Global Climate Change

[marharth]

The below is a direct reply I was going to make in another topic, but decided to just make a new topic to not completely derail the other one. This is also about some other things such as OWS.

 

that 1% of the people in America have over 60% of the money

..and 50% of congress is worth over a million dollars or more. Something to think about next time you hear someone screaming about being part of the 99% and blaming Wall Street. Who do you think made the rules that Wall Street follows? Congress. Those OWS people are in the wrong city. No surprise, really, as I suspect that the assorted hippies, anarchists, and communists would find reading a map somewhat beyond their comprehension, if you judge their abilities based on the slogans they're chanting.

...or that we are polluting the air to the point were it is going to be unbreathable in 5 generations (or so my AP enviornment/physics teacher has claimed)... and are actually passing laws to make it go a wee bit faster

Your AP teacher is a dunce. Go look up how much pollutants get thrown up into the air by volcanoes. If your AP teacher was right we'd already be living in a Venus-like atmosphere. Why aren't we? Because our ecosystem has developed a great many methods for scrubbing the air, the water, and the dirt. It's called life, weather, and the geothermal process.

 

This isn't to say we can't damage the environment in the short run, or cause ourselves misery through pollution (with starvation being the most likely outcome, in my opinion), and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be conserving our environment. But it's also a bit egotistical to say that mankind is going to ruin the earth. Compared to the earth we're tiny little bugs who build tiny metal houses and emit tiny amounts of gasses. Our numbers make us impressive, so our tiny egotistical little bug minds think, but the earth hardly notices us. We could nuke the earth and within 100 years it would be green again. We'd probably still be here, only our little metal houses would probably be called huts and we'd have far less free time.

 

Here's a great example; the coal that we dig up and burn for cheap energy. Where did it come from? Back when trees first came about, they were really just new and bigger ferns. Their different cellulose structure, however, was too new for the bugs and bacteria to consume. So when trees died they didn't decay and instead were covered up by geological processes. In turn, they were then pressed and formed into the coal beds we now use to warm our houses, charge our ipods, and even charge our "pollution free" electric cars. These days there is no shortage of stuff that eats trees. In fact, life has so adapted to these giant ferns that they don't even wait until they die before snacking on them. So what is the modern equivalent of the ancient trees? Simple; plastics.

 

Yep, those terrible Styrofoam coolers and plastic grocery bags that are supposed to clog up the landfills for the next ten thousand years (or so, depending on which enviroloon you're talking too) will eventually become food for microbes and bugs. How soon? Well, that's a matter of speculation, but science has already found a few molds and microbes that are taking a liking to petroleum products (of which plastics are made), so it may be sooner than we like. Especially if you consider all the plastics we have in our society, you can see we have an enormous banquet waiting for the first critters to discover that niche in the food supply. Add in the fact that we're actively trying to grow similar microbes and I'm sure you can see where this is going. We're kick-starting the environment into making plastic part of the natural cycle of life.

 

So what is the point of all this? Most environmentalists don't know what they're talking about, especially the ones crying about man-made climate change. Why? Well, in the 80's they were clamoring about global cooling. In the 90's their tune changed to global warming. Now it's just generic climate change. As much as Al Gore says the science is settled, he's lying. (Al Gore, bye-the-way, stands to make hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars from the carbon exchange scam if it becomes law in America. He's invested at the ground floor in many companies that are setting up the carbon exchange. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact. He has a vested interest in getting people to believe that carbon credits will save the earth from phantoms.) It's a scam to panic people into letting people, who don't really give a damn about the environment, tell industries how much they can produce. If Al Gore really cared about the environment, he'd have a smaller house and not own a private jet.

 

If you want to save the earth, from whatever your choice cause is (although I do think overfishing is a very valid concern), go look for a conservationist group. A good place to start is a sportsmen group. You may know them by another title; Hunters and Fishermen. See, these lads and ladies are out in the environment far more often than most environmentalists, and actually see what's happening to nature. Sportsmen love nature. They love trees, clean water, clean air, healthy wild animals, and they like using it as often as they can. Your average hunter, or fisherman, if they've been fishing and hunting in the same area for a decent amount of time, can tell you more about the wildlife and condition of the area, and what's happened in past seasons just as well as any park ranger or scientist. Probably better.

 

Sorry for rambling, so here's the TL:DR version - Ignore the panic as most environmental groups are backed by socialists who really just want to stop capitalism (mostly America 'cause they don't say carp about China or Russia), and always do you homework before believing anybody who says "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF WE DON'T STOP DOING X!" Also, if you want to help the environment, start hunting and fishing!

 

Oh, and Al Gore is a hypocritical ninny trying to get richer. :verymad:

Congress passed the laws, so what? Who do you think pays congress to pass these laws?

 

Please define what you think communism and socialism is.

 

Go to the protests and watch what the people are doing instead of listening to fox news about how they are all hippies.

 

In the sixth grade you should of learned about air pollution. Air pollution is not the same thing as global climate change. If your seriously suggesting that air pollution by man is not a issue I have no idea why I even replying to you.

