Global Warming

[gaybucks_jeff]

Hey I was curious as to what people think about the topic of global warming... I was involved in a heated debate way back at Phoenix Forum, but I am curious as to the opinions on what people think about this issue in this *unique* demographic. What do you think should be done? Do you even believe it exists? How would you critisize/praise world leaders on how they are dealing with it?

[chadknowslaw]

One of the most credible things I have heard on this topic was from a group of European researchers that believe the sun has been giving off more energy in the past decades resulting the warming we see now. If their theory is true, then nothing humans can do will change the trend just as nothing we have done caused it.
I am about as liberal as they come, but on this topic I am going with the "it wasn't us" side.
HOWEVER
I do believe that pollutions and toxic emissions need to be addressed and reduced.

[gaybucks_chip]

When I went and saw "An Inconvenient Truth" (which I strongly suggest that everyone should see). I was absolutely floored at the information provided. Jeff can probably speak about this more coherently than I, since he's working for Sierra Club, but this is what I came away with from the movie.

There are apparently NO credible scientists who dispute that global warming exists, and some 800 scientists that have written scholarly articles validating the presence of it. The loser Republicans have basically embarked on a "sow seeds of doubt" campaign without any scientific evidence to back their viewpoint, and even the losers in the Bush white house (with the exception of the top loser himself) realize that global warming is real.

The levels of CO2 worldwide have risen over the past 10,000 years (as analyzed through ice cores from the polar ice caps) almost identically to the levels of warming in the atmosphere. It isn't conclusive proof, but it's certainly a pretty strong correlation that points to CO2 production as the primary culprit in global warming. (Chad's mention was the first I'd heard of the sun putting off more energy, I will have to read more about that.)

I believe it's real, based on the evidence I've read and seen. Apparently no one (credible) has criticized the science in An Inconvenient Truth, according to research done by a major media source (I think it was NY Times or Time Magazine.) Some have said that the movie actually painted a brighter future than many scientists think is possible.

I'm also interested in what others have to say.

[chadknowslaw]

I have absolutely no doubt there are changes happening globally. The warming is really happening and it seems storms are becoming more intense. When I was a boy in northern Iowa there was snow on the ground from the end of November until the middle of March. -20F was an annual occurrence, happening several times at the end of January and beginning of February. There was enough snow to dig tunnels, make snow forts, and keep us home from school on "snow days". 30 years later, it rains in January.

Although I doubt human activity and the pollution we have spewed into the atmosphere are the primary causes of global warming, I have serious doubts that what we do now will make much of a difference. If we assume that pollution and greenhouse gases are the cause, then it would still take years to reduce those emissions in a time when India and China are coming out of the dark ages so that now there are 2 billion more people that want to drive cars and have electric appliances, increasing total global emissions. AND, if all polluting stopped right now -- shut off our lights, put our cars, buses, trucks, trains, and airplanes on blocks and all lived a subsistence lifestyle -- how long would it take for the damage that has been done to start reversing itself?

I have little faith that the human population will be able to reduce total global emissions. I believe we need to start planning on how to deal with a warmer, more volatile earth. That is not all bad, because on a warmer earth those millions of acres of farmland in Manitoba and the Dakotas will become more productive at the same time that farmland in Oklahoma decreases in productivity. Northern cities will become more livable. Phoenix -- well, it is fucking hot here already so we wont even notice. As long as we can adapt to the changes, global warming in itself will not be the cause of Armageddon.

[XXXWriterDude]

Of course it exists. It doesn't get hotter and hotter every year for nothing.

What should be done about it? Put Clinton and Gore back into office, that's what.

[gaybucks_chip]

I have little faith that the human population will be able to reduce total global emissions. I believe we need to start planning on how to deal with a warmer, more volatile earth. That is not all bad, because on a warmer earth those millions of acres of farmland in Manitoba and the Dakotas will become more productive at the same time that farmland in Oklahoma decreases in productivity. Northern cities will become more livable. Phoenix -- well, it is fucking hot here already so we wont even notice. As long as we can adapt to the changes, global warming in itself will not be the cause of Armageddon.

You really need to see the movie. The problem is, that as weather shifts, some areas get completely flooded and unusable, and other areas become so dry they are completely unusable. Likewise, because the polar ice caps are melting, the oceans could raise enough to make significant populated parts of the US, including parts of Manhattan, Florida, Mississippi, and other places be permanently flooded by the ocean.

And most researchers *do* believe that the problem can be solved *if* a concerted effort is made worldwide to do so. A comparision is made to the ozone problem in the 80s. The ozone hole was getting bigger consistently, and people insisted that nothing could be done to solve the probem... but the banning of CFCs and certain other actions actually did solve the problem, and the ozone hole repaired itself. Many (but not all) scientists think that the same can happen with CO2 levels if swift enough action is taken.

[desslock]

I am skeptical about the theory of *man made global warming* (surprise surprise) I don't pretend to be an authority on it, but I am skeptical. One reason is that pop culture gets obsessed with "fad disaster scenarios" every decade or two. Of all the hype you hear about global warming today, thirty years ago the exact same scares were about global overpopulation.

This can be seen in the science fiction movies of the time --- go rent Soylent Green or Logan's Run. Or watch Star Trek's "Mark of Gideon" (old series) By 1995 the Earth was supposed to become so overpopulated, we could not feed ourselves. This theory was discussed with the same seriousness by groups of experts on all sides of the issue.

If my memory serves, Thomas Malthus theorized that population grows exponentially while the food supply grows as 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 and so on.

Overpopulation and hunger were big debates of the 60s and 70s. Looks like the early 21st century is about global warming. And time pretty much disproved the concept of a malthusian nightmare.

Another example, people on the board have pessimistically noted that gasoline prices are mysteriously falling right before the election. One reason for this is because there weren't any hurricanes. There were news articles this Spring on the subject of how this year's hurricane season would be WORSE then last year's. And global warming was supposed to have warmed up the oceans so that severe hurricanes would be an annual coastline event.
Lesson here - don't overreact.

Just remember there are lots of things that we know from science, and there are also things that we don't know. Recognize that. We may learn them one day, but for now somethig like the theory of manmade global warming is still just a leap of faith.

Steve

[basschick]

ordinary global warming - ie, not caused by man - takes thousands of years. the earth has experienced thousands of years worth in the last 20 according to every reputable scientist.