Global Warming! We're all going to die!

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by rockytriton

I mean, the earth was hit by a giant meteor that whiped out most of the life on it, and now it still sustains life...

Does that mean we don't need to worry for the future generations?

Originally Posted by rockytriton

You don't run around talking about the oxygen levels and how much we breath is going to affect how much oxygen is left on the earth, it will be replenished naturally.

Only if people would quit overexploiting forests, and replenish them instead, and enough to make up for the increased emissions, but that takes time. Trees don't grow overnight.

The Economist had a very good article recently on illegal logging around the world. These people deserve what's going to happen to all of us.

BTW I read the article you linked to and found it ludicrously incompetent. One of the positive responses he got was remarking on how people like him are being outcast and harassed... just like "Creation Scientists". Quite significant, I'd say.

[InfiniteNow]

Would it help you to decide where you stand if we just called it something different?

Let's say...

"Atmospheric Composition Change." Do we, our actions, and our society have an impact on that?

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Would it help you to decide where you stand if we just called it something different?

Let's say...

"Atmospheric Composition Change." Do we, our actions, and our society have an impact on that?

pretty hard not to agree with that.
The question is how significant is human "Atmospheric Composition Change." lined up against all the other variables?
I happen to be reading Ian Plimer's book "a short history of planet earth" (ABC press)
He makes the point that there are dozens of factors in play, including water vapour, volcanism, bacteria, solar flares, solar radiation, solar wind, solar cycles, natural cycles of planetary motion, (orbital eccentricity), ice rafting events, natural alternating ice house/greenhouse events, tectonic plate movement, planetary spin speed variations,movement of magnetic pole etc etc
Frankly it's all a bit much to take in.

Of course we could all stop worrying about "Atmospheric Composition Change."
by reversing the last 150-200 years of it by taking up Terra preta farming and gardening!
http://hypography.com/forums/earth-s...rra-preta.html

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

pretty hard not to agree with that.
The question is how significant is human "Atmospheric Composition Change." lined up against all the other variables?
...Frankly it's all a bit much to take in.

So if something is hard, then don't bother? Is it any surprise that as we humans develop evermore complex understanding that we encounter evermore complex questions?
The mix of variable parameters you mention from the book appear 'a bit much to take in' if viewed from a linear modeling perspective, but we have new types of modeling such as fractals & complex systems analysis which accomodate these parameters.
What I see lacking as we specialize in more & more topics, is an understanding of the generalizations we may draw from them. Atmospheric Composition Change by any other name is as not disconnected.

[Wondering]

Ok, i just have to say this...

I understand that debate is a good thing, and is important. However, I think that some people may be paying more attention to articles, books, and people who say that global warming isn't happening, isn't dangerous, or isn't caused by humans just because they subconsiously want that to be true. I respect that other people can think what they want, but from what I've read global warming is happening, and does have bad effects, and yes, we do play a part! It's not like I just go around reading crazy doomsday people ranting on about it either. NASA reports all this, even when they don't want to, but it's getting to the point that they have to. I wish that I could see the affected parts myself, all I can see is that our winters in northern Canada are getting shorter and milder, but I know people that have seen worse effects. My sister's friend in highschool went on a researching ship with scientists and saw where ice should have been and melting permafrost destroying peoples homes. Where they started their trip, they weren't allowed outside without someone with a gun because the polar bears are being driven into that town.

How can people ignore these things? Maybe people are just ignorant and they don't care. Maybe they just live in denial. Maybe it is a subconsious thing.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Wondering

Ok, i just have to say this...

I understand that debate is a good thing, and is important. However, I think that some people may be paying more attention to articles, books, and people who say that global warming isn't happening, isn't dangerous, or isn't caused by humans just because they subconsiously want that to be true. I respect that other people can think what they want, but from what I've read global warming is happening, and does have bad effects, and yes, we do play a part!

How can people ignore these things? Maybe people are just ignorant and they don't care. Maybe they just live in denial. Maybe it is a subconsious thing.

Just a few weeks ago you claimed you did not know much about global warming, admitted your local library had little info and began your exploration into the global warming controversy. I respect an honest enquiry into these things. It is my own explorations of different opinions that has me skeptical of the hyperbole surrounding the current media focus on 'global warming' and 'we're all gonna die' scenarios. I am very skeptical that less than 0.5% of the atmospheric condition (greenhouse gasses) can account for the climate changes that are occuring on the earth.

Science is not perfect. Medicine is a good example of how easy it is to make mistakes when promoting certain behaviors and having problems later surface due to intangables or cause and effects not being explored before promoting an idea as 'truth'. Look at how medicine suggests laying babies down to sleep as an example. First change and easiest to document was, dont let your babies sleep on their bellies cuz when they spit up they drown because their necks are not strong enough. So millions of parents put their children to bed on their backs. A few years later medicine reversed itself because more babies died from the solution than the original 'problem'.

