Global Warming Revisited

[monsoon]

I highly recommend the viewing of this video. This guy has done a fantastic job in sorting out "noise" that has been generated around the issue.

[Raintree21]

Pretty interesting. Poor and alive or poor and dead? I'll take "lottery ticket A." He does a good job of explaining things without bogging you down with scientific jargon.

[erdogs]

I'm surprised there hasn

[Charlotte_native]

It could also hurt some of the poorest people on the planet because we would have to stymie their ability to modernize, which is already happening.

[monsoon]

I'm surprised there hasn

[erdogs]

Did you watch the video?

[ChiefJoJo]

Yes and your point is....

[cowbreath]

I think he's saying that it doesn't matter whether we know it's 100% true or false, because we never will know with absolute certainty. If GW is truly "man-made" and we do nothing, that potential future is significantly worse than if GW isn't truly man-made and we take action. I've often argued the same position, and it's pretty difficult for me to understand now any rational person could argue with taking action on GW in the face of not only the "risk-management" argument in the video, but the data-driven conclusions of the IPCC, AAAS, NAS, and other prestigious scientific organizations.

[JDC]

We have already seen enough practical and tangible deterrents to waste and environmental negligence: landfills, air pollution, contaminated soils and waters, reduced farmlands and vital wetland ecosystems.

[ChiefJoJo]

And in contrast, what I think erdogs is saying is that he'd still like to know the truth surrounding global warming. As the video indicates, knowing the truth is not a prerequisite for making a decision, and conversely making a decision does not preempt someone from wanting to know the truth.

I think the video is interesting yet unnecessary. Global warming is definitely a hot political topic (sorry for pun), but I think the real issue is standard practices. We have already seen enough practical and tangible deterrents to waste and environmental negligence: landfills, air pollution, contaminated soils and waters, reduced farmlands and vital wetland ecosystems. The tackling of these issues would probably dually battle global warming, and there's no need for argument in tackling these other issues. Going forward, quality of practice and product need to be redefined in terms of reverse engineerability and sustainability.

[erdogs]

Most people agree that taking steps to insure a clean environment and using clean renewable energy is a good thing to pursue. If GW is man made then it is going to take much more than has been proposed to change our circumstances. We need to ban all combustible engines from being operated, starting today. We need to figure out a way to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and it has to be a huge undertaking. That would just be the beginning. Not even the most radical changes proposed would put much of a dent in the problem. If the world stood still today, it would take 50 years before we started to see the climate get back to normal, according to GW scientists. The question remains, is anyone really willing to do what it takes? If through some miracle we could, is the evidence strong enough to make the true changes necessary that would bankrupt maybe a billion people around the world and no doubt destroy every economy on Earth?

[Gusterfell]

^It is probably already too late to bring the climate back to "normal," because nobody thinks it's realistic to bring CO2 output to zero anytime soon. The measures being proposed would make the extent of climate change less severe, and could well prevent economic collapse due to warming-induced disasters if worst case scenarios turn out to be true.

If we were to see a sudden worldwide push to implement green technologies, such a massive undertaking would mean the creation of entirely new major industries, providing millions of new jobs. In the long run the economic gain would likely far outweigh the temporary economic turmoil that always accompanies a changing economy, even if in the end we turn out to be wrong about man-made global warming.

[Raintree21]

The problem is, no matter how much developed countries cut their CO2 emissions and try to save the environment, developing countries are going to continue to pump it out so that they can play catch up under the mantra of "it's our turn to thrive now- you had your days in the sun."

[Bled_man]

The video is very interesting and does a good job of explaining why we need to take climate change seriously. I completely agree that we need to do whatever we can to reduce CO2 output and I try to do whatever I can.

I do think that his model is lacking one very important possiblity though. What happens if we spend the money fighting global warming and it turns out that we can't stop it because we are in the Earth's natural heating cycle? It is a well known fact that the Earth's climate has had cycles of cooling and warming throughout its history and what if this is one of those warming cycles? If that is the case, according to his model we could end up with the worst two extremes at the same time: worldwide economic collapse and worldwide climatic disasters. The problem is that I am afraid we won't know one way or the other until it is too late.

