When I first got into my science nerd phase about 15 years ago, I spent a lot of time reading books and journals in biology.
In the last 5 years, thanks to social media and a wealth of great online peer reviewed science sites, I have branched out my interests to a host of science fields. The thing that most non scientists are not aware of is the amount of evidence and frightening evidence coming from all kinds of science fields. People are willing to discount 95% of climate scientists, fine, but they are very unlikely aware of the many other fields of science now confirming and adding to the data that the very slight change to our planets temperature is quite dangerous.
The most common argument is always, "yeah well its been much warmer" , or "yeah its been much colder", or my favorite, "we couldn't possibly change the climate beyond what we have seen in the planet's history..."
The most frustrating thing, is that science has already called out all those arguments, and destroyed them. Its readily available, there are countless documentaries.
But people select only what agree's with their own pre conceived ideas, and ignore the evidence.
The problem is it is not possible to stop global warming by reducing green house gases. In order for each person in the world to emit the same amount and limit cooling to 2C a 95% cut in greenhouse gas emmissions by 2030 is required. This cannot be done.
Any program currently in place is a joke and is just being used to make people rich through credit trading or a wealth transfer program from rich countries to poor countries. If you drive 20,000km per year now and we double the efficicy of cars you can only drive 1000km per year
This kind of change is not possible in the time frame necessary. It is too late. Our only options are geoengineering.
Here is my problem with the current "Global Warming" group:
Cause: Hole in Ozone Layer Effect: Rise in the average temperature of the earth due to increased greenhouse gas emissions Remedy Option 1: Guilt people into trying to lower their individual greenhouse gas emissions by insinuating that their use of non renewable resources is in essence "killing people" Remedy Option 2: None given
I dont doubt the world is warming - you can see that glaciers have grown smaller.
But it seems there is only 1 solution being brought to the table, that of reducing green house gasses. Why is this the only solution offered? I find it hard to believe that with the technology that we have to day, that if the problem is a reduced ozone layer (caused by increased green house gass emissions) then how is it that there have been no attempts made to repair the ozone.
Can it really be that difficult compared to other things humanity has accomplished?
The Following User Says Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
We're not destroying the planet. The planet will be fine with or without us. The planet will go through hot and cold periods as well as wet and dry as it has before numerous times. The only thing that will destroy the planet is a massive asteroid (that literally breaks the planet in twain), an enormous nuclear explosion that leaves the Earth in pieces or the expansion of the Sun (which will swallow and cremate the planet and everything on it). Otherwise, the planet will be fine.
What we are talking about is saving us. We (probably) can not live on Earth when it's 6 degrees warmer. The polar ice caps will melt, the oceans will rise, there will be massive hurricanes and other storms, the ocean currents will change, weather patterns will be altered, there will be drought and famine, the level of CO2 and methane in the atmoshphere may be toxic, the oceans may become barren and who knows what else.
Regardless of the cause for global warming (or "climate change" for the ostrich crowd) it is in our best interests to do something about it. The Earth will recover eventually but we may not.
So, perhaps finding a new planet is one of the solutions. Unfortunately, the closest one is several light years away (we think). In the meantime, we could follow the lead of a great and nobel species that identified a serious environmental issue and fixed it: us. We could follow our example and how humanity dealt with the hole in the Ozone Layer (not to be confused with the current issue of global warming). The entire planet (or close to it) banded together and solved the problem quickly and without much drama, consternation, wondering what Jesus would do or how many votes it would cost.
People are stupid and reckless. Fortunately, they're also brilliant and wonderful. Hopefully with this issue (as with all others) the latter will outnumber the former.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Regardless of the cause for global warming (or "climate change" for the ostrich crowd) it is in our best interests to do something about it. The Earth will recover eventually but we may not.
There is a problem there. That's a nice consensus builder, but it doesn't work. If people can't agree on the cause, it makes it hard to get political force behind a solution.
And this is one of those issues that sways with the economy. When Ontario was a have province, we were all for getting rid of the coal power plants. Now that we are a have not province after the downturn in the economy and the loss of much of our manufacturing industries, many people are angry at the Liberals for spending so much government money on "green power". When the economy is good, we'll believe the scientists. When the economy is not so good, it's a conspiracy.
Edit: I guess I should clarify that man changing the climate is what I think is bologna.
