Carbon this that and the next thing

[kilted exile]

Ok, so I am hoping we can discuss this without it falling into discussion of the actual politics of the situation and rather the ideas behind it.

Those who have been paying attention will remember that my studies were of an environmental bent, and as such I become incredibly interested anytime talk of the environment is in the news - as it is again recently.

Canada has taken a particular going over recently by the assorted ink stained wretches (my father of course being a former member of this brigade who is now out to pasture) of the worlds press for its stance on the oil sands in Alberta. Yes, the oil sands do contribute to greenhouse gases and global warming - however in our efforts to reduce these effects we must also remain fully cognizant of other vitally important factors:

1) Replacement Technology: What exactly do we propose to replace oil with? What do we plan to useto power the world in the long run? People object to oil, people object to wind turbines, people object to hydroelectric dams, people object to the fact that they now pay more for certain items in grocery stores like corn because of the use of bio-diesel, the term nuclear has become a word unsafe to mention except in the slightest whisper. I have long been of the opinion that their are some very vocal groups in this discussion that would rather the world go back to the pre-industrial revolution.

2) Economic Effect: What do we do about sections of the economy that rely heavily on the production of fossil fuels? Are we going to say "too bad you lost your job working in the oil sand - but smile your grandchildren will thank you for being unemployed?" The world is still in the mire of a global recession - are we really capable of providing a bail-out to thousands more companies and millions more individuals relying on them?

*will add more thoughts later - have to leave for work now*

[Virgil]

I don't know if I will lead this toward the political, but before i answer, let me set the context from where i view this issue. Man made global warming either is wrong, possibly even a hoax now, or certainly without doubt in my mind greatly exaggerated and no cause for concern.

There are only four methods of generating energy that are feasible to sustain our standard of living: oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear. If you want to live in the modern world, pick one; everything else is child's play.

[Lulim]

I don't think global warming is a hoax or greatly exaggerated. It is a fact. It is a fact that the Greenland Ice is melting twice as fast as 10 years ago, and the process still increases in rapidity. If the whole of the Greenland glaciers melt, the sea level rises by seven meters. What would that mean for many south sea isles and low level countries like Bangladesh?

If we don't untertake really serious efforts to limit the global CO2 output now, we will be responsible for the disaster we leave to our children and grandchildren. Their questions won't be about air condition, central heating or which car to drive -- their questions are going to be about having Water or no Water, having food or no.

As for the question how to replace the energy, in my opinion the only way is to save energy (more economical cars and electric appliances), and solar energy. There are instances already, of "plus energy houses": They produce the electricity needed for the whole house via solar panels and feed the surplus into the power supply system.

[Maximilianus]

In my corner of the planet the weather is not what it used to be anymore. Our glaciers have been rapidly melting more so than ever, and we used to have four seasons whereas we now have only one, which can be described as a more or less constant summer. This year we had the shortest winter ever, and it doesn't feel like an exaggeration from here. It's actually happening, and there's proof of it, if we consider the hole in the ozone layer, right above us, as a proof.

I would give solar energy a chance, though I agree that the employment issue would be more than just ominous should the traditional fuel industries vanish.

[blazeofglory]

This is really interesting thread and indeed apolitical. Friend I want a world going without fossil fuel, a world without cars, televisions, refrigerators. This world of technologies that stuff us with modern gadgets, luxuries and comforts is disgusting to me. I prefer a world full of simplicity where people live with less greed, with natural tendencies, instincts, less learning, more down to earth. There was abundance and sufficiency.

[JuniperWoolf]

I live in Alberta, and know many people who work on the oil sands and rigs. The situation really is different when you're close to the problem, it isn't so black and white. I have work to do right now too, but I'll be back later to discuss this.

[kilted exile]

I don't know if I will lead this toward the political, but before i answer, let me set the context from where i view this issue. Man made global warming either is wrong, possibly even a hoax now, or certainly without doubt in my mind greatly exaggerated and no cause for concern.

There are only four methods of generating energy that are feasible to sustain our standard of living: oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear. If you want to live in the modern world, pick one; everything else is child's play.

