We'd be having the exact same conversation Al Gore or no Al Gore. The vested interests to continue with the status quo would not have keeled over no matter who was spearheading the initiative to do something. This is just another canard.
We love to blame the environmentalists, who doesn't love a good hippie punch? Yes the environmentalists were the problem because they politicized it, only ignore the billions in capital and interests directly tied to the coal and oil industries. Couple that with a moderately insane conservative constituency that sees addressing climate change as a core threat to their deeply held and flawed ideology and here we are.
What I was trying to say is that the concerted effort by the political right might be a little less organized and blatently political if it had simply been a well spoken scientist making the argument rather than Gore. His involvement may have helped this become a wedge issue. The ozone depletion was not political and certainly not a wedge issue. I'm not blaming Gore just wondering out loud.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
Another more interesting direction to take the discussion.
Bjorn is one of the most vocal anti-global warming voices out there. And his books sell like hotcakes... he is making a mint by cherry picking data, overestimate costs of tackling climate change and underestimate costs of damage from climate change.
If man made global warming is true, I welcome it with open arms. Who wouldn't enjoy a California style winter every year?
This is why I tend not to get involved in global warming discussions, the utter lack of understanding of what is going to happen makes me give up hope of even trying to discuss this.
Firstly we are talking a few degrees over all the earth, this won't make Calgary California.. It will however change weather patterns, bring us a lot more extreme weather, and a host of unknowns we will just have to find out.
I don't want to waste my time talking to people who think this is all a natural cycle and that we are having no effect pumping all this greenhouse warming gas into the atmosphere.
I do however want to talk to people who are trying to do one of two things:
1. Find ways to build new industries around green energy, green technologies. These are genuinely exciting areas filled with innovation, scientific breakthroughs and will be a source of incredible wealth and prosperity for those who lead the charge.
2. Those who seek through technology and innovation to lessen and slow the impact, or even start to manipulate the environment with new ideas and technology. There was a great documentary on this on PBS not too long ago, geo engineering is a term that will gain a lot of interest in the next 50-100 yrs.
The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) will provide an update of knowledge on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. It will be composed of three working group reports and a Synthesis Report (SYR). The outline and content can be found in the AR5 reference document and SYR Scoping document.
The Working Group (WG) Reports and Synthesis Report will be completed in 2013/2014:
WG I: The Physical Science Basis 23-26 September 2013, Stockholm, Sweden WG II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability 25-29 March 2014, Yokohama, Japan WG III: Mitigation of Climate Change 7-11 April 2014, Berlin, Germany
This is why I tend not to get involved in global warming discussions, the utter lack of understanding of what is going to happen makes me give up hope of even trying to discuss this.
Firstly we are talking a few degrees over all the earth, this won't make Calgary California.. It will however change weather patterns, bring us a lot more extreme weather, and a host of unknowns we will just have to find out.
I don't want to waste my time talking to people who think this is all a natural cycle and that we are having no effect pumping all this greenhouse warming gas into the atmosphere.
I do however want to talk to people who are trying to do one of two things:
1. Find ways to build new industries around green energy, green technologies. These are genuinely exciting areas filled with innovation, scientific breakthroughs and will be a source of incredible wealth and prosperity for those who lead the charge.
2. Those who seek through technology and innovation to lessen and slow the impact, or even start to manipulate the environment with new ideas and technology. There was a great documentary on this on PBS not too long ago, geo engineering is a term that will gain a lot of interest in the next 50-100 yrs.
I just wanted to chime in on this a bit as I watched a show last night on Netflix called Amazing Planet that went through the history of the formation of Earth and it's many shifts over time. I'm not sure how accurate it is as it seemed to be geared towards a lesser educated audience ("Earth is the only planet in the solar system with water", pretty sure that's untrue ie. Mars and Europa).
But it had an interesting point about early Earth organisms that used CO2 as energy and expelled O2 as waste and as the numbers of these organisms increased, the CO2 in the atmosphere was replaced by, then poisonous to most life, Oxygen. And it eventually reached a point to cause global atmospheric shifts that allowed for the life as we know it today on Earth. So my thought is, while man is certainly affecting the change, how is it any different from a similar global shift in the reverse direction? Humans are part of the Earth and have a huge impact on its ecosystems, but couldn't that be counted as a regular planetary shift just the same as the prehistoric organisms over saturated the atmosphere with Oxygen eventually rendering them extinct?
