[tootsieflowrslave]

Originally Posted by JustifiableHomicide ↗

I agree that certain ideas can be used to propagate fear onto the general public, but these facts are scientifically backed up.

We have already increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, ocean levels by half a foot, and increased temps by 1-2 degrees. If we continue to wait to long, we won't be able to reverse or mitigate the damage already done.

I don't think he is arguing for or against the anthropologenic induced climate change. From my understanding, the reaction mechanism is too slow from policy makers worldwide that would amount to any meaningful long-term change in anthropogenic carbon loading. But I think things get way more complicated than that.

Btw, just so we don't misunderstand each other, I won't mention my position on this issue. In any event, my opinion is meaningless if I am not willing to make sacrifices to support my position with action other than words. But herein lies big obstacles to carbon loading reductions.

1. What will replace oil as the dominant source of energy needed to allow continuity and growth in global economics?

Oil as you know doesn't only supply electricity to municipalities and fuel automobiles, but it is also an integral ingredient in manufactured goods such as plastics. Manufacturing synthetics to replace petroleum by-products is expensive and lacks the abundancy to maintain mass production of these goods.

2. If there is a growing concern about the greenhouse effect on climate, then how much funding is going into researching alternative sources of energy versus that which is being wasted on research proving or disproving the phenomena to begin with?


3. What is the cost effectiveness, abundancy, and practicality of whatever alternative energy sources available at our disposal? Who will pay for them?

4. How will accountability be dictated without violating nation state sovereignty?

For example, the U.S. uses more energy than any other country in the world but always seems to point the finger at someone else at conferences discussing this issue. There is the factor of economics dictating environmental policy decisions and if such policies will cause a big dent in someon's pocket, then you better believe they will do whatever they can to "persuade" such politicians that carbon reduction policies wouldn't be in anyone's best interest.

5. Finally, and most importantly, are people willing to make the huge sacrifices necessary to significantly mitigate anthropogenic carbon loading?

Would I be willing to stop driving my car, stop using products made of plastic, stop living in an air conditioned home, and stop buying anything other than localized products? Only cooperation to boycot these goods and services on a massive and unprecedented scale would force both the oil people and their government puppy dogs to take any matters involving climate change seriously enough to warrant real policy changes. The problem is, what we are doing now won't do shit to change the current trend in energy usage and increased carbon loading. China and India for example are not going to sacrifice their economic growth to satisfy someone else's concerns and what obligation do they have to do so anyway? Either way, someone with big bucks and/or political swagger will end up on the short end of the stick and which will never happen voluntarily. I'm afraid people are far too greedy for that. As far as I am concerned, they really don't give a two cent shit about which direction the climate goes so long as the flow of money isn't disrupted. This is why I say we will see what happens because I find the odds slim to nil that people will sacrifice their own way of living on a scale large enough to have any meanigful impact in the long term. I don't see any renewable sources of energy that can keep up with the global manufacturing/economic base.

I want to know what you think about these topics. Please understand that my comments are intended to be respectful and I am not trying to invalidate or debunk your arguments on climate change nor am I agreeing with them. If anything, I hope I am dead wrong in the end.

[tootsieflowrslave]

Just as a side note, when I mentioned "alternative sources of energy" I am referring exclusively to clean alternative sources of energy (i.e. low CO2 and or other greenhouse emissions resulting from its use) instead of fossil fuels of any kind, including coal.

[tootsieflowrslave]

Originally Posted by mrm1109 ↗

They got my garden too. I think we need some type of new bird that will eat them. Supposedly, the new breed of stink bug coming up from the south will eat the ones we have but I guess they bite

A no win situation is it? But, at least a major agricultural pest would be kept in check. Hopefully the fire ants don't take the march northward with them. Having biting stink bugs and stinging ants gives me visions of a hopeless mephistophelian future for us.

[rapeWhistle]

The Earth is still coming out of that last ice age, so it's getting warmer.

Humans generate a lot emissions from fossil fuels/hydrocarbons.

