search for them if it is essential, but I rather not A lot of it is general knowledge, not including all the figures and the likes. I am basing it on facts that come from NASA space research as well as research done on ground.

The earth will continue to cool and warm, until it dies. Both sides argue on mans influence in this. Normally scientist will put forward evidence that our presence is speeding things up. The opposition normally post like Dr. Bollocko did, but don't back up their reasoning.

I think it is happening because there is more evidence to back it up.

Pompey Magnus

Quinton Ripe Choke wrote: »

It's not that hard actually... You find an increase of 1 degree over a period of about 25 years, the same increase would take 250 years thousands of years ago... It is comparable.

Our thermometer record began about 150 years ago, the coldest part of the little ice age. Therefore our most accurate temperature record starts at the coldest period that the earth has experienced in 10,000 years. Naturally enough the temperature has risen. You are comparing accurate temperature records with records derived by proxy, there are serious risks with assuming you are comparing like with like.

Also I don't know where you got 1 degree rise in 25 years, even the most far fetched IPCC figures claim it was less than a 1 degree rise over the last 100 years.

I meant an excess, which is what we are pumping out at the moment, this is not good for anything.

Depends on what you define as excessive CO2 emissions, if you put the cart before the horse and assume that CO2 is the main driver for climate change then fair enough.

Who said anything about money?

Like it or not we live in the real world and cost benefit analysis is a pretty good system for deciding whether to do stuff, recycling fails in this regard.

Who are effected by combating global warming? A lot of people are already effected by global warming as it is. Be it minor or major problems.

Developing countries are affected by the environmentalist movements attempts at bringing about global change. Africa will never industrialise if it is expected to be reliant on green energy. You will never run steel mills using wind energy and solar panels. If we in the west tell developing countries that they must reduce their pollution we are in effect saying "we have our cake now you can't have yours because it may negatively impact on our comfortable way of life".

dsmythy

Quinton Ripe Choke wrote: »

1998 was 11 years ago, that is so small it is actually insignificant on the earths time line...

Maybe climate change is a better name for it, more accurate. Global warming wasn't a great name for it at all. Why do you say "it fits nicely for them". Who is "them"?

It was only 11 years ago but with people pushing the urgency of our situation as heavily as they are it's a fact that makes me not 100% certain on it's urgency. We hear about how the temperature increased so dramatically in the last few decades yet it appears not to have been occuring in the last decade despite the fact that our CO2 emmisions are as high as ever. Will we get the increase in temperature over the next 10 years? If not when do we doubt ourselves and our predictions? What were the predictions in the late 90's for temperatures in 2009? Were the scientists correct?

I'm not doubting it full stop myself like others who seem to do it just to be of the non-prevailing opinion. I'm just not convinced on the imminent seriousness of man's impact on the planet. Im sure there's scientists doing the same thing as we speak. Seeking other possibilities as well as developing the current opinion for manmade changes in climate.

As for 'they'. 'They' are not the scientists (except perhaps those who have played a lead role in the theory and have a big interest for their career and reputation that they be proven correct) changing phrases to suit them. they are the people whose lives are connected to climate change in some way. Big business, environmental protesters, and the aforementioned reputation risking scientists are 'they' who will change their minds on phrasing, processes and what the data is saying to them to suit their message.

I just ask that we lose the one track mind on climate change and question it without fear of being called a 'loon' for doing so. Maybe the answers we get will convince us. Maybe the questions will make us reconsider what the hell we've been doing for the last 20 years.

DigiGal

No point even arguing about this...

People would rather pretend something bad isn't happening and go about their own little existences

Anyone who feels empathy or is worried about the planet etc will be seen as an idiot or a "hippy"
I mean how dare we think about anything but our own lives. There will always be the arseholes who take a 20 minute shower cause its all a conspiracy and propaganda...
People who will give cleverly thought out smart arse replies to generate as many thanks as possible as they think it some how makes them more valuable in teh real world cause their lives are that small....

Pollution is there you can see it, yes its a natural cycle but there wasn't any smog or cars or light pollution or nuclear waste etc etc thousands of years ago....But of course all that ****e we are pumping out into the atmosphere has no effect on anyhting what so ever i'm sure they had the same amount of pollution before the last ice age, all the dinos farting and all....