The only difference is humans have the self awareness to know that we are accelerating it and may have the ability/knowledge to slow down what will inevitibly happen in a few million years, but is it not just part of the cycle of Earth, regardless of how we affect it? I mean we are part of the ecosystem just the same as an ant. Either way, it was an interesting show and nothing like a geological time frame to make you realize how much of an insignificant blip we really are (or may become).
I'm not arguing, but science is not necessarily my strong suit so I was interested to hear other view points on it.
I think you basically answered your own question, the difference is that humans are aware of themselves and aware of context and impacts of their actions.
Saying the climate change is natural because humans are natural may be true in a sense, but it really isn't meaningful, it's just playing with words. Thermonuclear winter would also natural in that sense.
The more meaningful discussion is a) what's happening, b) what impact would it have, and c) what can/could/should we do about it.
If (for example) we could see the future and our actions precipitated a mass extinction of sea life that was the basis of the food chain, resulting in the loss of 90% of species or 90% of humans or something like that (not saying that's what will happen, just picking something obviously extreme for illustration), on one hand you can say that's a natural event because humans are natural and that earth has survived such things before (or even that earth becoming lifeless as a result is still natural), but that doesn't answer the question of if such an outcome is something that we should allow to happen (being in the position to be able to do something about it).
Then it just becomes a question of weighing potential consequences against values and costs of actions...
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
But it had an interesting point about early Earth organisms that used CO2 as energy and expelled O2 as waste and as the numbers of these organisms increased, the CO2 in the atmosphere was replaced by, then poisonous to most life, Oxygen. And it eventually reached a point to cause global atmospheric shifts that allowed for the life as we know it today on Earth. So my thought is, while man is certainly affecting the change, how is it any different from a similar global shift in the reverse direction?
It isn't entirely different in the sense that chemotrophs (the CO2 consuming creatures) are making something and expelling waste. At the same time, the analog for plants and such doing this is our breathing. We take in oxygen and expel CO2 for a similar purpose (kind of - the chemistry is a little more in depth) a tree takes in CO2 and emits O2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Humans are part of the Earth and have a huge impact on its ecosystems, but couldn't that be counted as a regular planetary shift just the same as the prehistoric organisms over saturated the atmosphere with Oxygen eventually rendering them extinct?
The only difference is humans have the self awareness to know that we are accelerating it and may have the ability/knowledge to slow down what will inevitably happen in a few million years, but is it not just part of the cycle of Earth, regardless of how we affect it?
The bold I think answers your question. The changes from fossil fuel consumption is something that can be controlled and people are aware it can be controlled.
I think human respiration could be count as a natural shift. Fossil fuel burning and the like doesn't make sense in being qualified as natural as the previous extinction you mention was basically because of over-breathing. If the planet was changing because people were inhaling all the oxygen and expelling copious amounts of CO2, that'd be a different story and I'd agree that it makes sense to call our changes as a natural shift. But the common argument is that this is something that we don't need to do and actually can alter.
It isn't entirely different in the sense that chemotrophs (the CO2 consuming creatures) are making something and expelling waste. At the same time, the analog for plants and such doing this is our breathing. We take in oxygen and expel CO2 for a similar purpose (kind of - the chemistry is a little more in depth) a tree takes in CO2 and emits O2.
The bold I think answers your question. The changes from fossil fuel consumption is something that can be controlled and people are aware it can be controlled.
I think human respiration could be count as a natural shift. Fossil fuel burning and the like doesn't make sense in being qualified as natural as the previous extinction you mention was basically because of over-breathing. If the planet was changing because people were inhaling all the oxygen and expelling copious amounts of CO2, that'd be a different story and I'd agree that it makes sense to call our changes as a natural shift. But the common argument is that this is something that we don't need to do and actually can alter.
But, just to be safe...hold your breath everyone!
Oh yes I think the fact that something like solar or geothermal hasn't replaced fossil fuels at this point is ridiculous and the amount of resources put towards alternative energy research is simply appauling. But this won't change until people figure out the monetary system of our society is outdated and we need to move to a shared resource structure or we're all screwed. Basically, in order to stop, or slow, this process, the human race itself has to undergo a massive and rapid shift in ideolgies and energy resources. I really think it will take one leader of a major nation, getting to power how ever they can and once they get there just saying "F*** it, were removing all funding from military and putting it towards alternative energy research". It would be met with huge backlash, riots, assasinations and what not. But if it actually happened it would be for the better of everyone. There is just too much "money" in fossil fuels for the big fish at the top, but people need to soon realize that money isn't actually anything.
But my point was that our waste is our waste, whether it be exhaling, burping, farting or coming out of smokestacks, it is our organisms waste. So I guess at that point it's just semantics, I just thought it was an interesting way of looking at it.
