Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread
- Thread starter ZAGGIN
- 3,644 comments
- 221,518 views
- 86,445
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Zardoz
It was built in 1998, so yes. It actually emits less pollution than it takes in from an average rush hour road. Isn't that a fun little stat?
Zardoz
Actually, they don't. Have another read and analyse what they actually say...
Zardoz
D'ya catch that?
98% of the carbon dioxide load of the United States of America comes from cars, trucks, central heating and power stations. Yet you'll also note that "Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities". So, either the 98% from cars, trucks, central heating and power station is exclusively human activities, or plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter is responsible for 980% of the USA's CO2 emissions.
So, what the EPA are saying is:
Plant respiration/bacterial decomposition >>>>>>>>>> human activities, and 98% of the load from human activities comes from burning stuff.
Well knock me flat. I'm glad the EPA told me that, otherwise I'd never have known that burning things makes carbon dioxide.
You'll be pleased to know that cars contribute just 2% towards that 98% - it's almost all power stations and commercial transport (with some airliners thrown in for good measure). So, numerically speaking, carbon dioxide emissions from the US look like this:
90% = Plant respiration and bacterial decomposition
9.8% = Human activities
0.2% = Cars
Of course, this doesn't take into account volcanoes, which also eclipse human activites, but it does arrive at nearly the accepted ballpark figure for carbon dioxide load caused by cars globally - 1/4 of a percent of all carbon dioxide emissions of the whole world. That's roughly the same load as if everyone on Earth gave a simultaneous taco belch. And, thanks to the stats you just posted, the EPA agree with me.
Cars do not cause global warming. Escalade or Prius - it doesn't matter. As I said earlier, the notion of "gas-guzzling SUVs destroying the planet" was created by the have-nots in order to make it fine to denigrate the haves.
Moving back to my Japanese television example, a cargo ship puthers out 12 million times the amount of carbon dioxide every day that the mystical 8-hour a day car does (or breathing human). If the ship contains 1,000,000 TVs, that's still 12 times the amount per TV compared to the 8-hour car (or breathing human) per day. On a week long crossing, the TV has used 252 car hours (roughly 8,000 miles at an average of 30mph) of carbon dioxide just to get from the Japanese port to the US port, and THEN it has to be shipped to the store (in a carbon dioxide-producing truck) and put on display there in a nice, heated (oh no! Central heating!) store for you to go and buy.
So as you can see, even without taking that (or its construction, or the electricity required to use it, which is produced in, most likely, a fossil fuel based power station) into account, 1 Japanese television produces the same amount of carbon dioxide as an average car, or person breathing, manages in 1 whole year.
All this neatly qualifies my earlier statistic and your "disproof" from the EPA agrees with me wholly.
What clipping are you going to post now?
Edit: I should, of course, add that total global carbon dioxide emissions from human activity has declined by 15% since 1985. That lovely EPA graph starts in 1880, roughly 20 years - the same timespan as from 1985 to present - after the Industrial Revolution took hold and human "greenhouse gas" emissions began to skyrocket. If human activity is truely a causative factor, then the increase as "greenhouse gas" emissions increased ought to be mirrored by a corresponding drop as "greenhouse gas" emissions have dropped. Does the graph show that? Nope. There's no drop shown with a 20 year lag. Yet you still believe it's our fault...
- 2,208
Famine
Just the same one, with the paragraphs I should have included. My apologies about that, and about the Escalade crack, which you have apparently taken very pesonally:
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earths atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols, a common air pollutant, cool the atmosphere by reflecting light back into space; however, sulfates are short-lived in the atmosphere and vary regionally.
Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.
What has changed in the last few hundred years is the additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.
Estimating future emissions is difficult, because it depends on demographic, economic, technological, policy, and institutional developments. Several emissions scenarios have been developed based on differing projections of these underlying factors. For example, by 2100, in the absence of emissions control policies, carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be 30-150% higher than todays levels.
