Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZAGGIN
  • 3,647 comments
  • 267,011 views

Which of the following statements best reflects your views on Global Warming?


  • Total voters
    497
If people are worried about environmentalism, then maybe they should stop Pakistan from crushing imported bottles of alcohol. It too resources and stuff to make this alcohol. Probably some electricity from coal-fired power plants. Then it had to be shipped places, burning valuable fossil fuels.

And now Pakistan is crushing them before they're used for their intended purpose, all because it's against their religion or some goofy thing like that. You'd think at least they could be clever and resell it. Make some money instead of wasting resources.

jan4f.jpg
The same should apply to America which burns millions of dollars worth of drugs every year. All those drugs have to be harvested and processed. There are places where those drugs are not illegal and don't have weird laws and enforcement.:sly:
 
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/2010-tied-earths-hottest-year-record-noaa-reports/

2010 and 2005 were the two hottest years since records have been kept. Not saying it means anything or why it happens. Just another stick in the sand to ponder as we shiver in the cold. Note also that 2010 was the wettest year on record. Currently there is flooding in the antipodes of Australia, Ceylon and Brazil.

Ceylon hasn't been called Ceylon for about 40 years. ;)

2010 was a mad year in the UK, we had both the warmest and coldest temperatures recorded in the same month (for that month) in Yorkshire, something like a 30 C difference in the course of a month.

Been our worst winter in quite a while. Though winter is never that bad down here, I can sneeze on France.
 
I think it's pretty clear that the average global temperature is going up and the sea levels are rising. The only really plausible explanation right now is increasing greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect plays a lesser role in climate change.

The only real scientific debate is what should we do about it. Cutting carbon emissions is a long term solution but it probably wont help us much in the next 50-100 years. I think we will need something more drastic to reduce the amount of energy that enters our atmosphere in the short term.

There really is no scientific debate over what we should do about it, only what causes it, and why it should be either banned, regulated, or taxed for use.
 
I've noticed that recent research seems to indicate that cosmic rays have more to do with climate change than anything else.

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

When cosmic rays are stronger, the Earth gets cooler.

Cosmic rays are mitigated by solar activity. More sunspots indicate a more active Sun. A more active Sun pushes against cosmic rays with the "solar wind".

Cosmic rays are therefore interesting and important, but the origin of them seems vague to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/02/science.1199172


Note however:

* Some of the global warming is still because of us humans (probably about 1/3 to 1/2 of the warming)
* There are many good reasons why we should strive towards using less fossil fuels and more clean alternatives, even though global warming is not the main reason.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
 
Last edited:
A doctor's group is suggesting that biofuel regulations may kill more people than global warming estimates.

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/04/05/increased-biofuel-production-could-result-more-death-disease/

Their opening summary:
TUCSON, Ariz., March 28, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- U.S. and European policy to increase production of ethanol and other biofuels to displace fossil fuels is supposed to help human health by reducing "global warming." Instead it has added to the global burden of death and disease.

Increased production of biofuels increases the price of food worldwide by diverting crops and cropland from feeding people to feeding motor vehicles. Higher food prices, in turn, condemn more people to chronic hunger and "absolute poverty" (defined as income less than $1.25 per day). But hunger and poverty are leading causes of premature death and excess disease worldwide. Therefore, higher biofuel production would increase death and disease.

I don't know a whole lot about AAPS or really how much research they did other than just quoting figures they are getting from UN and US official reports, but I can see how if you have people on the brink of survival due to poverty and starvation that moving that brink will kill them.

If this can be proved out, which they claim it is far more proven than global warming estimates, it would be an interesting ethical discussion among environmentalists.
 
I'm not keen on the language used by the author here (must we constantly call it alarmist studies and alarmist predictions?) but the study he is referring to does seem to call into question the current global warming forecasts used by those claiming that anthropogenic global warming is nearing a point of no return.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

With the tone the author is taking I am not going to weigh in on the accuracy of this, but if the data is accurate I wonder if the debate will change at all.
 
I just saw this as well - a few things leap out, firstly that the article was written by the not-biased-at-all 'Heartland Institute', and that the study itself was co-authored by Roy Spencer, a renowed climate change skeptic (and creationist). The repeated references to 'alarmist' computer models irritated me immensely, but that's only to be expected from the Heartland Institute... that said, it will be interesting to see what, if anything, might come of it - but something tells me that it will probably not be the bombshell that the author seems to think it will be...
 
I suppose if you take out the fact that the author has clearly made up his mind, the data speaks for itself.
 
...And now Pakistan is crushing them before they're used for their intended purpose, all because it's against their religion or some goofy thing like that. You'd think at least they could be clever and resell it. Make some money instead of wasting resources.

jan4f.jpg

Nooooooooooooooooooooo, not the Bailey's! Are they serious? 👎:eek:


I want to see the acohol level of their ground wather. :lol:
 
Last edited:
if the data is accurate I wonder if the debate will change at all.

Even if the data is 100% accurate and says precisely what the author claims I don't believe it'll change the debate at all, since the issue has become politicized and even a source of tax revenue. Or perhaps the debate will become irrelevant. Govt: "Shut up and pay your carbon tax."
 
Thumbs down at people that don't believe in global warming...
I think everyone knows it exists, but they refuse to accept the fact they took part in it.

Not to brag or anything, but I can basically dis-proeve the theory of man-made global warming in nearly one sentence. Honestly, it takes as much faith to believe in global warming as it does God nowadays.
 
For everyone who is desperately looking for some solution, I offer this: One child for every couple, no more. Halve our population in a few generations, declare some areas currently occupied by humans to be reclaimation zones where new plant life could grow to clean the air.