I dont think anyone is saying climate change isnt happening, history shows climate change happens. What is being debated is whether human impact is the source of this change as presented in the media today. Doing research into this does require exploration of the history of climate, atmosphere, oceans, and a host of other sciences to get the 'big picture' on the whole of the earths climate. It requires the analysis of multiple disciplines to be able to see the entire picture. As with all science, the theories will be changed, added to, subtracted from, and it will take time to get an understanding that encompasses the 'truth'.

New link for today. Historic Oxygen levels. The amount of oxygen has been dropping for the last 75 million years.

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/is...991262002.jpeg

From this article:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/20/10955

[Qfwfq]

And we're making it drop even quicker. What else but vegetation is there to replenish oxygen from carbon dioxide?

[Wondering]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Just a few weeks ago you claimed you did not know much about global warming, admitted your local library had little info and began your exploration into the global warming controversy. I respect an honest enquiry into these things. It is my own explorations of different opinions that has me skeptical of the hyperbole surrounding the current media focus on 'global warming' and 'we're all gonna die' scenarios. I am very skeptical that less than 0.5% of the atmospheric condition (greenhouse gasses) can account for the climate changes that are occuring on the earth.

Science is not perfect. Medicine is a good example of how easy it is to make mistakes when promoting certain behaviors and having problems later surface due to intangables or cause and effects not being explored before promoting an idea as 'truth'. Look at how medicine suggests laying babies down to sleep as an example. First change and easiest to document was, dont let your babies sleep on their bellies cuz when they spit up they drown because their necks are not strong enough. So millions of parents put their children to bed on their backs. A few years later medicine reversed itself because more babies died from the solution than the original 'problem'.

I dont think anyone is saying climate change isnt happening, history shows climate change happens. What is being debated is whether human impact is the source of this change as presented in the media today. Doing research into this does require exploration of the history of climate, atmosphere, oceans, and a host of other sciences to get the 'big picture' on the whole of the earths climate. It requires the analysis of multiple disciplines to be able to see the entire picture. As with all science, the theories will be changed, added to, subtracted from, and it will take time to get an understanding that encompasses the 'truth'.

New link for today. Historic Oxygen levels. The amount of oxygen has been dropping for the last 75 million years.

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/is...991262002.jpeg

From this article:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/20/10955

Well, I do know more about it now. Not as much of the scientific stuff, but some. Can I just ask you if you recycle or conserve energy? Do you care about air pollution or deforestation?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Wondering

Well, I do know more about it now. Not as much of the scientific stuff, but some. Can I just ask you if you recycle or conserve energy? Do you care about air pollution or deforestation?

Recycling:

Do You Recycle??

Home Waste Recycling

Without going into alot of detail, I have recycled or had a significant involvement with the recycling of around 1 million pounds of steel in the last 25 years.

I was involved with a lawsuit against a major energy corporation regarding the dumping of a certain chemical prior to the changes in the laws regarding such things. It took 16 years to resolve, but the company did end up cleaning up the area.

As far as conservation, I drive one of the most economical cars available by choice.

I am slowly redoing my house to bring it to a higher standard for energy effiency.

My current location is considered deciduous woods.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/snas/deci...scription.html

Currently I am struggling with aging oaks which are starting to die from various natural causes and locating new trees to replace these giants when the finally expire. I dont mow much of the area I own and I allow "weeds" to grow. I dont use pesticides, herbicides, or any of the other common yard chemicals. I dont poison mice.

I contribute with both time and money, to several local organisations which are promoting wildlife and habitat in large areas. Each time I float my canoe down the river I bring a garbage bag to collect garbage others have left along this river.

I have attended local planning meetings to fight housing developments that bend existing rules on minimum standards including how many houses per acre.

If you dont mind, could you respond with your own accounting of self responsibility in regards to the environment and your impact on it?

[Zythryn]

Cedars, I applaud your enviornmentally kind works and efforts.
I am curious though, you stated

"I am very skeptical that less than 0.5% of the atmospheric condition (greenhouse gasses) can account for the climate changes that are occuring on the earth."

But you then indicate that for enviornmental reasons, you do you best to minimize your intact of fossil fuels. Given your first statement, is this because you feel it MIGHT be an issue and given the stakes, better safe than sorry (even though you are skeptical).
Or is it that you feel the dire consiquences are overstated, but enviornmental care is worthwhile for its own sake (again, I applaud you if this is the case).

Personally your efforts outweigh my own, although I am working hard to catch up

Mark