- 86,445
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Not at all - it's just a good example of a big, fat SUV that people like to pan because it kills the planet, or other such nonsense. Too tall for me. Plus we don't get them.
I read all of the link you posted, and I will summarise since you think it proves something which it actually doesn't.
A discussion of what "Greenhouse Gases" do. Not thrilling, taught in Year 7.
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. Plant respiration and organic matter decomposition have stayed constant since 1880, so it must be humans burning things. Burning things = carbon dioxide. Genius.
Let us not mention that the current population has increased by a factor of THREE since 1880, so organic matter decomposition has patently increased because there are more dead people. Death RATES are lower, but there's more people and everyone dies...
Let us also not mention the fact that between 1880 and 2005 there was no significant decrease in the total US National Forest area, but a MASSIVE 35% decrease between 1760 and 1880. The EPA graph from the link you posted starts in 1880, so there is no reference made to the global temperature when the US's plant respiration levels - the component making up 90% of the US's carbon dioxide emissions, remember - were nearly half again what they are now. Still, more than 25% of the entire planet - the entire planet which is stuffed with the Himalayas, the Sahara desert and Antarctica - is forested.
That's an interesting stat in of itself. 25% of the world produces 90% of the carbon dioxide. And it's all trees.
Covered this already, in two posts now.
Yes, in 95 years time we'll be producing between a third again and 1.5 times as much carbon dioxide!
From what? That's 20-40 years after all of our coal and oil reserves are predicted to run out.
I read all of the link you posted, and I will summarise since you think it proves something which it actually doesn't.
A discussion of what "Greenhouse Gases" do. Not thrilling, taught in Year 7.
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing. Plant respiration and organic matter decomposition have stayed constant since 1880, so it must be humans burning things. Burning things = carbon dioxide. Genius.
Let us not mention that the current population has increased by a factor of THREE since 1880, so organic matter decomposition has patently increased because there are more dead people. Death RATES are lower, but there's more people and everyone dies...
Let us also not mention the fact that between 1880 and 2005 there was no significant decrease in the total US National Forest area, but a MASSIVE 35% decrease between 1760 and 1880. The EPA graph from the link you posted starts in 1880, so there is no reference made to the global temperature when the US's plant respiration levels - the component making up 90% of the US's carbon dioxide emissions, remember - were nearly half again what they are now. Still, more than 25% of the entire planet - the entire planet which is stuffed with the Himalayas, the Sahara desert and Antarctica - is forested.
That's an interesting stat in of itself. 25% of the world produces 90% of the carbon dioxide. And it's all trees.
Covered this already, in two posts now.
Yes, in 95 years time we'll be producing between a third again and 1.5 times as much carbon dioxide!
From what? That's 20-40 years after all of our coal and oil reserves are predicted to run out.
- 2,208
Of course it will. It's a known factor in global warming. We simply must eliminate tacos from our diet.danoff
Sorry that posting links like this annoy you so much, Famine, but they it seems to me that they carry more weight than something I would pull out of my butt:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4141348.stm
The first two paragraphs:
The world's largest frozen peat bog is melting, which could speed the rate of global warming, New Scientist reports.
The huge expanse of western Siberia is thawing for the first time since its formation, 11,000 years ago.
First time in 11,000 years, huh? What a coincidence. It seems to be melting at the same time we hominids have increased our numbers to six billion and have started burning fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow.
That's the point of all this. Many things are happening now, at this precise point in time, that defy any possibility of it all going on strictly by chance. Do you guys really think its just a coincidence that it is happening after a hundred years of human industrialization? What are the odds against that, I wonder?
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
Zardoz
Do you understand that the Earth has temperature cycles that are much longer than 11,000 years? That may sound like a long time to you but it isn't. We're actually due for an Ice Age at any moment. This minor warmup could be the precursor to the next Ice Age (Ice Ages last 100,000 years by the way).