I would disagree, I don't think it takes scientist to realize that clearing the land, cutting down trees, building concrete jungles and pumping out greenhouse gases would have of zero effect. They are things out there that could have a much bigger effect, but to suggest man doesn't is bologna.
Here is my problem with the current "Global Warming" group:
Cause: Hole in Ozone Layer Effect: Rise in the average temperature of the earth due to increased greenhouse gas emissions Remedy Option 1: Guilt people into trying to lower their individual greenhouse gas emissions by insinuating that their use of non renewable resources is in essence "killing people" Remedy Option 2: None given
I dont doubt the world is warming - you can see that glaciers have grown smaller.
But it seems there is only 1 solution being brought to the table, that of reducing green house gasses. Why is this the only solution offered? I find it hard to believe that with the technology that we have to day, that if the problem is a reduced ozone layer (caused by increased green house gass emissions) then how is it that there have been no attempts made to repair the ozone.
Can it really be that difficult compared to other things humanity has accomplished?
Actually the hole in the ozone and the planet warming because of greenhouse gases is two different problems.
The hole in the ozone was created because of chemicals like CFC's being put in the air. It isn't the main cause the planet is warming (though I think it does contribute some). The biggest concern about the hole in the ozone is that it lets in increased levels of radiation. Which is bad to most organic life. Sun burns, skin cancer, other cancers, all sorts of fun maladies would be caused by UV and other cosmic radiation.
Greenhouses gases, are gasses like carbon which trap heat in after it hits the earth. Something like 95% of the suns energy bounces back off the earth and into space, however with increased levels of these gasses, the heat and energy stay locked in, sorta like a 'greenhouse'.
I guess I am just being idealistic to a degree but given how fast our technology is evolving, I find it very likely that before long we will move past our need for large scale burning of fossil fuels and the problem will slowly go away. This may be aided by large scale projects to reclaim CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, if the political will is there to do so.
__________________
Huge thanks to Dion for the signature!
Climate change is bologna. Millions and millions of years and we somehow have a real grasp on how the climate should act?
The debate isn't about whether climate change is a real thing. It is.
The debate revolves around the potential increase in the rate and extent of change due to anthropogenic causes.
The debate isn't about whether climate change is a real thing. It is.
The debate revolves around the potential increase in the rate and extent of change due to anthropogenic causes.
You are a perfect example of those who find political or non scientific reasons to doubt the science.
You are so beyond the reach of reason if you believe these points that it boggles the mind how the rest of modern humanity could join a serious conversation.
I don't want to be the guy who says this, but taking the condescending road helps nobody. Most time people speak, they're out of their element, so it's up to the people with knowledge to break down the information into digestible chunks. Shutting them down with a snide remark only furthers frustration (and I'd suggest a post like Daradon's is much more suitable for the situation)
A major problem in communicating this is that communicators and the audience don't think of each other much. A communicator is likely to speak at levels close to what they know. For example, a long-time professor looking into the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer or GHGs on heat retention will likely discuss the topic with use of highly technical descriptions of the chemicals in question, even when the audience has a background of below high school chemistry. The flow of communication is likely going to only permit extremely minute levels of data through. We see a lot of it in GHG debate because of the fact that the person in question may not have the same background and may question why anything should be done given the fact that you just said 10 second before that water has properties similar to a GHG.
As for the topic itself, I am a really heavy fence sitter. I understand that the earth's average temperature is a fluctuating value, that GHGs have properties that can impact that way the earth interacts with energy, and that we have been releasing additional volumes of GHGs. That's where my confirmed knowledge end though. Past this, I'm seeing a pretty high level of politics being played with scientific papers, with what I call "bad science" being played. Fair enough that every paper tries to sell you on an idea or concept, but I find it's turned up to eleven in the realm of GHG and global warming.
I'm happy with the idea of reducing usage of and weening humanity off GHG materials and that developed nations must take the lead because the alternative, if the worst case scenarios are proven right, are disastrous. Until both sides learn to sit down, research properly (and be willing to admit their hypotheses are wrong on occasion...on both sides), and act like, for lack of a better term, mature adults, it's difficult for me to take a larger side because both sides are willing to make proving themselves right a higher priority than doing proper research and the research that comes out makes it difficult to discern truth from fiction.
__________________
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kirant For This Useful Post:
