Why "global warming" Gets Me Heated

AngeloComet wrote:Well. . . never expected to kickstart such well-considered comments, and never really expected to find so much agreement.

Seems we are mostly a cynical lot, and that's fine with me!

AC: I thought you did a brilliant job with the post, as did everyone who contributed with their comments!!

I thoroughly enjoyed it, and hope yourself and perhaps others will post their thoughts in future! It was great fun learning about members views, and finding so many like minded intelligent, thoughtful, people!

A big thanks to "Sunny P" for suggesting it, and asking AC to write about it!!!

Don't believe everything you read.
It may be cliché, but it's something I believe strongly. That goes for for the media, that goes for the government, that goes for the so-called experts, and yes, that goes for AngeloComet.

If you want to speak of cynics, I am among the biggest. And because for the last 21 years I have looked at environmental science with that level of cynicism, I feel I have sorted the fact from the hype.

The greatest strength of humanity is its ability to manipulate our environment to suit its needs. Man developed tools, and those tools allowed us to step above our own place in the food chain. Man's dominance didn't stop when we became the top predator, and so we sought to claim complete dominion over the planet. There was nothing we couldn't control. We brought heat to the arctic, water to the desert, and light to the nighttime. Through advances in transportation, we brought every corner of the globe together -- I can bring a letter to UPS now, and it can be in China, Japan, or Australia tomorrow; when I click "post", this message will be in all parts of the globe instantaneously.

There is nothing we can't manipulate on this planet.

And from the earliest moments of our manipulation of this planet, there have been repercussions. We changed the course of rivers to service our towns, and forever changed the landscape of the places down-river. Amsterdam, Venice, Boston, New Orleans, all built where no land naturally occurred. At this early level of our dominion over the Earth we started making permanent environmental impact on this planet.

Even before we began destroying our air we were destroying our land. Hurricane Katrina was so immensely devastating, not because of the strength of her winds, but because of the natural devastation we had already done to the region. That city could not survive such a catastrophe, because that city was already a victim or our environmental negligence. In southern Louisiana's natural state of fresh water swamp, the impact of Katrina would have been negligible.

I don't blame "global warming", but I could. If I could accept that New Orleans should have even been there in the first place -- if I concede to our domination over the earth, and our desire to make residence in parts of the earth that should not support human life -- then I can say confidently that global warming had it's effect on the situation. The causality is fairly straight forward.

The ambient air temperature rises. Polar ice melts. The salinity of the arctic ocean in lowered due to melting fresh water. Ocean current slow. Wind patterns change. And hurricanes become more prevalent and more powerful. Simple science.

What's not as simple is the overall effect of global warming. When it comes down to it, global warming does not just give us warmer temperatures. If it did, skiers would be upset, but overall, life would be OK. Alas, global warming has little to do with summer and winter temperatures.

AC mentioned a 70's scare of an ice age... that, counter-intuitively, actually has everything to do with global warming. In the same way I described the hurricanes, polar ice melt has the capacity to create even bigger winter storms -- so-called super cells -- that could plunge us into an ice age. A reasonable layman's explanation can be found in the recent Hollywood film "The Day After Tomorrow". We could only be so lucky. An ice age would be the effect of hitting the global reset key; and those of us that survived would have a freshly rebooted planet to start over on.

Alas, the other, less drastic effects of global warming would be far more devastating in the long run. A flash catastrophe would be quick, and absolute, and force us to change our way of life. But the slower effects have longer repercussions, and force us to continue to use our flawed technology to fight it off.

Stitch talked about Ozone depletion and drought. It's amazing that on one side of the planet, there isn't enough water, yet on the other, we have to fear the ocean swallowing our coasts. In 20 years, cities could be gone, swallowed up by the oceans; New York, Venice, Amsterdam just under water. Fact vs. sensationalism: the 20 year marker is not significantly proven; any number of factors could speed or slow oceanic encroachment; but beach erosion is proven, obvious, factual, and measurable; the water line is rising.

Now New York under water would not destroy the world. In fact, since the water level rises at such a slow rate, not a single person would likely be killed. But it's population would move crowd other cities, and the massive movement of that large a population would have environmental ramifications we cannot even comprehend.

That's the danger. We know that CFCs are bad. We ended their use. We know that the burning of fossil fuels produces CO2 emmissions. We have learned to lower them. We've now learned that cattle methane emmissions has a significant impact in global warming. Yes, we could even stop eating beef and close down the commercial cattle farms. But what's the next factor? What's the thing we're doing today that has the unforseen impact on tomorrow?

As we work toward the electric car, do we have the capacity to create green electricity? Can we wind farm enough energy to power a green trucking fleet to bring free-range beef across the globe, or do we simply off-set one environmental catastrophe with another?

I know that no one is saying that global warning isn't real. I know the media can sensationalize aspects of it's reporting. I know that in this country, the reality of "global climate shift" has been a polarizing political topic. But I also know that the reality of human impact on our environment has come to a deadly tipping point, and whatever terminology you chose to use... whatever issue seems most rational... whether you concern yourself with pollution, air pollution, the Ozone layer, the greenhouse effect, global warming, global climate shift, fossil fuel dependence, or the next Ice Age... it's all the same thing. Our manipulation of this planet for our own means, has cause significant devistation that its effects have neared (or possibly passed) irreversability.

I'd consider that fact reasonably sensational.

That was a very well written bit of information CF. I was wondering if you and others commenting here have seen Al Gore's " An Inconvenient Truth" ?
More importantly though!!

I wanted to show you where I was on August 3rd around 3 P.M..It may look familiar to you, and your ears may have been burning, because I was thinking about you and Molly as I was going through here on my way to Mystic CT., and seeing this from the front of my trailblazer.

katesawjack wrote:That was a very well written bit of information CF. I was wondering if you and others commenting here have seen Al Gore's " An Inconvenient Truth" ?

I have. That's where I draw the 20 year figure from. Like anything, I don't believe every "fact" Gore gives in that movie... but then again, you don't usually get a Nobel Prize for just making stuff up.

katesawjack wrote:More importantly though!!

I wanted to show you where I was on August 3rd around 3 P.M..It may look familiar to you, and your ears may have been burning, because I was thinking about you and Molly as I was going through here on my way to Mystic CT., and seeing this from the front of my trailblazer.

Yup... that's home, or rather 1 exit East of home. Mystic's great... that's where we went for my last birthday.

We went to Mystic Seaport, and of course we had to go to Mystic Pizza.
I have never seen the movie, but can you believe it,when we got home it was playing on one of the movie channels. I didn't see it from the start,but it is going to be on again.

Great post CF.

CF,

That was one of the best written items i've read in a along time. You have outstanding writing skills, but I bet I'm not the first one to tell you that.

Agree with the above, a very informative piece there CF.

I have seen an Inconvenient Truth, and it does bring up some very scary yet interesting points.

I completely agree with CF that its our manipulation of our environment that has caused us so many problems. I cant help thinking we are like children who have been forced to grow up too quickly, cast into a world of technology and consumerism with no idea about the consequences. We are, as a society, greedy and lazy. We want our lives to be made as easy and as instantly gratifying as possible. There is more new technology available on the shelves for entertainment and communication, than there is for energy efficiency and self sufficiency.

CF ... That's my Man! <3
Science is sexy, ya hurd?

Joining in on this thread, I must admit that I feel vastly among the minority. Not only would I not classify myself as a cynic, I consider myself an optimist.

That said, when it comes to global climate change, I tend to err on the side that it is likely happening. While it is duly noted that the science in the field of climate study is changing and developing, there is also a growing body of scientific evidence that supports this "hypothesis" (just for you A/C)

Now, for a long time, I too was skeptical. I mean, I didn't get this whole -- it will be terrible for the Earth thing. The primary flaw in the casual global climate change adherent is this idea that we are upsetting the Earth's equilibrium. Hello?!? Earth's climate and weather is not the product of some "equilibrium", which is long-achieved and to which there thus cleaves some moral imperative to maintain the status quo. Earth's climate and weather is actually a dynamic, adjusting entity with little regard to so-called equilibrium. Now, in the short span of human civilization, perhaps we have enjoyed some modicum of predictability. This is what global climate change truly threatens. That said, such a threat is no laughing matter for humanity -- why? b/c we have adjusted our expectations and, in some cases, our style of living to exactly these kind of weather patterns. The threat of global climate change, therefore, is an accelerated process of climate change that destabilizes and threatens human populations (as well as animal/insect populations, etc.).

