Man Based Global Warming....

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by dbermanmd, Dec 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JSH

    JSH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    2,604
    136
    0
    Location:
    PDX
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    You don't just become a parent, you choose to have children. Or, in my case you actively choose not to have children. I don't have need to replicate myself. One of the best things you could have done to help the planet is choose not to have children. (If you adopted an unwanted child I applaud you.)
     
  2. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    You are parsing my words and in doing so, being less than honest. I'm not disputing these points - but global warming as a result of CO2 is very likely minor - it is NOT a significant climate driver. That is my point. A point you are either choosing to ignore or misleadingly misstating.

    To claim that there are no scientific opinions that agree with the idea that CO2 is NOT the primary driver of global climate simply misleading and erroneous. There are plenty, including this, for instance:


    Title:
    Solar Influence on Recurring Global, Decadal, Climate Cycles Recorded by Glacial Fluctuations, Ice Cores, Sea Surface Temperatures, and Historic Measurements Over the Past Millennium Authors:
    Easterbrook, D. J. Affiliation:
    AA(Western Washington University, Dept. of Geology, Bellingham, WA 98225, United States ; [email protected]) Publication:
    American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #GC21A-0725 Publication Date:
    12/2008 Origin:
    AGU AGU Keywords:
    1600 GLOBAL CHANGE, 1605 Abrupt/rapid climate change (4901, 8408), 1616 Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513), 1650 Solar variability (7537) Abstract Copyright:
    (c) 2008: American Geophysical Union Bibliographic Code:
    2008AGUFMGC21A0725E Abstract

    Global, cyclic, decadal, climate patterns can be traced over the past millennium in glacier fluctuations, oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic observations. The recurring climate cycles clearly show that natural climatic warming and cooling have occurred many times, long before increases in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well known examples of such climate changes, but in addition, at least 23 periods of climatic warming and cooling have occurred in the past 500 years. Each period of warming or cooling lasted about 25-30 years (average 27 years). Two cycles of global warming and two of global cooling have occurred during the past century, and the global cooling that has occurred since 1998 is exactly in phase with the long term pattern. Global cooling occurred from 1880 to ~1915; global warming occurred from ~1915 to ~1945; global cooling occurred from ~1945-1977;, global warming occurred from 1977 to 1998; and global cooling has occurred since 1998. All of these global climate changes show exceptionally good correlation with solar variation since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago. The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6° C (1° F) by 2011 and 1.2° C (2° F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3-5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3-0.5° C until ~2035. The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode. Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling, glacial fluctuations, changes in warm/cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and sun spot activity over the past century show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. The announcement by NASA that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and coincides with recent solar variations. The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years, virtually assuring several decades of global cooling. The IPCC predictions of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011, 2° F warmer by 2038, and 10° F by 2100 stand little chance of being correct. "Global warming" (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over.


    Clearly there are much more important factors that CO2 influencing our climate and the worry about CO2 is vastly overblown. That, Alric, is my point.
     
  3. Mjolinor

    Mjolinor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    229
    4
    0
    Location:
    Greece
    Vehicle:
    2002 Prius
    Doesn't work once you get married, once there, you can be happy or you can be right, not both.
     
  4. JSH

    JSH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    2,604
    136
    0
    Location:
    PDX
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    I've been with the same woman since 1995, married since 2000. There are plenty of women in the world that have no interest in having children.
     
  5. darelldd

    darelldd Prius is our Gas Guzzler

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    6,057
    383
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Then I guess it boils down to a matter of definition. What is "screwing up the earth." I think that any human definition of that involves creating an environment that is toxic to us. You say it is arrogant to think we can screw up the earth, and then you go on to say that even if we DO screw up the earth, life will go on. Apparently you define screwing up the earth as breaking it somehow? Blowing it up? Sending back to the dust it came from? Having this definition makes all the difference. And now realizing what you meant makes me *almost* see how that could appear to be arrogant. I personally view "screwing up the earth" as killing things that we don't then use for our survival. Permanently wiping out thousands of plant and animal species in a matter of a few decades pretty much fills the bill for me. We are *currently* screwing up the earth. We don't even have to wait for the climate to change any more.