 

Yes, coal used to be forms of life. The issue is if you burn it faster then it can change back into what it used to be.

 

Do you have any evidence that every environmentalist group is backed by socialists?

 

Al Gore is not the person who you should be referencing when trying to debunk climate change. You should be talking about the massive number of scientists that believe that it is happening, not a politician who simply wants to get rich off of it.

 

Fisherman and hunters may know about certain areas more then scientists. They do not know about how the entire global environment works as well as a scientist does.

[ITOS]

In addition to the points marharth brought up, I would like to add a few things.

 

First, about plastics. Plastics are already killing many animals who mistakes it for food but in addition to this are all the extra chemicals added to plastics to give it the high variety of properties we see today. These chemicals are often very stable and many are poisonous or have unknown effects. They also tend not to stay in the plastics but rather get enriched in the food-chain until they reach dangerous levels. The effects of such unnatural chemicals in our environment can already be seen. While I'm not entirely up to date on the research I do know that its being speculated on how the elevated levels of these chemicals that has been measured in humans may be responsible for (often bad) changes in the development in infants and children.

 

As for the notion that humans effect on climate change is a conspiracy by socialists to overthrow capitalism... well, I'm trying to think up a good reply but they all get very sarcastic. Such a theory just appear paranoid to me. While there is some discussion about the scale of the effect, there is no ambiguity about the reality of it within the scientific community.

 

Finally, I would like to point out that the "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE" view of climate change is usually one made by the media to create headlines. Any respectable scientist will tell you that most people will survive just fine although millions of people will die (mostly from starvation) in the more sensitive regions of the world as a direct cause of climate change.

 

For a better explanation of the subject I would recommend Plan B by Lester R. Brown which is available for free here: http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb4

Edited October 27, 2011 by ITOS

[HeyYou]

Climate change is normal. And cyclical. The earth has been thru colder periods, and warmer periods, long before man came on the scene, and then became industrialized. Where I live, has been both a tropical rain forest, and buried under a mile of ice. Funny thing is, man had NOTHING to do with those changes. We were still wearing animal skins, and banging rocks together to start fires.

 

Is industrialized man having an impact on the RATE of change? Entirely possible. Sure, lots of scientists are claiming that if we don't change our ways, the climate is going to change. Guess what? Even if we stopped polluting altogether tomorrow, the climate would STILL change.

 

There is also some debate on whether CO levels in the atmosphere are the cause of climate change, or, the result of it..... a selection of studies have shown that CO levels FOLLOW changes in temp. (not lead it, which would imply it as the cause.)

 

Is anything going to change anytime soon? Nope. Can we "stop" global climate change? Not a chance.

[marharth]

Right, climate change is natural. We can speed it up however, and we can also slow it down.

[grannywils]

HeyYou, I'm surprised that you look at it merely as climate change and nothing more. It may be true that you and I will be long gone before the disastrous results of man's treatment of the planet come to fruition. But I find it hard to believe that you cannot see that it is more than just a matter of a pendulum swing in the climate.

 

Rather than just giving you a link, I have copied in its entirety an article from National Geographic magazine on the Ozone Layer and what has been happening to it as a result of our pollution of the environment. Once it is gone, Earth will have no protection from the sun's rays. Here is the article:

 

"The ozone layer is a belt of naturally occurring ozone gas that sits 9.3 to 18.6 miles (15 to 30 kilometers) above Earth and serves as a shield from the harmful ultraviolet B radiation emitted by the sun.

 

Ozone is a highly reactive molecule that contains three oxygen atoms. It is constantly being formed and broken down in the high atmosphere, 6.2 to 31 miles (10 to 50 kilometers) above Earth, in the region called the stratosphere.

 

Today, there is widespread concern that the ozone layer is deteriorating due to the release of pollution containing the chemicals chlorine and bromine. Such deterioration allows large amounts of ultraviolet B rays to reach Earth, which can cause skin cancer and cataracts in humans and harm animals as well.

 

Extra ultraviolet B radiation reaching Earth also inhibits the reproductive cycle of phytoplankton, single-celled organisms such as algae that make up the bottom rung of the food chain. Biologists fear that reductions in phytoplankton populations will in turn lower the populations of other animals. Researchers also have documented changes in the reproductive rates of young fish, shrimp, and crabs as well as frogs and salamanders exposed to excess ultraviolet B.

 

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals found mainly in spray aerosols heavily used by industrialized nations for much of the past 50 years, are the primary culprits in ozone layer breakdown. When CFCs reach the upper atmosphere, they are exposed to ultraviolet rays, which causes them to break down into substances that include chlorine. The chlorine reacts with the oxygen atoms in ozone and rips apart the ozone molecule.

 

One atom of chlorine can destroy more than a hundred thousand ozone molecules, according to the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

 

The ozone layer above the Antarctic has been particularly impacted by pollution since the mid-1980s. This region’s low temperatures speed up the conversion of CFCs to chlorine. In the southern spring and summer, when the sun shines for long periods of the day, chlorine reacts with ultraviolet rays, destroying ozone on a massive scale, up to 65 percent. This is what some people erroneously refer to as the "ozone hole." In other regions, the ozone layer has deteriorated by about 20 percent.