I don't think you can argue that human activity doesn't affect the climate, the simple act of replacing what used to be trees and dirt with concrete will have an effect on local temperatures. Is pollution making a giant dutch oven where we will all die slowly inhaling thousands of years of trapped farts? I don't know. Frankly I don't care, because if we replace people with trees then it wouldn't matter.
 
Not to brag or anything, but I can basically dis-proeve the theory of man-made global warming in nearly one sentence.

I'd be interested to hear it, since even the world's brightest scientists can't agree whether AGW is real or not.
 
I'd be interested to hear it, since even the world's brightest scientists can't agree whether AGW is real or not.

This: We cannot distinguish our own contribution from that of nearly every other contributing factor that plays into a change in climate.
 
Last edited:
For everyone who is desperately looking for some solution, I offer this: One child for every couple, no more. Halve our population in a few generations, declare some areas currently occupied by humans to be reclaimation zones where new plant life could grow to clean the air.

I don't think you can argue that human activity doesn't affect the climate, the simple act of replacing what used to be trees and dirt with concrete will have an effect on local temperatures. Is pollution making a giant dutch oven where we will all die slowly inhaling thousands of years of trapped farts? I don't know. Frankly I don't care, because if we replace people with trees then it wouldn't matter.

We blew that one apart a year ago.
 
For everyone who is desperately looking for some solution, I offer this: One child for every couple, no more. Halve our population in a few generations, declare some areas currently occupied by humans to be reclaimation zones where new plant life could grow to clean the air.

I don't think you can argue that human activity doesn't affect the climate, the simple act of replacing what used to be trees and dirt with concrete will have an effect on local temperatures. Is pollution making a giant dutch oven where we will all die slowly inhaling thousands of years of trapped farts? I don't know. Frankly I don't care, because if we replace people with trees then it wouldn't matter.

THIS!!!

Human population numbers were steady... right up unto the industrial revolution, when our numbers started growing in plague-like proportions.

edit: found the documentary (this is far more watchable... split over quite a few parts).. and I cannot help but thoroughly agree with him.

 
Last edited:
And I am sure you all have a way to control population without creating the sort of immoral and unjust policies that lead to public revolt.
 
And I am sure you all have a way to control population without creating the sort of immoral and unjust policies that lead to public revolt.

And that'd it'd work much better than China's existing policies of torture and murder which have no effect whatsoever on birthrates - as we all discussed a year ago in the link I posted immediately before the video.
 
The problem clearly is our numbers... so, how do we control that?

If we can control that, we certainly have a better possibility of controlling climate change.

The problem is, its all well and good to suggest these things... they sound great UNTIL they affect us individually. People are selfish and think it is their right to have 30 childen if they so chose regardless of the impact it may have on the environment around them.
 
We blew that one apart a year ago.

that link was a great read.

Just one remark, the power of people as creative beings seems to have an impact, although I see it also as current status that the causality towards global warming is unclear.

More people means for me more fight for efficiency, competitiveness, more actions to avoid the thread of others, more activity to feed (intellectually and physically) ...
The risk that our impact is significant increases with a higher population.
So it could be beneficial to our species that we limit the numbers (quantity, at least till we have more control on impact) and spend time on quality (education, respect for the environment, economical and ecological distribution of means, ....)

All that could maybe be realized without limiting the population, all that could make it worse then we are doing now, ...

The whole global warming discussion seems indeed to turn in religion, political game terrain (Nuclear in German not eco, in France eco, etc...

My belief is that looking at minimizing the impact of our (individual and complete humanity) actions makes sense, but we should not overreact either.
 
This: We cannot distinguish our own contribution from that of nearly every other contributing factor that plays into a change in climate.

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that it's difficult to measure.
 
Sam48
Not to brag or anything, but I can basically dis-proeve the theory of man-made global warming in nearly one sentence. Honestly, it takes as much faith to believe in global warming as it does God nowadays.

That's impossible unless your 63 million years old.
 
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that it's difficult to measure.

Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. I believe the earth has warmed (Not much, but some). But I don't believe we are the cause.

That's impossible unless your 63 million years old.

How would that help? Also, read my statement about why it is wrong to believe in man-made global warming. (A little bit up the page)
 
This: We cannot distinguish our own contribution from that of nearly every other contributing factor that plays into a change in climate.

This,

Also scientists and GW believers like to put all their focus/blame on co2 as the main contributor. It's not, co2 is the #3 greenhouse gas behind water vapor and methane, which come almost entirely from nature.

Co2 is man's largest contribution towards GW, still a drop in the bucket compared to the co2 that nature puts out.
 
Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. I believe the earth has warmed (Not much, but some). But I don't believe we are the cause.

That makes more sense. As for whether we're the cause or not, I'm on the fence. I don't think we're making things any better for everyone, but it's debatable whether we're making things significantly worse.

Also scientists and GW believers like to put all their focus/blame on co2 as the main contributor. It's not, co2 is the #3 greenhouse gas behind water vapor and methane, which come almost entirely from nature.

The main problem with this is that water vapour is entirely natural and cycles between atmosphere and the seas constantly.

Methane is largely natural, but largely natural to an extent that much of it is produced by the cattle that humans have cultivated for food.

And CO2 is fairly minor percentage-wise, but the CO2 that humans are causing isn't cyclical - the carbon molecules have been locked underground over millennia and we're now releasing them all in one go, which isn't a natural process. Volcanoes do it, but then they've always done it.

I'm still not saying that humans are responsible for global warming, but we do put a hell of a lot of stuff into the atmosphere (not just CO2) that wouldn't be there otherwise.
 
Back