Politiscience....Global Warming

Polluters use the untenable global warming argument to shelf every environmental damage. Emission reduction having a negligible effect (even geologically) is by no account an excuse to continue as normal when the same practices that produce those emissions are still destroying other parts of the environment.

It's like a tug-of-war of the same political package. Environmentalists want the global warming issue to stop all pollution and polluters want the possibility of ineffectuality to keep lucrative practices intact.

(This may have already been stated, but some of you occasionally have a case of the Tl;drs.)

Originally Posted by a lurker

It doesn't matter whether the planet is very resiliant or wether human ingenuity will make the banana survive the century. What does matter is how expensive the process will be. Certainly an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Well, and I agree. The largest problems are economic, but, as usually happens, when people/companies/goverments jump into a problem without thinking it through thoroughly, they end up spending a fuckload more money in the end, which is what Kyoto would have done (maximum cost for minimal impact).

Where are all these criticisms coming from? The only ones I ever hear are from Crichton, that guy who typed 700% instead of 70% for icecap mass, and I guess Rush Limbaugh counts ("somehow we're warming up the ice caps even though our cars and smokestacks are here in America, hah-hah").

Someone's got link me up on the doubters news train, yo.

Originally Posted by NYRSkate

Before 1750, the atmosphere, on average, contained 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. As of February 2005 that number is at about 375 ppm (source), and of course, steadily increasing. Say what you want about man's activities having a minimal effect on the heating of the planet, but hard numbers don't lie.

You can bump the numbers higher if you like! Which is hilarious because the UK was all like "if we go over 400 that's the tipping point and baaad things will happen."

Quote:

...his calculations show the equivalent concentration of C02, taking in the effects of methane and nitrous oxide at 2004 levels, is now 425ppm. This is made up of CO2 itself, at 379ppm; the global warming effect of the methane in the atmosphere, equivalent to another 40ppm of CO2; and the effect of nitrous oxide, equivalent to another 6ppm of CO2.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

An experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century (my old boss was involved in it). It includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric Greenhouse Gases have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases, temperatures have fallen.

Was it this study? Or a similar one? (Controversy bolded)

Quote:

Some scientists who question whether human-caused global warming poses a threat have long pointed to records that showed the atmosphere's lowest layer, the troposphere, had not warmed over the last two decades and had cooled in the tropics.

Now, two independent studies have found errors in the complicated calculations...when the errors are taken into account, the troposphere actually got warmer. Moreover, that warming trend largely agrees with the warmer surface temperatures that have been recorded and conforms to predictions in recent computer models.

The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, conceded Thursday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.

"Our view hasn't changed," Christy said. "We still have this modest warming."

Other climate experts, however, said that the new studies were very significant, effectively resolving a puzzle that had been used by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Or of course you can look at recent data, if you like

Quote:

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed the experimental test, but it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be said that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to Greenhouse Gases will nullify the initial temperature rise.

Could you explain the negative feedbacks? Most of what I've heard has been positive feedbacks. Which are "supposedly" what scare the scientists shitless.

• Heating decreses glacier surface area, decreasing white space on the earth, increasing thermal radiation pick-up, which melts further ice...
• Heating kills plants, which release CO2, which further heats, which...
• Heat causes summer droughts, which speeds CO2 release from peat bogs, which, causes harsher droughts, which...
• Heating melts methane hydrates, which...

etc. etc. until you weep for the baby owls or something.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

I do believe that the planet is very, very resilient and humans can certainly withstand heat increases, what with genetically-altered crops to get us our food. And we'll certainly protect the animals we like.

This goes for the entire 6 billion of us, does it? :eyebrow: It's a good thing farmers are wealthy and dynamic enough to move, or retrain and retool for new crops, if the climate shifts. Then there's the fact that we never get food from say, trees that have to be decades old for harvesting. And it's also good that the moving of sea level or the drying of rivers or the chaning of weather patterns can't impact access to freshwater or good farmland. We're a pretty fucking lucky species.