But no its all lies, the ice shrinking in the artic, the massive tsunamis, hurricanes etc, acid rain, deforestation, the bizzare weather patterns...all the people saying ah we will get a warmer climate sure, no in fact itwill have quite the opposite effect on Irealnd as it will disturb movemnts in the gulf stream and half freeze us to death...if we aren't half under water by then.

But of course all the scientists, political leaders, independent groups and average people are all lying, its a giant conspiracy against all the car drivers and tech lovers...

If people read up on how much money not keeping to the Kyoto agreement is costing us they'd be quick enough to moan about it then

thebman

There is no conclusive evidence that we are having a massive effect.

Sure we are polluting and effecting the environment in some way but to say sure look at the pollution, there is loads of it isn't evidence that we are effecting anything to any significant degree.

I think many people just want to believe we are on the brink of catastrophe, same as Y2K. Maybe it makes their lifes more exciting or something. I'd rather see evidence before I accept the claim. Oh but I'm for polluting less because I like clean air although we'll probably just find out everyone else is farting a lot in public like with the ban on smoking in pubs

squod

Also very hard to sell stuff or raise taxes based on solar anomylies, we're through the looking glass here people.

orourkeda

Its better doing this than suckin' on a pipe

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Charco wrote: »

Our thermometer record began about 150 years ago, the coldest part of the little ice age. Therefore our most accurate temperature record starts at the coldest period that the earth has experienced in 10,000 years. Naturally enough the temperature has risen. You are comparing accurate temperature records with records derived by proxy, there are serious risks with assuming you are comparing like with like.

I am not 100% sure how scientists get measurments from 100 thousand years ago... is it an estimate?

Also I don't know where you got 1 degree rise in 25 years, even the most far fetched IPCC figures claim it was less than a 1 degree rise over the last 100 years.

I made up the numbers, and I think it has been over a period 150 years or that the increase took place?

Depends on what you define as excessive CO2 emissions, if you put the cart before the horse and assume that CO2 is the main driver for climate change then fair enough.

In excess of what can be recycled and broken down by the earth.

Like it or not we live in the real world and cost benefit analysis is a pretty good system for deciding whether to do stuff, recycling fails in this regard.

This is true. Yet it shouldn't always be the ultimate deciding factor. Government grants and the likes could help. Or maybe let the government take on all recycling? That would cost more in the long run though

Developing countries are affected by the environmentalist movements attempts at bringing about global change. Africa will never industrialise if it is expected to be reliant on green energy. You will never run steel mills using wind energy and solar panels. If we in the west tell developing countries that they must reduce their pollution we are in effect saying "we have our cake now you can't have yours because it may negatively impact on our comfortable way of life".

Ok this I didn't think of either. It's not obvious to me, but thanks for the clarification. Do wind and water powered turbines not generate enough power for these mills?

thebman wrote: »

There is no conclusive evidence that we are having a massive effect.

Sure we are polluting and effecting the environment in some way but to say sure look at the pollution, there is loads of it isn't evidence that we are effecting anything to any significant degree.

I think many people just want to believe we are on the brink of catastrophe, same as Y2K. Maybe it makes their lifes more exciting or something. I'd rather see evidence before I accept the claim. Oh but I'm for polluting less because I like clean air although we'll probably just find out everyone else is farting a lot in public like with the ban on smoking in pubs

Well it's definately not a good thing to do nothing just in case. You know?

I can't see all the pollution having a positive effect on anything really.

jimmycrackcorm

Thanks to global warming we don't live in the Ice Age. But, wait - who caused that big melt down?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Thanks to global warming we don't live in the Ice Age. But, wait - who caused that big melt down?

Read the thread then come back...

Turtwig

Global Climate Change is a relativity young scientific theory, as such, the evidence for both supporting and opposing it has been slow to accumulate and interpret. However, it is now genuinely regarded within the scientific community as a valid theory. So the question really is do you trust the scientists?
Charco (and others like him/her:)), is (are) a skeptic(s), so I've no doubt that in time if he keeps an open mind his position will support the scientists or he will have to proof to convince them of otherwise. There are other posters here who seem to base the earth on their own intuition; it is a beautifully complicated system that deserves more than simple intuitive beliefs.
Science at the moment tells us that Global Warming is happening. It may be wrong (though it most likely isn't ), but saying it is wrong for irrational nonsensical reasons is pointless and misinforming others.

Turtwig

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Well at some point we are going to reach critical mass on population..