Of course this shift is disproportionately likely to affect impoverished communities/countries, where
(i) flooding (sea rise),
(ii) drought (change in seasonal rainfall);
(iii) disease (local temperature increases, leading to spikes in malaria and other insect-born disease); and
(iv) increasingly violent weather (see typhoons in the South Pacific, Tornados in the Great Plains)
(v) interruptions in food production (as a result of any of the 4 above)

can take massive tolls on local populations. For example, as devastated as New Orleans was from a hurricane, look at Myanmar (where over 100,000 people died from a Hurricane). These effects clearly illustrate what we already know -- dramatic weather events can effect human populations.

Now, the difference between a few big storms and global climate change is that the threat from climate change is that much larger swaths of human populations (from all over the globe) will be exposed to not only violent weather patterns for which they are ill-prepared, but also, and probably more devastating, unfamiliar weather patterns for which there infrastructure is unprepared.

Some of this threat will itself be from man's reaction to the weather -- i.e. civil and local wars erupting over water supplies; increased food prices as shifting weather patterns slow worldwide production of food and grain, which will spike food prices.

Indeed, I was not underestimating (or overestimating, or indeed estimating at all) what the effects of genuine global warming could have to the world and the people on it.

What I am questioning is the 'common knowledge' that my driving an expensive hybrid car and insulating my house better is going to prevent such a massive global shift.

In fact, Igs, you nailed my big concern. Climate is not in a status quo, and there's an incredible egotistical streak running through the argument of every political agenda and green movement notion that says we can control the nature of our planet.

More chance of an ant on the back of a galloping horse taking hold of the reins and slowing it down to a canter.

Now, of course, while that sounds all grim and dire, I am, of the firm opinion, that humans must take heed to what our actions do to the environment.

There is some legitimate skepticism to the idea of global warming. First, during the last Ice Age, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now. Second, there are significant issues surrounding accurate temperature recordings (esp. if you go back more than 150 years or so), which would assist in better longterm understanding. Third, there are arguments over how average temperature is measured. Fourth, there are legitimate points being made on the impact of the "heat-island" effect, etc. Fifth, as of now, there is probably an economic incentive to publish pro-global climate change papers (better funding) and less incentive to publish (even if performed) studies that reach opposite conclusions.

Yet, the question is -- is there strong science to back up the hypotheses of global climate change? Well yes,

(i) We all know of the greenhouse effect, and it seems that the more we increase CO2 (specifically) in our current atmosphere, the more likely it appears that temperatures (at least initially) will rise. Along with this, the greater emissions of ozone-destroying pollutants (tropospheric ozone here) allows further radiation and sunlight into the Earth (more sunlight/energy, presumably more heat);
(ii) Obervations of temperature around the globe over the last 30 years lends support to this idea of an increasing average global temperature;
(iii) Increased rates in the melting of polar icecaps (in both poles) lends support to the conclusion that average global temperature is rising
(iv) Increased melting of polar ice caps leads to higher sea levels (no brain teaser here);
(v) Higher sea levels can lead to:
(a) flooding of low lying areas
(b) An increase in water (in liquid form) as opposed to ice can obviously lead to greater precipitate (more water available to evaporate into atmosphere);
(v) Hurricanes rely on evaporating water vapor to feed the beast!

And on and on.

Of course, this discussion has not even touched on the immediate impacts that pollution (related to global climate change research) has on human populations (asthma, etc.) before it starts having more global effects.