...But I agree that Kyoto is bullshit

Quote:

One of the most ambitious is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Only just up and running, this allows rich countries which are unable or not keen to cut emissions at home to invest in emission-reducing industrial projects in poor countries and then claim carbon credits for the greenhouse gas reductions achieved.

...an offshore oil production works in South Vietnam and two coal mines in China are hoping to gain more than 17 million credits for capturing and using the methane released as part of their operations.

...The very idea that vast plantations of eucalyptus or palm trees could be used to earn carbon credits for large companies to get rich country governments off the hook of cutting emissions at home appalls many

It's not that Kyoto is subsidizing Chinese coal plants, oh no! It's investing in Chinese efficiency for the good of the planet!!


Bush was completely right to ditch Kyoto, unfortunately. No one is going to cut their air travel, which alone is almost enough to "fuck the planet" (if the enviros are right). The only reason part of Europe even got a good start was because they (stupidly) started building natural gas plants. They stopped doing it, so they're screwed. The other countries are even worse off. Enjoy paying "we failed, we suck" money to a stupid treaty instead of investing it in research or efficiency, suckers! What's that money going to go towards anyway?

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

Well, and I agree. The largest problems are economic, but, as usually happens, when people/companies/goverments jump into a problem without thinking it through thoroughly, they end up spending a fuckload more money in the end, which is what Kyoto would have done (maximum cost for minimal impact).

Can't argue with that, but at the same time

Quote:

And we'll certainly protect the animals we like.

Animals and plants go extinct every day, ones we don't even know about, so that's not really much of it.

is an exceptionally short-sighted and expensive line of thinking.

It's not saying that it isn't a bad thing, but I do believe there are more important things to worry about than Unnamed Bug being able to stick around.

Originally Posted by How Unfortunate

This goes for the entire 6 billion of us, does it? :eyebrow: It's a good thing farmers are wealthy and dynamic enough to move, or retrain and retool for new crops, if the climate shifts. Then there's the fact that we never get food from say, trees that have to be decades old for harvesting. And it's also good that the moving of sea level or the drying of rivers or the chaning of weather patterns can't impact access to freshwater or good farmland. We're a pretty fucking lucky species.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. You seem to understand that we are talking about global climate which implies not only a wide range of the Earth (all of it) but a wide swath of time.

Again, the biggest problem of warming is that people chose to live by the oceans because you can't move, you know, skyscrapers. And if humans never touched the air, the Earth would heat up naturally at some point. Maybe we accelerated it early. But the natural time for it would have come around eventually and we'd still be fucked.

I'm not sure why you think that farmers are going to be in such trouble. Genetically-modifed crops can be (and not necessarily now, but soon) made to live in all kinds of climates. And if it becomes economically infeasable to grow, I dunno, bananas, then we'll start eating other, more adaptable fruits. Are you saying if the Earth heats up, there will be no crops which will be around? None that can adapt?

Not to mention that people in Africa are starving now. Are you not worried about people eating now? You only care about crops when it might come close (yeah, right) to actually affecting you? So, you're not really worried about global warming, but local warming.

See, this is the environmental lobby's problem: people like you. It's not as extreme as you say; calls of hellfire and brimstone is what led average Americans to not give any shit until very, very recently. It's not as extreme as the people who are crying for no change say; humans can and do need to act better. There needs to be a happy balance, so caving into this notion of fear of the world ending is incredibly dangerous. And the squeakiest wheel gets the grease: there are a fuckload more problems a lot more pressing than global warming, yet somehow people act like someone is raping their child.

I didn't think much of Michael Crichton's book because I don't like being preached to and I just don't think it is good to only show one side of science. But the whole "state of fear" thing is real and, you, my friend, have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

Originally Posted by How Unfortunate

Could you explain the negative feedbacks? Most of what I've heard has been positive feedbacks. Which are "supposedly" what scare the scientists shitless.