    I should have been more specific: That he agrees with you on this point.

    And I applaud you for being a reasonable, thinking member. I didn't mean to insult YOU in comparing you with Berman. :)

    Like my coffee cup quote that I posted earlier - I really don't give a damn how we get to where we need to be. If we can't get people to change for the relevant reasons, we need to get them to change somehow. I have completely moved away from a public stance on global climate change. As important as it may be, there are countless other compelling reasons to make the right changes even if we ignore climate change. (Please note that I still have a stance on climate change, I just choose not to muddy the waters with it).

    I assume that you are asking if that is what I am implying. What I am *saying* is that we as humans have a unique ability to exploit the earth's resources. Sometimes we see the consequences, and sometimes we don't see them until they bite us in the nice person. Is all this natural? That I can't answer.

    Yeah, yeah. I've used this argument when playing the part of devil's advocate myself. But we all know it is just a thin excuse to do stupid things. Sure, we can dump our raw sewage in the neighbor's yard and call it "natural." We can refine oil and gasoline, and then pour it into our lakes and streams and call it "natural." Are we stupid enough to do this? Apparently some of us are. Thankfully, most of us realize that there are at least *some* limits on what we should and should not be doing. I totally agree that the line between what humans do and what is "natural" is very wide and gray. Yet this is no excuse to commute solo in a hummer.

    Hold on now. If there's nothing we can do to *harm* the planet (that would be arrogant, right?) then why is there anything we can do that is *good* for the planet? You aren't being arrogant now, are you?

    On top of that, I simply do not agree with you. My wife and I had one child. When my wife and I are gone, our net result is half the population. And that half that we added is likely to continue fighting the good fight.
     
  6. Mjolinor

    Mjolinor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    229
    4
    0
    Location:
    Greece
    Vehicle:
    2002 Prius
    Nope, I meant inferring because you are obviously implying that they are not.

    This is not an argument it is merely a fact, to use it is sensible, it is one of the few irrefutable facts in this whole thread.

    What you should and should not do is a personal decision, not applicable to other people, they make their own decisions but however you look at it we cannot do things that are not natural. What you say only makes sense when you believe what you believe, it makes no sense if someone doesn't have your beliefs. Some people believe you shouldn't wear fur, some people think you shouldn't eat meat, some people believe the earth is flat. Each to his own, you can educate but you cannot force in a "free" society.

    Anyway, that's enough :) My point is made, I will continue to believe what I knwo to be true.
     
  7. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,526
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    Utter nonsense.

    That comment assumes that eliminating all humanity is the only good answer possible. It is not. Sustainable living is an achievable goal that does not require going without children to achieve. In fact it is impossible to acheive without children. The earth will eventually be destroyed by the sun. Humans are aware of this and in a position to extent life beyond this boundry. We are quite capable of doing fantastic good, but first comes the education of how to do this. This is not arrogance, it is a wonderful responsibility.
     
  8. qbee42

    qbee42 My other car is a boat

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    18,058
    3,044
    7
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Good point Darrell. Following this logic, plants screwed up the earth long before we got to it. The proliferation of green plants caused the earth's atmosphere to become choked with a nasty, highly corrosive gas (oxygen) that wouldn't otherwise be here in such large concentrations. We should get rid of the plants.

    Tom
     
  9. JSH

    JSH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    2,604
    136
    0
    Location:
    PDX
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    I never said we can't screw up the planet or cause harm. We can and we do. Everything that humans do has trade-offs. Some species will benefit and some will be hurt.