A/C to address 2 points you have raised:

1 -- from your initial post, the idea of whether or not global warming is a fact. Well, this is interesting b/c what exactly makes a fact a fact. I mean, countless studies have been published (including the most recent UN Study) purporting a direct correlation, and/or causation, between man's activities (CO2 release, etc.) and global warming. For some, this would be enough to consider it a "fact". For others, and even many scientists, it simply creates a reason to challenge, investigate and question this position. And is the case with science, such questions often lead to better answers, which lead to more questions. The problem here though is that if you are waiting for some Cartesian certitude, you won't likely live long enough for the science to provide it (at least not here, climate and weather are quite complex).

2 -- your question as to why hybrid cars and better insulation are worthwhile, well (if you grant this hypothesis may indeed be true), then this is a simple question to answer. If pollution is the result, in part, of consumerism (our consumption of resources) then there are two ways to begin reducing pollution: 1 -- Lower Demand (i.e. better insulation in your house lowers your demand for electricity/gas to heat/cool your home); and 2 -- Create products that pollute less.

If the entire world switched to hybrids, this would be a great start in reducing carbon emissions dramatically.

A/C, by the way, unless I remember my earth science class wrong, you *may* be mistaken in your initial post saying trees emit far more CO2 than humans. As I remember it, trees absorb CO2 and release oxygen.

Well said! Humans are pitifully arrogant to believe they can have such power as to STOP such a global change.

Ok, I shouldnt be telling you this, but as I dont work there anymore it doesnt really matter.

I used to work for a company that writes the government guidelines for things like building regulations, disability access, sustainable buildings etc. I attended a conference and the main speaker was a guy who had recently resigned from his position in the government, and his subject was HIP's (Home Information Packs that all sellers of property of 4 or more bedrooms has to provide to potential buyers, which includes a rating on how energy efficient the property is).

This guy was not happy.

His basic stance was that any efforts of the western world to reduce carbon emmisions are pointless, considering the astronimical rise of carbon emmisions in countries such as China and India that are left un-curbed as "developing countries have the right to explore the same advances the western world has enjoyed". I forget the actual figures, but will be happy to find them if needed. China are building new power plants at the rate of something silly like 1 a week.

Curbing water usage in the home is pointless. We are told that we waste around 5% through dripping taps and leaving the tap running while brushing teeth for example, yet 45% is wasted through un-fixed pipe leaks. But people will still go and buy water saving devices, fit them to their lavatories and sink taps, and pat themselves on the back for being a good citizen.

Cow methane (yes....gases from their shit) produces more CO2 then modern cars.

Igs, you make an excellent point that it will be the poorer countries who suffer the most from climate change, I couldnt agree more. It is already suggested that the drought and famine that began in the 80's in Africa (Ethiopia etc) was a direct result of global cooling that I mentioned earlier...I dont remember the details but it changed the path of the rain so they, well, didnt get any.

My ex has been stockpiling army ration boxes from ebay for years...at first I thought he was mad, but maybe he is on to something.

However, I am also an optimist, and while I believe there is going to be some drastic change on a global scale that could well reduce the human and animal population dramatically, I also believe we will survive and learn something about ourselves along the way, leading to a better wolrd for our great grandchildren to live in.

edit: Igs....you posted while I was typing lol

SBP,

One small point -- I am baffled when people think that people are powerless to stop problems created by people. A bit too defeatist for me. I agree that China and India can't be brought into line yet, but, at some point, Europe and the US will exert the power, esp. on India, to make them more green.

FYI, do you know why there are so many cows whose methane emissions are polluting the Earth? Because humans love beef (if we can afford it!!!).

In fact, it is estimated that up to 1/3 of all human-based CO2 emissions are from our raising of cows, pigs, etc. for consumption. Now, if we all went veggie, think about how great that would be for the environment. Cut emissions by 1/3 immediately. We would also free up tons of farmland (grain used to feed animals), and then we would have more trees growing, consuming CO2 where the fields used to be, or we could continue to farm and would be able to feed the world's poor for chump change.

Speaking of feeding, I need to go grab a steak. All this talk about cows is making me hungry.

[quote="SunburnedPenguin"]Well said! Humans are pitifully arrogant to believe they can have such power as to STOP such a global change.

Well done Igs! Very insightful thoughts. There is no question what you have stated about climate changes and how it will effect the future is correct. Sunny P's quote is accurate.