Virg, not sure if I have mentioned it to you before or not - but I think you would really enjoy reading The skeptical environmentalist by Lomborg.

My pick just now really is nuclear.


I don't think global warming is a hoax or greatly exaggerated. It is a fact. It is a fact that the Greenland Ice is melting twice as fast as 10 years ago, and the process still increases in rapidity. If the whole of the Greenland glaciers melt, the sea level rises by seven meters. What would that mean for many south sea isles and low level countries like Bangladesh?

If we don't untertake really serious efforts to limit the global CO2 output now, we will be responsible for the disaster we leave to our children and grandchildren. Their questions won't be about air condition, central heating or which car to drive -- their questions are going to be about having Water or no Water, having food or no.

As for the question how to replace the energy, in my opinion the only way is to save energy (more economical cars and electric appliances), and solar energy. There are instances already, of "plus energy houses": They produce the electricity needed for the whole house via solar panels and feed the surplus into the power supply system.

The sea level rise theory is an interesting one - it wont rise 7m everywhere though. I actually think places like bangladesh will be fine from it (disclaimer: opinion)

There are many technologies that can be put in place in houses etc to reduce reliance on fossil fuels etc. My personal favourite being geothermal - the issue though relates to price; sure in the end you make money selling energy back to the grid but there is a large outlay to begin with to pay for conversion you dont break even straight away leading it to be almost useless for many areas - also what of low income and medium income areas where people live in apartments and flats or just rent?


In my corner of the planet the weather is not what it used to be anymore. Our glaciers have been rapidly melting more so than ever, and we used to have four seasons whereas we now have only one, which can be described as a more or less constant summer. This year we had the shortest winter ever, and it doesn't feel like an exaggeration from here. It's actually happening, and there's proof of it, if we consider the hole in the ozone layer, right above us, as a proof.

I would give solar energy a chance, though I agree that the employment issue would be more than just ominous should the traditional fuel industries vanish.

Last years winter was actually full of snow here, I think it is more cyclic in some respects to the weather


I live in Alberta, and know many people who work on the oil sands and rigs. The situation really is different when you're close to the problem, it isn't so black and white. I have work to do right now too, but I'll be back later to discuss this.

cool, will be interesting to get a view from somewhere more likely to be impacted by the economic effects etc


I prefer a world full of simplicity where people live with less greed, with natural tendencies, instincts, less learning, more down to earth. There was abundance and sufficiency.

Ok, blaze - you really want a world of "less-learning"? this is an attitude I find very hard to understand.....

[Virgil]

Virg, not sure if I have mentioned it to you before or not - but I think you would really enjoy reading The skeptical environmentalist by Lomborg.

You may have, yes. It's just hard for me to find time to read something that's not literature. I've got a wealth of web oriented refutations to global warming that one day I may present in a blog.



My pick just now really is nuclear.
I concur that we should expand nuclear, but i think a balanced approach with all four of the energy forms I mentioned is warrented. I see no reason to go away from the gas (petro) engine.

[JuniperWoolf]

Man made global warming either is wrong, possibly even a hoax now, or certainly without doubt in my mind greatly exaggerated and no cause for concern.


Yeah, I heard something about that. I hate watching American news (I find it really biased) and for some reason our news seems more concerned about Harper's visit to China and Tiger Woods getting into a stupid tiff with his wife then global warming so I'm kind of ignorant. Someone (I'm pretty sure it was The Daily Show) was talking about American rightist media (a.k.a.. Fox news) claiming that they had proof of scientists either exaggerating or else completely fabricating data about increases in global temperature. I think they called it something really stupid, like "climategate." I guess I could look this up on my own (I will eventually, I usually do) but could you link me to a good article (preferably one without bias)?