    I said is is arrogant to assume that we can alter the long term climate of the earth. It is arrogant to say that we are altering the planet's climate cycle, a cycle that has been repeating every 100,000 years, based on 150 years of data. It is even crazier when you see that it isn't even that 150 years of data that global warming theory is based, it is based on computer models predicting the next 100 years and beyond. And then we get into even bigger leaps of faith with "tipping points" or the idea that if we don't radically change in the next 10 to 15 years, we will unleash a chain of climate events that can never be reversed.

    I have no faith in climate models. Again, we can't predict weather 5 days out. We also can't predict El Nino effects. That is a binary output, strong or weak for a climate event that repeats every 4 years.

    I've also said it is arrogant to think that our species is important in the scope of the universe. Humans are important to humans, not to the earth or to the universe. Many of the earth's species would be happy to be rid of humans.
     
  10. JSH

    JSH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    2,604
    136
    0
    Location:
    PDX
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    You don't have to eliminate the human race, reducing our population would go a long way to fixing some of our problems.

    However, it is irresponsible and in my opinion immoral to create new humans while millions of orphan children around the world suffer. It should be enough to love and nurture a child regardless of whether they share your DNA or look like you.
     
  11. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Just because we can't predict rain five days out, or predict the effects of el Nino doesn't mean the the climate models are wrong. Even IF they are wrong, you have to admit that we humans have spewed forth much more pollution of all kinds in the 19th and 20th centuries than possibly all of human history. (Couple the extensive use of fossil fuel, chemicals, nuclear fallout etc. with huge increases in human population and it has to be close to true if not true in fact).

    If that is so, then it stands to reason, regardless of any predictive or reactive climate models that this CANNOT be good for the planet. That said, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to reduce and mitigate what we are spewing forth? I have no kids, but I care deeply about other peoples kids, and grandkids etc.

    If we wait for proof positive of climate change before we do ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL about it, it will be far too late. I feel sorry for those with kids who deny this reality, who will have lots of explaining to do to your grandchildren why we let this happen!

    It is an old aphorism, but we don't inherit from our parents, but rather borrow from our children. Wake up folks and see that just because we live in a country with clean air and clean water (sort of) there is a lot of the world where that is not the case, and we pay for that through our "cheap" lifestyle!

    Icarus
     
  12. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius


    The primary driver of global temperature is of course the sun. This is what drives the seasons. The point is whether CO2 can contribute to warming and that is clearly the case.

    BTW, your reference is a non-peer reviewed abstract at a meeting, not a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. But thanks for pointing out for the one abstract contrarians will be hanging on their hats for the next few months.
     
  13. JSH

    JSH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    2,604
    136
    0
    Location:
    PDX
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    The inability to model short term weather and climate phenomena shows how bad we are at modeling climate. It stands to reason that the errors in long term models are even greater than those in short term models. Models are predictions, but we are expected to take them as fact. For example, IPCC climate models predict an increase in temperature of 1.1 to 6.4 C and a rise in sea levels from 90 to 880 mm by 2100. Or in layman's terms, temperature will rise as will sea levels but we have no idea by how much.

    I'm not arguing that we shouldn't try to mitigate human's effect on the planet. However, we should do this for real reasons.
     
  14. richard schumacher

    richard schumacher shortbus driver

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    7,656
    998
    0
    Location:
    United States
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Are you kidding? The ancient Greeks didn't name Antarctica.

    For discussion of the facts of global warming by atmospheric physicists and climatologists instead of a bunch of ideologues, poseurs, and wannabees, see
    http://realclimate.org
     
  15. richard schumacher

    richard schumacher shortbus driver

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    7,656
    998
    0
    Location:
    United States
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    That is a strawman argument. You can't model exactly where the convection cells will be inside a pot of boiling water, but you can be certain that the pot will heat faster and boil harder when you put the lid on it. Adding greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and methane to the atmosphere puts the lid on Earth's climate.
     
  16. darelldd

    darelldd Prius is our Gas Guzzler

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    6,057
    383
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    OK. A sensible fact. But one that is irrelevant in this discussion. Why do we care what's natural and what isn't? The discussion here is about "man-made" climate change. We can call that natural or unnatural, but we know what is made by man and what isn't. So... what's the point of this sensible fact?