• Heating decreses glacier surface area, decreasing white space on the earth, increasing thermal radiation pick-up, which melts further ice...
• Heating kills plants, which release CO2, which further heats, which...
• Heat causes summer droughts, which speeds CO2 release from peat bogs, which, causes harsher droughts, which...
• Heating melts methane hydrates, which...

etc. etc. until you weep for the baby owls or something.

The biggest negative feedback that comes to my attention is a backlash that'd dart us into another ice age of sorts. As ice melts, you get more and more water percentage on the surface area of the Earth. The evaporation rate would get unreal if things got as hot as folks are proposing. Water would evaporate and a hefty amount of Water Vapor would get into the atmosphere. Now... Water Vapor is a much larger potential troublemaker than CO2, theoretically. It'll insulate heat at first, but as it grows in massive quantities, it begins to mess with the Albedo Effect. It would block the sunlight and cool things down very quickly. Water vapor would continue to accumulate and floods would really shift into high gear on activity. Blocking of sunlight results in things cooling until the water vapor isn't blocking up the atmosphere quite as much.

For another keep-in-check mechanism, read up on CaCO3 production by Plankton (Foraminifera). I'd rather not copy and paste a lengthy glob on it =p

As for plants, they can adapt to temperature change quickly. If not, mankind can always step in and do a little genetic work. But that's an extreme. Warming and Cooling trends have wiped dozens of species off the map before. They can adapt to very severe spikes. As shown in my earlier diagram, some temperature booms were very sharp.

I could name a few more, but that's all I could toss out on the top of my head. There are many more, but that'd require a run on Google. And I'd rather not =I

And I believe you mean plants which release O2. But I'm sure that's just a typo =o

I weep for the owls ;_; I must go chain myself to an owl sanctuary. NOW.

Plants can aspire CO2, and their decay also releases carbon in various forms. I think that's what Unfortunate meant.

Vegetation sequestering is one of the largest sinks of carbon as are producers of carbonates. The effect and scale to which they can offset the increasing output of carbon in the atmosphere is still under investigation.

Still, people need to approach this issue with a clear head and not be swayed by those who wish to manipulate you emotionally, whether it is the doomsday prophets or the people who think it is inconsequential. If one is steered by either complacency or panic, nothing good will come out of it.

It would be interesting to see what GFF thinks of Peak Oil. I wonder if a thread should be made for that.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

I didn't think much of Michael Crichton's book because I don't like being preached to and I just don't think it is good to only show one side of science. But the whole "state of fear" thing is real and, you, my friend, have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

Well I don't suppose I need to ask what you think of Al Gore. I'm curious as to what statistics his book uses, though, and exactly how he makes his argument in this film.

I lean more towards the alarmis state of mind myself, but it is interesting to hear soem of these arguments people are making. What's frustrating is that everyone seems to be acknowledging the problem to one degree or another, but to the best of my knowledge no efforts are being made to research alternatives. Alternative fuels, yes, but not alternative combustion engines, for instance. Funding is being spent on reduction instead of on ideas for prevention/human accommodation.

Originally Posted by Dullenplain

It would be interesting to see what GFF thinks of Peak Oil. I wonder if a thread should be made for that.

Before the crash, I could've forwarded you to an old monstrous thread about Peak Oil. Whitecrab, an former(?) poster was a big fan of Peak Oil discussion, and I believe he made the thread originally.

Maybe we need a new thread on the topic. It was quite a good read =)

Originally Posted by Skexis

Well I don't suppose I need to ask what you think of Al Gore. I'm curious as to what statistics his book uses, though, and exactly how he makes his argument in this film.

I lean more towards the alarmis state of mind myself, but it is interesting to hear soem of these arguments people are making. What's frustrating is that everyone seems to be acknowledging the problem to one degree or another, but to the best of my knowledge no efforts are being made to research alternatives. Alternative fuels, yes, but not alternative combustion engines, for instance. Funding is being spent on reduction instead of on ideas for prevention/human accommodation.