The Earth is going to get warmer and warmer, guess we'll have to adapt.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by rapeWhistle ↗

The Earth is still coming out of that last ice age, so it's getting warmer.

Humans generate a lot emissions from fossil fuels/hydrocarbons.

The Earth is going to get warmer and warmer, guess we'll have to adapt.

Way ahead of you there, podnuh!

*takes off pants*

[JustifiableHomicide]

Originally Posted by tootsieflowrslave ↗

I don't think he is arguing for or against the anthropologenic induced climate change. From my understanding, the reaction mechanism is too slow from policy makers worldwide that would amount to any meaningful long-term change in anthropogenic carbon loading. But I think things get way more complicated than that.

Btw, just so we don't misunderstand each other, I won't mention my position on this issue. In any event, my opinion is meaningless if I am not willing to make sacrifices to support my position with action other than words. But herein lies big obstacles to carbon loading reductions.

1. What will replace oil as the dominant source of energy needed to allow continuity and growth in global economics?

Oil phases out to natural gas usage, which eventually phases out to solar(solar cells are continually being upgraded for efficiency).

2. If there is a growing concern about the greenhouse effect on climate, then how much funding is going into researching alternative sources of energy versus that which is being wasted on research proving or disproving the phenomena to begin with?

Money invested in renewable energy reached new heights last year, topping $257 billion.
So is the world finally going green?
The figures come from The Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012 report, a UN Environment Program backed study that has tracked the finance flowing into green energy across the world since 2004.

It found that renewables accounted for 44% of all new energy generation capacity added last year, up from 34% in 2010 and just 10.3% back in 2004.
The source for most of this finance came from the private sector, according to the report. Investment from the private domain in research and development of new technologies was almost double that of governments and public bodies.
While Europe attracts most of the investment, the renewable energy sectors of emerging economies such as India and China have been given the biggest boost.

China overtook the U.S. in terms of total annual investment in renewable energy in 2009 and attracted more money than any other country ($52.2 bn) in 2011.

3. What is the cost effectiveness, abundancy, and practicality of whatever alternative energy sources available at our disposal? Who will pay for them?

The cost effectiveness of renewable energy sources is ever evolving. As newer solar panel technologies become available, the cost effectiveness will increase.

I believe the same governments that regulate what we can put into the environment, should be responsible for fronting the bill of their own infrastructure upgrades.

4. How will accountability be dictated without violating nation state sovereignty?

For example, the U.S. uses more energy than any other country in the world but always seems to point the finger at someone else at conferences discussing this issue. There is the factor of economics dictating environmental policy decisions and if such policies will cause a big dent in someon's pocket, then you better believe they will do whatever they can to "persuade" such politicians that carbon reduction policies wouldn't be in anyone's best interest.

That example doesn't really go with that question but I'll give it a shot..

You're basically asking about how will we keep the lobbyists and special interests from hindering the process. Our system is fucked up, your guess is as good as mine.

5. Finally, and most importantly, are people willing to make the huge sacrifices necessary to significantly mitigate anthropogenic carbon loading?

If we make widespread changes, we won't need to ask the every day person to conserve. That would be ludicrous at this point, because major factories and energy producers are the ones doing the major damage.

If the rollover is implemented correctly, we could easily reduce emissions to a point where they no longer effecting the climate.

[tootsieflowrslave]

Originally Posted by JustifiableHomicide ↗

Good stuff! I'll need to go back and do some more homework on this, looks like you did yours! It's always refreshing for me to gain new insight on any subject matter, especially when it doesn't involve childish trolling and other stupid shit like it. Thanks bro!

[JustifiableHomicide]

Originally Posted by tootsieflowrslave ↗

Good stuff! I'll need to go back and do some more homework on this, looks like you did yours! It's always refreshing for me to gain new insight on any subject matter, especially when it doesn't involve childish trolling and other stupid shit like it. Thanks bro!