[monsoon]

^If you are referring to human history, I think they have pretty much determined that nothing like this has happened before. If you are talking about global history, billions of years, yes, but these cycles took 10s of millions of years to change. (unless a catastrophe hit the planet) and not the 30-100 years that are being caused by human activity.

[monsoon]

....If the world stood still today, it would take 50 years before we started to see the climate get back to normal, according to GW scientists. The question remains, is anyone really willing to do what it takes? If through some miracle we could, is the evidence strong enough to make the true changes necessary that would bankrupt maybe a billion people around the world and no doubt destroy every economy on Earth?

[Bled_man]

^If you are referring to human history, I think they have pretty much determined that nothing like this has happened before. If you are talking about global history, billions of years, yes, but these cycles took 10s of millions of years to change. (unless a catastrophe hit the planet) and not the 30-100 years that are being caused by human activity.

[tombarnes]

Ecologist Richard Heinberg video on YouTube....50+ minutes long, but very interesting. It's worth watching. A not-so-pretty glimpse into the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN9UXuaWBO4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN9UXuaWBO4

[ChiefJoJo]

Theres a show on Natl Geographic channel tonight (IIRC 8pm EST) called '6 degrees'. Supposedly, it focuses on what the world would be like if the planet warmed by just 6 degrees. Probably apocolyptic, but also worth a watch.

[Neo]

Theres a show on Natl Geographic channel tonight (IIRC 8pm EST) called '6 degrees'. Supposedly, it focuses on what the world would be like if the planet warmed by just 6 degrees. Probably apocolyptic, but also worth a watch.

I'm currently watching it (I'm almost done with it, but I tend to spread out long shows like this with my DVR) and so far it hasn't been apocolyptic. At +3 degrees for example it simply states that the heat wave that affected Europe a few years ago would simply be commonplace in that area. +1 degree meant that tropical storms would hit the lower hemisphere. It is turning out to be a good watch and I think they are doing their best to make it as real life as possible and not another doomsday video.

[michaelskis]

I think that the guy over simplified things with is extremes and while I am not sold on the idea that global warming is caused by humans, I am of the boat that in reality, it does not hurt to take precautions and do the little things that could make a difference.

I am not sure if I agree with this guys worst case scenario regarding ticket

[ChiefJoJo]

NYT writer Thomas Friedman recently spoke in Raleigh last week on energy issues, and he proposes a carbon tax. This would put a pricetag on energy efficiency, help spur innovation, create jobs, reduce dependency on foreign oil (and our propping up of dictatorial Middle East regimes), save the environment, and save money! Win, win, win. It doesn't even matter if global warming is caused by humans. Friedman's analogy goes something like this: 'If you train for the Olympic triathlon, even if there are no Olympics, you are still a faster, healthier, more efficient and effective human being.'

Listen to his and others' talks here. Friedman's is about 45 min, but he lays out the complex issues in a very thought-provoking way--highly recommended.

[erdogs]

I'm not so sure about the Carbon tax, but we should tax incentives to companies who develop environmentally friendly fuels. Here is an article I found on using Methane produced from cow innards for fuels.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/05...hane/index.html

Swedish company Svenska Biogas, however, are currently doing the next best thing: taking the bits of cows that would otherwise be discarded during the slaughter process -- stomach and intestines primarily, but also udders, blood and parts of the liver and kidneys -- and extracting the residual methane directly from them.

"Depending on the cow's size, we can get 80-100 kilos of material from each animal," Carl Lilliehook, Managing Director of Svenska Biogas told CNN.

[Captain Worley]

"'If you train for the Olympic triathlon, even if there are no Olympics, you are still a faster, healthier, more efficient and effective human being.'"

Yes, but you also wasted time and energy that could have been put to better use.

I'm no fan of the carbon tax either. I could see tax incentives as an alternative. A carrot is better than a stick, IMO.