I dunno about Al Gore. I just read this month's article about him in Wired. I don't feel as dismissive of him as I do of Michael Crichton, maybe because Crichton is an author of fiction and Al Gore is pretty well respected on environmental issues. The article made me wish (again) he had won the presidency.

I know Al Gore is not a fearmonger. From what I read, he is on the mindset of for there to be any reliable and workable solutions to solving any environmental problems, there must be an economic reason for doing so, which is a point we're getting to. For example, enough research has been done by companies now that they know they can save money finding ways to create less waste, as disposing of waste is becoming increasingly expensive.

And that is kind of the problem. I wish technology was advancing faster, but how much money has GM poured into trying to get hydrogen fuel cells to work (maybe as much in advertising as in actual R&D, but still)? I heard on NPR Friday that most experts think we are still 20 years away from having reliable fuel cells on the road, and that is after a good solid 10 years of working at it.

Edit: I just watched the trailer for the Al Gore movie. It does seem to use fear as the major motivator, which I don't appreciate, but from what I hear of the film, that isn't the case at all.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Because it's unreasonable to ask people to go on Walden-esque retreats. Nigga's gotta work, nigga's gotta eat. And for all the personal sacrifices someone has to make to unhook themselves from the grid*, it won't make a lick of difference. A larger trend in society would, and efficency changes in industry better still.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that even if a person went to such lengths to "save the planet" it wouldn't matter. It would just mean more for the rest of us that do consume. In this case, it'd mean more for the Chinese or Indians. A larger trend in society will not take hold. Whether that be in the interests of the environment or economy. Each government motivated attempt has ended up in complete failure. The Kyoto Accords being an example for the environment. Or if you need an economic example look up Gorbachev's Perestroika(sp?) initiatives. Any attempt to slow a decline has only ended up speeding it up.

Originally Posted by deadally

I don't understand what you mean by organic, and I doubt that you understand what the word organic means

What I mean by 'organic' is the absence of derivative hydrocarbon based sustances that assist in the production of our food supply. Whether that be fertilzers, herbicides, pesticides, etc.

Originally Posted by deadally

Also, if everybody ate only what they grew for themselves, then we'd have a famine on our hands

An acute observation. Not one I'm inclined to disagree with.

Originally Posted by deadally

Are you for organic fertilizer, too? What is organic fertilizer?

Heh. This question I'm not wholly prepared to answer. I know little to nothing about organic farming. Organic feritilizer is basically made up of compost. Compost could be anything that's of a decaying organic matter. I suspect my retired mother uses shit in her compost pile for her garden. It just smells like it.....

Originally Posted by Gechmir

Before the crash, I could've forwarded you to an old monstrous thread about Peak Oil. Whitecrab, an former(?) poster was a big fan of Peak Oil discussion, and I believe he made the thread originally.

I think the debate is over. When the New York Times acknowledges it to the degree of calling it an "almost certainty", and it has congressional support there's not much to debate about. Except how far it has penetrated the public consciousness.

Just so you know, "derivative hydrocarbon based substances" ARE organic. Organic means anything made of carbon.

The only difference between "organic" fertilizer (shit) and "artificial" fertilizer is their effectiveness. Fertilizers are generally composed of 3 main elements (correct me if I'm wrong), and they include nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. None of these is organic (because they're not CARBON), but they are all definitely the same fertilizer.

Essentially, man-made fertilizers are the same as the manures used in chemical composition, only more effective (considering that farmers are able to feed a good portion of the world, this isn't a long-shot). Go Fritz Haber!

Next, some could argue that the main reason pesticides are "bad" is because insects can develop resistances. Silent Spring and all that is an argument for another day, though.

By the way, I speak of organic strictly from the chemist's point of view. The other definitions you might find are derived colloquialisms to me.

In terms of that...hey! You want something that's organic AND all-natural and low in fat? Potassium Cyanide!