    You might not be able to force, but you can certainly punish. It isn't legal to marry more than one woman. It isn't legal to kill anybody. It isn't legal to dump gasoline on the ground. Surprisingly it is still legal to drive gasoline cars. But the point is that we DO legislate what we think is good for us or our environment. What do you suppose the place would look like with no laws?

    If everything we do has trade-off's, why couldn't (possibly!) one of them be effecting the climate of the earth? My earlier question about the arrogance of being able to destroy thousands of species of plants and animals was not answered. OR is that small potatoes? Is the fact that some folks find human-caused climate change to be arrogant - is that a good enough reason to NOT seek the answer? Does finding the concept arrogant mean that it can't be true? Shouldn't be true? But again... this is why I leave climate change out of the argument. Why don't we just change for all the other inarguable reasons that we should be changing? Even if we are not changing the climate, I still contend that we shouldn't be crapping in our own nest.

    Any reason that has at its heart, "don't ask questions" is not valid in my mind. And this idea of the concept being too arrogant is one of them.

    Then let's ignore them and make changes for other reasons. Anybody want to breathe clean air and drink clean water? Of course on the other hand it is pretty arrogant to assume that your faith in these models matters to anybody. (sorry, had to stick that in).

    On this we agree, certainly.

    Is it not irresponsible and immoral to burn gasoline and coal while millions of people suffer respiratory problems? (especially young children?)

    Wow. I've got nothing more. Just wow.
     
  17. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,526
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    If I understand this comment correctly, it's wrong (arrogant?) to ask if dumping all the CO2 generated by burning all the carbon would have an effect? Is this because someone has proven this or because asking the question is offensive? I certainly do not know the answer, but ignoring it is hard to justify.

    Absolutely agree that overpopulation is a problem, but solutions based in reality are needed. The above is not realistic.
     
  18. darelldd

    darelldd Prius is our Gas Guzzler

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    6,057
    383
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    That's how I read it too. To ask and try to find an answer is arrogant. While ignoring it *because* it is arrogant, is just ignorant.

    So in a nutshell, your choice is between:

    Arrogance or ignorance.

    With nothing else being offered, I'll happily take door #1.
     
  19. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A

    I'm sorry, but I have to call Bull on this: "We should do it for real reasons!" That is an BS argument to do nothing just because we don't know the exact extent of the damage or the exact cause! Even if we can't agree on how much the temperature will rise, or how much the sea level will rise the consiquences of any rise in either will be catastrophic and waiting for the proof is just selfish! The fact is , as has been stated too often before, we are and have been throwing shit into the environment for ~2 centuries and it is clear to anyone who has eyes that we can't continue to do it at the scale we do! Get a clue! Get out of your NorthAmerican centric world view and go to China, go to India. See what is really happening. We have the benefit of 30 years of at least having SOME environmental regulations that at least allow people in LA or Chicago or Denver to breath much of the year, and yet there are still people who think that unleaded gas, catalytic converters, etc is just stupid.

    The population of the US is ~ 1/3 more now than when I was born. I believe that world population has doubled in the last ~50 years. It is true that population size and environmental conditions are connected. We need to consider the carrying capacity of the planet, and what is clear is that in many ways we have surpassed it.

    Icarus

    Icarus
     
  20. PriuStorm

    PriuStorm Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    2,239
    149
    0
    Location:
    Davis, CA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Not to argue with you, darrell, but until either you or your wife are gone, the net result has been an increase in population. Your decision to only have one child will reduce the rate of population increase, and if done on a large scale (like China's one child rule), will result in a population decline at some point in the future as you stated. However, until that point in the future when the 1-child parents start to die, the population will continue to increase. The age at which your child may decide to have their child will affect the rate of population increase as well (i.e. if you and all your descendants all have a child at age 20, you'll have many more descendants by the time you're 80 than if you and all your descendants waited until you were 40).
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.