 

About 90 percent of CFCs currently in the atmosphere were emitted by industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere, including the United States and Europe. These countries banned CFCs by 1996, and the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere is falling now. But scientists estimate it will take another 50 years for chlorine levels to return to their natural levels."

 

[marharth]

Your right Granny. Climate change alone is natural, but when it is sped up it can have serious issues.

 

The thing a lot of people don't seem to fully understand is that just because it is natural alone, does not mean we should not worry about it being sped up by human activity.

Edited October 27, 2011 by marharth

[HeyYou]

The Ozone layer scare has been ongoing since the 70's. If we were to believe some of the claims made then, we would all be required to wear SPF 500 sunblock just to go outside by now. A fair number of the chemicals that were dubbed "bad for the ozone" have been removed from use over the last couple decades, (try and find chlorinated brake clean, or carb cleaner..... good luck...) just because of such theories.

 

I will grant that there is a high likelihood of man having an accelerating affect on climate change, however, bear in mind that I have a great deal of schooling behind my opinions as well. (Environmental Geoscience.) I have read a LOT of material on this particular topic, and have written a few papers myself. (none published, it was for school.....) Climate Change is NORMAL, not the exception. If you think we can "stop" climate change, you are seriously mistaken.

 

On another note, a number of the 'greenhouse gases' everyone is so worried about, aren't the worst threat. Water Vapor is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, or CO. Methane is also right up there on the list above the various oxides of carbon. We are really in no position to limit our production of water vapor..... (not that we are the leading contributor..... look to the oceans/lakes for that)

 

Another thing that climate scientists either discount entirely, or, have insufficient data on, is ocean currents, and their affect on climate change, theories abound on if the changes we see in currents and water temps are caused by the changing climate, or if cause and effect are reversed. We simply don't know enough to state unequivocally "This is the cause, this is what is happening."

 

That said, ANY reduction in pollutants we crank out can be seen as a "good thing™". It's just the methods the US government wants to implement that I find fault with. (cap and trade) Government is only good at throwing a monkey wrench into the works. Thinking that they can legislate away any problem, when they don't even have the slightest understanding of what the problem really is..... I suppose that's what you get when you let politicians run the show.....

[Balagor]

Climate change is normal. And cyclical. The earth has been thru colder periods, and warmer periods, long before man came on the scene, and then became industrialized. Where I live, has been both a tropical rain forest, and buried under a mile of ice. Funny thing is, man had NOTHING to do with those changes. We were still wearing animal skins, and banging rocks together to start fires.

 

Is industrialized man having an impact on the RATE of change? Entirely possible. Sure, lots of scientists are claiming that if we don't change our ways, the climate is going to change. Guess what? Even if we stopped polluting altogether tomorrow, the climate would STILL change.

 

There is also some debate on whether CO levels in the atmosphere are the cause of climate change, or, the result of it..... a selection of studies have shown that CO levels FOLLOW changes in temp. (not lead it, which would imply it as the cause.)

 

Is anything going to change anytime soon? Nope. Can we "stop" global climate change? Not a chance.

 

True, that changes are cyclical, perhaps meaning IF we still were wearing bear skin, we would NOT be seeing an upcomming change right now. I am aware that warm air can contain more of anything, because it expands. It can contain more humid, more gas (CO2). However a raise in the CO2 level from 330 ppm to almost 400 ppm with a temperatur raise at 1,5 degrees C, is not possible. Also, a larger content of CO2 in warm air does not come only because the air is warm. CO2 comes from many sorces of burning (transpiration). Fossile fuel, plants, decay, etc.

[Marxist ßastard]

I am aware that warm air can contain more of anything, because it expands.

[Head explodes]

[ITOS]

A fair number of the chemicals that were dubbed "bad for the ozone" have been removed from use over the last couple decades, (try and find chlorinated brake clean, or carb cleaner..... good luck...) just because of such theories.

Too me, you sound very dismissive about these theories. Given that halting the emissions of these chemicals has slowed down the depletion of ozone and lead to predictions about the recovery of the ozone layer, wouldn't you say that these theories has substantial merits?

 

How many of those banned chemicals have later been proven to have no effect on ozone? Just wondering since I interpret your use of quotation as an indication that you do not believe them to be bad for the ozone layer.

 

EDIT:

It's just the methods the US government wants to implement that I find fault with. (cap and trade) Government is only good at throwing a monkey wrench into the works. Thinking that they can legislate away any problem, when they don't even have the slightest understanding of what the problem really is..... I suppose that's what you get when you let politicians run the show.....

 

Got me thinking about what would happen if scientist (the people with the best understanding of the problem) ran the show instead. As the consensus on humans effect on the environment is that something has to be done yesteryear, I would expect a much stronger more rapid response than what we see from politicians today. The exact working of how emissions should be lowered may not have an optimal solution but business as usual won't cut it.

Edited October 27, 2011 by ITOS