Look, you still haven't provided one shred of evidence (besides this weak circumstantial coincidence crap) that human beings are having even a smidgeon of impact on the global climate. Famine has tried (repeatedly) to explain to you what kind of scales are invovled here, how an SUV does very little to increase the C02 output - not that scientists have shown that rises in C02 output are actually causing an increase in temperature.
See, you're two down.
First you have to show that the increase in temperature is due to an increase in C02 output. Which you have not.
Then you have to show that the increase in C02 output is due to man - which you have not.
Edit: [rant] people will believe any kind of pseudoscience crap that's thrown at them if it falls in line with their own desires. In general, a healthy dose of skepticism would be nice. [/rant]
- 86,445
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Zardoz
Yet when it was formed, 60% of the land was forested and, as we know, with the 25% cover we have today plant respiration and decay still accounts for more than 90% of the total carbon dioxide load. With no industrialisation and 2.5 times as many trees, the total carbon dioxide load of Earth would be 2.25 times as much as it is now.
It simply MUST be carbon dioxide melting it then. Huh? Huh?
Zardoz
The two are unconnected. They have no relationship whatsoever.
Also, please don't paint me as being "annoyed". I am Famine. I do not DO annoyed. Besides, Ad hominem has no place in debate.
- 86,445
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I ask again, if the increase in CO2 emissions at the start of the Industrial Revolution is directly linked to the increase in global temperature, why is the 15% decrease in CO2 emissions over the last 20 years not directly linked to a corresponding decrease in global temperature?
I also ask again, if man's activities only account for 10% of CO2 emissions and plant life accounts for most of the remaining 90%, why is the increase in man's tiny share of the load linked to a global temperature increase and the massive decrease in forestry from 60% cover 2 millennia ago to 25% currently not linked to a massive global temperature decrease?
Citing coincidence as proof is not proof.
I also ask again, if man's activities only account for 10% of CO2 emissions and plant life accounts for most of the remaining 90%, why is the increase in man's tiny share of the load linked to a global temperature increase and the massive decrease in forestry from 60% cover 2 millennia ago to 25% currently not linked to a massive global temperature decrease?
Citing coincidence as proof is not proof.
- 2,208
danoff
One more time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4616431.stm
From that story:
The statement was released on Wednesday by the academies of the G8 nations, including the UK's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences.
It was signed by scientists from 11 countries, including China and India.
The academies are making their voices heard ahead of July's G8 meeting in Scotland, where the British Prime Minister has promised to put climate change high on the agenda.
Uncertainty issue
Their statement read: "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
"Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change."
Lord May, the current President of the UK's Royal Society, added: "It is clear that world leaders, including the G8, can no longer use uncertainty about aspects of climate change as an excuse for not taking urgent action to cut greenhouse gas emissions." He called US policy "misguided" and noted that crucial to the international acceptance of the statement was the fact that leading scientists from three of the world's biggest developing world emitters China, India and Brazil had also signed it.
We can manipulate all the percentages we want, and play all the debating games we like, but to claim that we know more about this than the members of these societies is so arrogant as to be hard to comprehend.
What, Danoff, you want me to cite research I've done? I'll tell you what: Contact Lord May. Tell him you want to debate him. Better yet: You, Famine, and Swift can triple-team him. See if he'll "take you on".
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Zardoz, you're obviously very passionate about this and that's cool. But there are few if any scientists if any that will say "We are directly causing global warming and it is directly effecting world climate"
That's what we're talking about. THere's just not the proof. At least not yet.
That's what we're talking about. THere's just not the proof. At least not yet.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
Zardoz,
You should pre-read what you quote. This is a perfect example of what I was talking about before
"Uncertainty issue
Their statement read: "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
Notice the bolded weasel words there used to make claims tha can't be backed up by proof . Then, the conlusion is drawn from those statements ignoring the weasel words.
"Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change."
This last bit does not follow the first bits. It needs weasel words as well.
Bottom line, you have no proof - neither does anyone else. Nice try passing the buck.