Population Growth is mainly happening in Africa, Europe and the US are seeing a decrease in the rate of growth with projected decreases in population as the societies age. Bottom line, this critical population that you suppose doesn't seem as black and white as it actually is.
Right Now as it stands world population increase ~80k per hour, most of that increase though is attributable to Africa. The introduction of sex education and hopefully a better standard of living should lower that substantially.:)

Also, Thought I'd add this troubling video

If there is something we can do to stop climate change we really should do it.

Pompey Magnus

DigiGal wrote: »

Pollution is there you can see it, yes its a natural cycle but there wasn't any smog or cars or light pollution or nuclear waste etc etc thousands of years ago....

Yes there was none of that thousands of years ago, but don't forget that also thousands of years ago there was no modern civilization. Humans lived a short, diificult and violent life where they were lucky to even survive child birth and making it into your 40s was seen as a great accomplishment.

It has become fashionable now to vilify industrialisation, the ironic thing is that these people who think industry is a bad word have no problem in taking full advantage of all the benefits that this brings whilst at the same time hypocritically getting on their soap box and condemning it for the negatives that result from it.

all the people saying ah we will get a warmer climate sure, no in fact itwill have quite the opposite effect on Irealnd as it will disturb movemnts in the gulf stream and half freeze us to death...if we aren't half under water by then.

There is no evidence to support this claim, in fact there is evidence suggesting the exact opposite. The Florida current is a thermal currentwhich joins the Gulf stream and it has been shown to actually get stronger with warming, being at its strongest during the Medievel Warm Period.

If people read up on how much money not keeping to the Kyoto agreement is costing us they'd be quick enough to moan about it then

I know the facts and figures relating to Kyoto and I certainly wouldn't moan if Kyoto never saw the light of day. Ona global average, for every dollar spent on implementing Kyoto there would be only a positive return of 34 cents. This kind of return would make the Irish government look good in their negotiation of NAMA. Kyoto, fully implemented, would cost $5 trillion. The positive effects would be a 0.3°F lower temperature in 2100 compared to what would happen if no action is taken, however this 0.3°F would be made up by 2105.

So basically Kyoto asks the world to pay $5,000,000,000,000 so that we can have the global temperature of 2100 in 2105 instead.

Pompey Magnus

Quinton Ripe Choke wrote: »

In excess of what can be recycled and broken down by the earth.

You underestimate the power of Earth, it is actually very capable of coping with the carbon in the environment, in fact carbon levels today are miniscule with what they had been in the past yet the Earth was well able to handle it, it is estimated that CO2 was 350 times higher during the period of global scale glaciation.

Ok this I didn't think of either. It's not obvious to me, but thanks for the clarification. Do wind and water powered turbines not generate enough power for these mills?

Well certainly not solar or wind power, water perhaps on a localised level but it would not be sufficient to industrialise a whole continent.

I can't see all the pollution having a positive effect on anything really.

Well on that face of it that is fair enough, but maybe you might try and think about it again. We do not have massive factories which are solely designed to spew out as much pollution as possible. Pollution is a by product. The positive effect of the pollution is that we in the west live a comfortable lifestyle, most of us are no longer worried about where our next meal will come from or whether our loved ones will survive what is now very treatable illnesses. We are no longer confined to one small locality for all our lives, we can do what no other period in humanity could do, see the Niagara falls one day and Ayers Rock the next if we wish. We should be proud of how far we have come as a species, not have this negative complex where we feel like we should be ashamed and should apologise for it.

For us to enjoy the vast benefits of modern civilisation and human ingenuity then we must also accept that yes, pollution is a neccesary negative. So can you honestly see no positives to the pollution, because I can.

Min

30 years ago carbon was blamed for global cooling.
The cooling then stopped....
Heating started....
People blame carbon....

Just an excuse for something to tax it seems.

We should try and reduce as much as possible all forms of pollution.

Here is an extract from Newsweek 1975 on global cooling:

[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]here are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

goes onto say

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality

When it comes to predictions scientists in this area lack any credibility, it just serves certain purposes like a reason to tax, or increase the role of green technology which gives jobs - no problem whatsoever in that as it should help reduce pollution and provide more sustainable living.

Nolanger

Quinton Ripe Choke wrote: »

Co2 can't be good for the environment.

Exactly, what with killing plants and stuff!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Nolanger wrote: »

Exactly, what with killing plants and stuff!

What I really dislike is people not reading the thread of posts fully and making stupid posts... really... start reading.