There are so many factors contributing to 'climate change', even the most brilliant scientists are having difficulty figuring it out, as there are many causes, which Sunny P has outlined.

NASA scientists have stated emphatically that there is no such thing as "Global Warming", and is supported by thousands of scientists worldwide. I object to 'the left wing lunacy' that is attempting to 'con' people into believing this is the sole cause, when it is clearly NOT.

While I am a cynic when it comes to 'the hype' that we are being sold, I do subscribe to the belief, that in the long run, the specific causes will be identified, and we will move towards pro-active solutions. My faith in mankind to do what is right, has not been deterred.

Dabs,

quick question -- when you say that NASA scientists have stated emphatically that there is no such thing is global warming, where is that coming from?

I am aware that the administrator of NASA made comments some time ago to the effect that Global Warming is happening, but who is to say it's bad (i.e. an alternate climate may be more desirable)? Then, there was a little dust-up between him and several other NASA scientists, including the NASA scientist in charge of studying the climate who called the statement "unbelievable". Is this what you were referring to?

Igs wrote:Dabs,

quick question -- when you say that NASA scientists have stated emphatically that there is no such thing is global warming, where is that coming from?

I am aware that the administrator of NASA made comments some time ago to the effect that Global Warming is happening, but who is to say it's bad (i.e. an alternate climate may be more desirable)? Then, there was a little dust-up between him and several other NASA scientists, including the NASA scientist in charge of studying the climate who called the statement "unbelievable". Is this what you were referring to?

Hi Igs, Thanks for the question. There is so much information on the subject, pro and con, that I had difficulty laying my hands on the exact one I would have liked to provide you with. I am providing a link which does encompass one of the many findings from NASA, one I consider a valid report. It does seem to make sense to me, from an independent observational view. It contains a lot of information, and does address the issues raised. Good reading!

http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/global_warming.htm

Igs wrote:In fact, it is estimated that up to 1/3 of all human-based CO2 emissions are from our raising of cows, pigs, etc. for consumption. Now, if we all went veggie, think about how great that would be for the environment. Cut emissions by 1/3 immediately. We would also free up tons of farmland (grain used to feed animals), and then we would have more trees growing, consuming CO2 where the fields used to be, or we could continue to farm and would be able to feed the world's poor for chump change.

Igs, I believe that would correctly be stated as "human-based greenhouse gas emissions". Livestock produces methane, which is a greenhouse gas, but is not CO2.

Most of that gas emission is from "commercial" beef farms. I've driven through these "burger plants" in Kansas. It's terrifying. 100,000 head of cattle in a footbal field sized area. The Earth can handle the disipation of livestock methane when the livestock roam at their natural rates... or even on an Oklahoma "free range" beef ranch... but what Standard Beef is doing... it's crazy. And it's about fast food more than anything. You go to your local makret and buy a pound of ground beef, or a nice steak, chances are pretty good that's local beef, raised in reasonable conditions. Go to McDonald's, yeah, you're contributing to more greenhouse gasses than you expended while you idles for 20 minutes in the drive-thru lane.

CF,

Well said. I had been talking about CO2 there for a while, hence my errant post. Thanks for the clarification! It is always important to have the facts right!

Dabs,

I think if you take a quick look at your link -- you will see that it never cites a NASA report that either disputes the idea of global warming, man's role in global warming or emphatically denies such claims.

At best, the link (which takes you to a page that has several articles, an assortment of quotes, and some of the author's ruminations) references a NASA *funded study* (i.e. performed by someone else) that says the IPCC study may over-estimate, in its models, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.


Had NASA scientists come out and directly contradicted global warming, it would have been enormous news (and easily googlable). I have a feeling that you may have perused a website that either misquoted, misrepresented or even intentionally lied about the statements/reports of NASA concerning global climate change.

Sry to be nitpicky but it’s always important to have the facts, just like CF was so nice to correct me (gently) before.

Hi Igs, I did say that it wasn't the link I was attempting to provide. However, the link DOES address so many of the issues you raised, I felt it pertinent to mention.