You should pre-read what you quote. This is a perfect example of what I was talking about before
"Uncertainty issue
Their statement read: "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
Notice the bolded weasel words there used to make claims tha can't be backed up by proof . Then, the conlusion is drawn from those statements ignoring the weasel words.
"Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change."
This last bit does not follow the first bits. It needs weasel words as well.
Bottom line, you have no proof - neither does anyone else. Nice try passing the buck.
- 2,208
danoff
Fantastic. In the creation/evolution debate we talk about scientific uncertainty, but when distinguished scientists from many nations unite in a statement that is in direct opposition to yours, its "weasel words".
You guys are amazing. You really think you have a better handle on this than those world-class scientists.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
Zardoz
World-class scientists disagree with other world-class scientists on this issue. The ones quoted above just happened to say what that politicians above wanted them to say.
Here's the deal, scientists don't use weasel words with evolution. They don't use weasel words when talking about dinosaurs. They use weasel words when they aren't sure they're right... and in this case, they aren't sure they're right.
Young_Warrior
(Banned)
- 2,286
Global warming does exists. the worlds climate is changing too rapidly to say that it does not exist. Over the last 70 years there has been a rapid change in climate and to say that it is just mother nature doing what she wants is rubbish because that is a slow process. Just look at the amount of hurricanes there have been in the last couple of years and im not just talking about the ones that hit america. There have been loads of hurricanes that devastated the west indies and they havent exactly got a strong economy and theyre suffering the brunt force of our wrong doings and some peoples ignorance.
To say that for us all to lower our pollution levels would destroy countries and economies is rubbish aswell. Yes it would cost a bundle but isnt it worth it for the future of our children.
Blaxing its all nice and dandy to say that you will die of lung cancer long before of the pollution around you but what about the people that are still alive. Surely you wouldnt want your children and grandchildren to live on the planet which incourse is torturing them through its weather conditions.
Also look at Africa. They used to manage to survive light years back but now most of the continent has been brought to its knees due to global warming.
What used to be green has now turned into dessert wasteland.
To say that global warming does not exist is complete and utter discrepancy. I have heard the scientist explanation and the theory isnt exactly hard to understand. A bunch of our pollution is hanging above our skyline not going hawaying and their for trapping in all the warmth of the earth.
To say that for us all to lower our pollution levels would destroy countries and economies is rubbish aswell. Yes it would cost a bundle but isnt it worth it for the future of our children.
Blaxing its all nice and dandy to say that you will die of lung cancer long before of the pollution around you but what about the people that are still alive. Surely you wouldnt want your children and grandchildren to live on the planet which incourse is torturing them through its weather conditions.
Also look at Africa. They used to manage to survive light years back but now most of the continent has been brought to its knees due to global warming.
What used to be green has now turned into dessert wasteland.
To say that global warming does not exist is complete and utter discrepancy. I have heard the scientist explanation and the theory isnt exactly hard to understand. A bunch of our pollution is hanging above our skyline not going hawaying and their for trapping in all the warmth of the earth.
- 2,093
danoff
The issue is too complex to claim 100% certainty, just like you can't use it to predict tomorrows weather with 100% certainty. But unlike to some logicians, in the real world not 100% doesn't mean the exact opposite of 100%. Likely means a significant amount more than 50%. And considering the potential consequences, that justifies preventive measures to be taken.
What happened to New Orleans was also likely to happen. It was, in fact, the third most likely disaster to hit the U.S. But what was the lesson Bush took from the number one most likely disaster to actually happen? Take funding away from preventing the number three most likely disaster.
Yes, I am pointing a blame finger. This is serious stuff, and he screwed up incredibly badly. And yes, the powers that be in New Orleans did even worse, but a lot here is on federal budgets that Bush personally cut to fund the campaigns in the Middle-East. A tiny example, already in 2001, funding for preserving the Marsh-lands that protected New Orleans among others by slowing down incoming Hurricanes was cut by 50% on his personal order. Never mind doing the same and worse to FEMA, or appointing a political friend as the head of FEMA who did not have any qualifications.