BraziliaNZ

regardless of whether the earth is warming or not, we are destroying the planet purely by our ever increasing populations. Ireland used to be mostly thick forest, now there aren't any wild forests that i know of. The Earth can't live with everything being destroyed for consumerism.

dr.bollocko

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

regardless of whether the earth is warming or not, we are destroying the planet purely by our ever increasing populations. Ireland used to be mostly thick forest, now there aren't any wild forests that i know of. The Earth can't live with everything being destroyed for consumerism.

Really?
Prove it.

BraziliaNZ

Malty_T wrote: »

Population Growth is mainly happening in Africa, Europe and the US are seeing a decrease in the rate of growth with projected decreases in population as the societies age

The thing is, Europeans and Americans probably consume about 1000 times as much as your average African, with all the materials and energy we use.

BraziliaNZ

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Really?
Prove it.

just wait and see

ScumLord

Global warming is a smoke screen. It's something that governments and industry can tackle with taxes and look like they do care about the environment while they pollute and pillage the planet.

We are having little to no effect on the planet when it comes to the climate, we're no competition to the sun. It's nothing compared to the real pollution that comes from all the other pollutants but it's much more profitable to target car users.

All you have to do is look at who's promoting the climate change argument to know it's all popular bunkum.

Turtwig

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

The thing is, Europeans and Americans probably consume about 1000 times as much as your average African, with all the materials and energy we use.

Yes, good point, if population was decided on who consumes the most per capita then the US is largely over populated...quite simply that country is the one exerting the most pressure on earth's life systems.

Turtwig

Charco wrote: »

You underestimate the power of Earth, it is actually very capable of coping with the carbon in the environment, in fact carbon levels today are miniscule with what they had been in the past yet the Earth was well able to handle it, it is estimated that CO2 was 350 times higher during the period of global scale glaciation.

You overestimate it greatly, yes is true that carbon levels were higher than there are now. The thing to note is that now the planet has its own complex eco system that deals with carbon levels. This process is very very slow, occurring over thousands of years the fear is that the lifeforms that do this important job may not be able to adapt fast enough to the rapid increase in C02 levels. If that happens, these lifeforms will die and this will most likely cause a feedback mechanism releasing their stored C02 into the atmosphere and thus a nasty cycle will ensue until the planet recovers itself - a very slow process going on how long it took the earth to recover from the last C02 overload.
I've gone worse case there, but the point is the earth is capable of handling C02, the question is can it adapt to the cope with the rapid increase in CO2 levels; if it doesn't then we could be in trouble:(
It's a question though that we shouldn't really have to ask..

ScumLord

Malty_T wrote: »

You overestimate it greatly, yes is true that carbon levels were higher than there are now. The thing to note is that now the planet has its own complex eco system that deals with carbon levels. This process is very very slow, occurring over thousands of years the fear is that the lifeforms that do this important job may not be able to adapt fast enough to the rapid increase in C02 levels. If that happens, these lifeforms will die and this will most likely cause a feedback mechanism releasing their stored C02 into the atmosphere and thus a nasty cycle will ensue until the planet recovers itself - a very slow process going on how long it took the earth to recover from the last C02 overload.
I've gone worse case there, but the point is the earth is capable of handling C02, the question is can it adapt to the cope with the rapid increase in CO2 levels; if it doesn't then we could be in trouble:(

Life and earth is not under any threat. Life on this planet was around when earth was boiling rivers of lava and later when it was completely covered in 100s of feet of ice from north to south. The only thing we can really do is destroy the comfortable environment that suits us. Human life will go on as long as theirs other life on the planet we're possibly one of the best survivors life on this planet has come up with.

Turtwig

ScumLord wrote: »

Life and earth is not under any threat. Life on this planet was around when earth was boiling rivers of lava and later when it was completely covered in 100s of feet of ice from north to south. The only thing we can really do is destroy the comfortable environment that suits us. Human life will go on as long as theirs other life on the planet we're possibly one of the best survivors life on this planet has come up with.

You have gotten to be kidding me!!??

Humans are so new to this planet that our survival rate isn't really the thing to boast about yet. Yes life on earth will continue, indeed mostly likely long after humans are extinct( or have left the planet-optimist:)). The point is it could get very uncomfortable for a lot of people. Not only that because of the way we consumed the resources the first time around we'd have to discover ingenious methods to use new resources to maintain the same technology and infrastructure : If life on earth were reset then the chances of us attaining the advancement we are currently at today is significantly lower with little resources left to exploit.