The knowledge that NASA has outright stated this is utter nonsense, is a well known fact! If one has the desire to search for the information, it is readily found. I am pressed for time at the moment, but I will endeavour to find the precise link for you.

Hope that clarifies.

Got ya. I understood that the link was citing a NASA report. My apologies for any misunderstanding.

I think though the last point is where we differ. It's not a well known fact to me that NASA has called it nonsense or emphatically denied it (although, as I said, last year there was a flap when the adminisitrator made his comments and then NASA scientists were arguing in the media).

To that point, here are some links from NASA's website re: global warming/global climate change. Some support warming of the planet, without bothering to address its cause. Others support the concept of man-made global warming. I was unable to locate any that contradicted either that the earth was warming, or asserted that man-made causation was false. If you go to NASA's links on Global Warming, the first link they provide is to "An Inconvenient Truth".

NASA Description of Global Warming in Its Worldbook
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

"Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming......A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature.....but the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming."

NASA Predicts More Severe Storms w/ Global Warming:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/moist_convection.html

Recent Warming May Affect Worldwide Climate
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

Earth Impacts Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/

Wow, Igs, that's some serious fact checking. Personally, I don't see any credible reason to doubt the reality of Global Warming. Even the far right has acknowledged it... although they prefer the slightly less aversive "Global Climate Shift".

But here's my final thought on the subject... as a collection of LOST fans and theorists, it's not our place to debate the existance or impact of global warming. That's not to say I challenge our right to discuss or debate it, but just that as (to the best of my knowledge) none of us are government policy makers, our discussion is purely academic.

What isn't academic is what we can do. And I will do whatever I can to fight pollution, carbon emissions, and any other rape of our planet. Whether Global Warming is my (our) fault, or a natural evolution of the planet, saving gas and preserving cleaner air is something I think we can and should all do, whether it truly impacts the global climate or not.

Hi Igs, I have actually read NASA's site. The information is out there! The question at hand was, and I believe is, we are being told that the 'earth changes' are due solely to Global Warming, which is NOT the case. There are, many causes attributed to the earths changes.

I believe what we were/are all attempting to address, is the issue that we as 'individuals' should NOT buy into the 'media hype'. That we, as intelligent beings on planet earth are responsible for reading all of the information made available, and deciding for ourselves, based on the facts, which and which doesn't apply.

I prefer to look at ALL of the facts, and make my own decision, so I can speak informatively. It doesn't make me right, nor does it make me wrong. However, it DOES make me capable of drawing a logical conclusion based on independent research.

I thought you delivered your statements, intelligently and thoughtfully. And, I fully appreciate your viewpoints, and thank you for making them.

Caged F: I agree with your last statement, and I think we all should do our part, regardless of how small or large the contribution may be to make our home a better place to live.

Great discussion!

Got ya Caged. Although your post nearly launched me into a spiel on:
"we are government policy makers -- we're voters"

But point well taken, I am no climatologist or geologist and, after all, this is a Lost website.

That said, I am always of the opinion that sharing information and opinions (i.e. with Dabs, etc.) is always worth the time provided people are respectful of each other. And Dabs always is (at least to me), and I try to return the favor. For me, in order to take action, we need to know what we should be doing. And rational people use information. So, I love getting all the info and opinions our little community has to offer -- perhaps, a bit too much -- from time-travel, to buddhism, to astro-physics, to (now) climatology.

Dabs,

While I'm guessing we are not 100% on the same page on our policy prescriptions re: global warming, I think you are 100% right that the logical/rational person looks at the information, reaches a conclusion, and is justified in doing so. Like you and me (hopefully) did here....it doesn't mean we have to reach the same conclusion though.

I too see the media's infatuation with global warming, but then again, I see very little being done. So, for me, perhaps the "hype" remains b/c action is so hard to come by...but then again, hype is just hype and you can't change the fact it turns you (and me) off.

And, like I said above, I think discussions like these are informative for everyone involved, and information is the name of the game. Like you said in an earlier post, it is a TON of info. and hard to dig through.

Thanks for the convo -- it was great!