If you've not followed this, you'll hear all about it soon enough. Yes, I presume even on Fox News (I've been watching that a lot this week, and if even they start encouraging people to boycot OPEC, who knows what will happen next).
But I'm getting off topic - all I've wanted to indicate is that toying with risks like these is a bad idea, and New Orleans has shown it.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
Arwin
No, likely (used in this context) means they don't know if it's true. That's it. They have no idea what the probability is that it's true. It's one of many theories that fits the facts, nobody knows which theory is right.
I see you couldn't be bothered to post that proof I've been waiting for.
Agreed, a coastal city in the path of a hurricane that was built below sea level. Everyone in NO knew it was likely to happen. I knew it was likely to happen prior to the hurricane. I think pretty much everyone in the US knew it was a dissaster waiting to happen - similar things had happened before.
...but people stayed put.
Oh but you were trying to imply that pollution created the hurricane... that's a bit of a stretch isn't it?
New Orleans has been fighting the ocean for YEARS. That's fine, if they want to try to put land where the ocean is trying to reclaim it. LET THEM PAY FOR IT!!!
Damnit I get pissed off when I hear people like you talking about how my federal tax dollars should get spent on this B.S. or that B.S. The bottom line is, NO was a bad idea for a city. It SHOULD be underwater. I say let it stay there.
I'm GLAD Bush cut federal funding. That's not what federal funding is for.
Life is toying with risks... but the biggest risk was putting a city where NO was and actually living there. Then ANOTHER risk was waiting around after it was warned that a hurricane would hit.
Allow me to summarize.
I want ZERO federal tax dollars spent on keeping NO from falling into the ocean. If people want to live there, let them fund its battle with nature. I for one hope they simply let the land go and relocate NO slightly north of where it used to be.
- 1,151
Give this Debate Five more years and you will find optimism sadly missing , long before any Catastrophic ( i.e measurable in Human memory/records terms ) change in Gaia's ever changing mechanism the World Economy will be in crisis because of the simple fact that it's Engine ; Oil will be too expensive to maintain such a structure , no government today is doing anything other than gathering stocks for their military. Peak Oil and it's Financial aftershocks will be far far more devastating than minor weather anomalies and will also reach us much much sooner . You won't get incontrovertible proof of terminal change in the atmosphere's structure until the middle of this century , but with China seeking EnergyOil on a 1st world scale things will turn ugly for the fabric of society we take for granted before this decade is out.
Young_Warrior
(Banned)
- 2,286
I hope its more like 3 decades. I need to drive some redicoulously fast cars first.
- 1,151
Explain please . Peak Oil is a far more valid term than Global Warming and far more available to inspection.danoff
- 1,151
Entirely agree , ime hoping it'll all go away but it won't , all dudes with insider knowledge to the Oil industry know the math back to front , 2008 or 2009 is likely stastical Peak Oil after such an event it gets exponentialy more expensive to extract the oil still in the ground , evenj though there's oil there it's commodity status will rapidly become luxury status.Young_Warrior
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
DeLoreanBrown
That's true, and I didn't claim otherwise.
Here's the deal, mankind on the whole is pretty smart (thanks to a select few). We manage to come up with all kinds of neat ideas. I'm pretty sure we'll cope quite well even if oil goes away.
Take a look at the history of man and you'll see that it's a history of adaptation and ingenuity.
- 1,151
danoff
Over a ridiculously small time frame compared to millions of species that are no longer around except in our petrol tanks etc , yas we have been extra Succesfull but what you claim to be ingenuity and scientific diligence is literaly funded by oil , before oil we were crap and 95% of scientific discoveries & world knowledge just did'nt exist . It is a case of back to the Piracy days because the one really powerfull compact source of our godlike power will simply not be around in 40 years time. That's nothing to the planet but it's a stress heap load of adjustments to us if we wih to make them anywhere near intime.