So, remember, without fertilizer we'd pretty much be up a shit-creek. Manure is effective, but not on a grand scale (look how much more expensive organic food is, when all food is organic). Not all additives are out to kill you (and many many carcinogenic substances are only so in HUGE amounts), and Fritz Haber saved us all from Malthusian wastelands! Then he weaponized poison gas

Originally Posted by deadally

Just so you know, "derivative hydrocarbon based substances" ARE organic. Organic means anything made of carbon.

In the context I was using the term "inorganic" was/is originating from a non-biological source.

Originally Posted by deadally

The only difference between "organic" fertilizer (shit) and "artificial" fertilizer is their effectiveness. Fertilizers are generally composed of 3 main elements (correct me if I'm wrong), and they include nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. None of these is organic (because they're not CARBON), but they are all definitely the same fertilizer.

You're right on the first two. I have no clue about potassium though. Again, it's not derived from a biological source, so it's considered inorganic from a non-chemist's point of view. You seem like someone who really enjoys organic chemistry. (I think I just lost an old bet...)

This probably belongs in a Peak-Oil or a permaculture related discussion, but one glaring difference is how sustainable our current farming infrastructure is given the rising of energy prices. If it isn't sustainable in such an environment, it does not matter how much more effective it is. It will just be more expensive. If people cannot afford it, they'll just starve. They're better off growing their own food. So it's not necessarily the better option when speaking from that aspect eh? Since natural gas is a major component in the production of our fertilizers/herbicides/pesticides. Yet another nonrenewable hydrocarbon resource which we only have so much of.

Originally Posted by deadally

Next, some could argue that the main reason pesticides are "bad" is because insects can develop resistances. Silent Spring and all that is an argument for another day, though.

You'd be debating yourself. Soooo not going to touch that one. Science as a whole was not a very good subject of mine.

Originally Posted by deadally

By the way, I speak of organic strictly from the chemist's point of view. The other definitions you might find are derived colloquialisms to me.

That much is obvious. Our interpetations of the words organic and inorganic differ roughly on those lines.

Originally Posted by deadally

So, remember, without fertilizer we'd pretty much be up a shit-creek. Manure is effective, but not on a grand scale (look how much more expensive organic food is, when all food is organic). Not all additives are out to kill you (and many many carcinogenic substances are only so in HUGE amounts), and

I wasn't talking about "organic" stores selling organic food. Most of that stuff is sold at Safeway for much cheaper. It's just an excuse used to sell overpriced food to ignorant yuppies who aren't smart enough to know what they're buying. Nor, do I think that food additives are out to kill me. Just talking from a generalized individual "organic" food growing aspect.

I'm not the one that said that there would be a famine if we had to grow our food organically.... I just questioned the sustainability of our current food growing paradigm in the face of rising energy costs. Which is in no way related...... right?

Originally Posted by deadally

Fritz Haber saved us all from Malthusian wastelands! Then he weaponized poison gas

Ahhh, yet another example of "progress" at work.

Well, his contribution to science far outweighs his contribution to human death

By the way...potassium is also inorganic. All fertilizer is basically inorganic since they're not really made of carbon. The fertilizer that is chemically manufactured is the exact same nitrate and phosphate (etc) that comes from biological sources

Last note on chemistry, if it's carbon-containing, it's organic. If it has no carbon, it's inorganic. Both are devastatingly important to life sustenance, and fertilizer, no matter where you get it, is inorganic.

Honestly, given your point about famine, it seems like a lose-lose situation if peak oil should strike us suddenly (which is somewhat absurd). We could no longer transport the industrial fertilizer and big farm-grown food to everybody. And people still would not have enough land to grow their own food. Famine would probably erupt either way...but it is nice to note that making nitrogen-based fertilizer, in my understanding, takes no hydrocarbon fuel aside from that it requires through heating. So we could find an alternate mode of transportation to get food and fertilizer to and fro.

Of course, that disregards the need for fuels for machinery and all that, but I'm a student of chemistry! I don't think on the grand scale!

Hope I enlightened!