Love researching thinks like this because it always tends to increases my knowledge on the subject..

[Mr Poo]

According to Dr. Tapio Schneider , a climate scientist and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) as well as the Professor of Climate Dynamics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, in an article called "How We Know Global Warming Is Real" [2008] :

Certainties and Uncertainties

While there are uncertainties in climate projections, it is important to realize that the climate projections are based on sound scientific principles, such as the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, with measurements of optical properties of gases. The record of past climate changes that can be inferred, for example, with geochemical methods from ice cores and ocean sediment cores, provides tantalizing hints of large climate changes that occurred over Earth’s history, and it poses challenges to our understanding of climate (for example, there is no complete and commonly accepted explanation for the cycle of ice ages and warm periods). However, climate models are not empirical, based on correlations in such records, but incorporate our best understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological processes being modeled. Hence, evidence that temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in some climate changes on the timescales of ice ages, for example, only shows that temperature changes can affect the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, which in turn feed back on temperature changes. Such evidence does not invalidate the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, or the conclusion that the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the past decades is human induced.

(source)

The article also covers 'The Science Behind Human-induced Climate Change' and 'How can such a minute amount of carbon dioxide affect Earth’s radiative energy balance?'.... This is one other example I could find of a scientist proving the point Justifiable is making with scientific data. if you look at the source he posted, it leads to this:

Full Global Carbon Budget

The Global Carbon Budget is a collaborative effort of the global carbon cycle science community coordinated by the Global Carbon Project.

The global carbon budget refers to the mean, variations, and trends in the anthropogenic perturbation of CO2 in the atmosphere, referenced to the beginning of the industrial era. It quantifies the input of CO2 to the atmosphere by emissions from human activities, the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the resulting changes in land and ocean carbon fluxes in response to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, climate change and climate variability, and other anthropogenic and natural changes. An understanding of this perturbation budget over time and the underlying variability and trends of the natural carbon cycle are necessary to understand and quantify climate-carbon feedbacks

The Global Carbon Project (here) says:

The Global Carbon Project was formed to assist the international science community to establish a common, mutually agreed knowledge base supporting policy debate and action to slow the rate of increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The growing realization that anthropogenic climate change is a reality has focused the attention of the scientific community, policymakers and the general public on the rising concentration of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, and on the carbon cycle in general. Initial attempts, through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, are underway to slow the rate of increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These societal actions require a scientific understanding of the carbon cycle, and are placing increasing demands on the international science community to establish a common, mutually agreed knowledge base to support policy debate and action.

The Global Carbon Project is responding to this challenge through a shared partnership between the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and Diversitas. This partnership constitutes the Earth Systems Science Partnership (ESSP).

....."The growing realization that anthropogenic climate change..." anthropogenic meaning ' originating in human activity' "... is a reality".

A 'metastudy', by the way, is a study " that focus on contrasting and combining results from different studies, in the hope of identifying patterns among study results, sources of disagreement among those results, or other interesting relationships that may come to light in the context of multiple studies". I know, most people like to say that Wikipedia isnt reliable but i disagree...it's only as reliable as your ability to accurately research information and the sources from which it came.

In this case, we are looking for the metastudy they are referring to.... let's see if it exists and what it really has to say, right?

Title:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

Affiliation:
AA(Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia ; Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia ; School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia), AB(Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia ; Tetra Tech, Incorporated, McClellan, CA, USA), AC(Department of Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, USA), AD(Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK), AE(Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia), AF(Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia), AG(Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada), AH(Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA), AI(Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Salt Spring Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada)

Publication:
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Issue 2, article id. 024024 (2013).

Publication Date:
06/2013

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

(Source)

That paper, by the way, is on Harvard.edu

So, this isn't really a debate. There is the truth (which is supported by the facts provided by the majority of the scientific community).... and there is the denial of the truth (which is supported by global climate and weather predictions based on personal uneducated observations of local weather patterns and, at best, the "vanishingly small proportion of the published research").

Ty Kanda.