Anyway, like I said before, I live in a small industrial town. Most of the men that I know dropped out in grade 10 (the lowest grade that an Albertan can legally leave school) to work either on the rigs or in the mine. You may believe that this is a stupid decision, but I urge you to see thing from their point of view. A rig worker makes as much in an hour as the average Canadian doctor (believe it or not) so why bother going through years and years of expensive, difficult education when one could just get a job on the rigs? These guys were raised to do two things: have a family and value hard work with their hands. Their fathers and their fathers’ fathers have all done exactly the same. A lot of them are over forty years old and are literally not qualified for any other job then one pertaining to hard labor. They are usually either the sole provider for their families, or else their wives work a low-paying job (something like a waitress, or a grocery store clerk). If the rigs and mines (because coal fuel is also harmful to the environment) are forced to shut down, there will be thousands of families suddenly found with no means of earning a living. It's easy for people who are far away from the problem to see the solution as simple, but it really isn't.

Trust me, these guys can't just go back to school and become qualified for something else. They ARE NOT stupid (I hated it when my fellow students at the U of A looked down labor workers) but their minds and culture just aren't wired that way. The initiation of a new energy source (let's say solar for example) won't create enough new jobs to provide for all of those lost. The responsibility will fall onto the government, whose budget is strained as it is. Not to mention the fact that when a person who has been earning a good living for the last twenty years loses their job, they often lose their self-respect. I was living in Grande Cache when the mine shut down briefly in the nineties. It was a pretty bad time. A lot of guys started drinking and the women's abuse shelter was thinking about installing a revolving door. I’m not trying to stereotype anyone, or to say that becoming unemployed is justification for alcoholism or abuse; this was really just the way things were.

I'm not saying that the oil sands aren't bad, because on a macroscopic level, they really are. I'm just saying that on a microscopic level this isn't an easy fix like a lot of people think. Alberta isn't against the cessation of dirty fuels because they're greedy money grubbers; it's because the loss of jobs would be absolutely devastating for rural society. Not just rural society, the urbanites would definitely feel the burn too. We're already losing beds at Alberta Hospital to cut costs, imagine what would happen if we lost our provinces main source of income. The transition would be incredibly difficult, for everyone.

[Virgil]

Yeah, I heard something about that. I hate watching American news (I find it really biased) and for some reason our news seems more concerned about Harper's visit to China and Tiger Woods getting into a stupid tiff with his wife then global warming so I'm kind of ignorant. Someone (I'm pretty sure it was The Daily Show) was talking about American rightist media (a.k.a.. Fox news) claiming that they had proof of scientists either exaggerating or else completely fabricating data about increases in global temperature. I think they called it something really stupid, like "climategate." I guess I could look this up on my own (I will eventually, I usually do) but could you link me to a good article (preferably one without bias)?


Pfft. Some of the best anti global warming data has come from Canadian sources.

[OrphanPip]

There were some omissions by the IPCC people that were dishonest and shouldn't have been done. However, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of evidence suggests that carbon emissions have effected climate change.

Now that of course doesn't answer the question of what we should do about it. There are a lot of things at issue here. Nations like Australia and Canada with low populations but large agricultural, industrial, and natural resource driven economies will be disfavored by international carbon emission limits. Likewise, developing economies will be severely hurt by any limitations on their industrial capacity.

Nuclear power is a great way to lower emissions and generate electricity.

[blazeofglory]

There were some omissions by the IPCC people that were dishonest and shouldn't have been done. However, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of evidence suggests that carbon emissions have effected climate change.

Now that of course doesn't answer the question of what we should do about it. There are a lot of things at issue here. Nations like Australia and Canada with low populations but large agricultural, industrial, and natural resource driven economies will be disfavored by international carbon emission limits. Likewise, developing economies will be severely hurt by any limitations on their industrial capacity.

Nuclear power is a great way to lower emissions and generate electricity.

In fact developed countries suffer more due to the emissions of carbon by rich countries and it is rich countries in the west who live sumptuously and the poor have to pay. Now the west is sloganeering against the environmental issue but they engage in emitting more and more intoxicant gases. The western civilization is degrading the ecology of the world.

[OrphanPip]

The top net GHG producers are China, India, and the USA.

The developed world tends to produce more GHG per capita, but there are plenty of major emissions coming from developing countries. Then again the developed world doesn't have the virtue of large portions of its population being relegated to rural lifestyles. In fact, South America has more per capita emissions than Europe and Brasil would have much to lose from environmental restrictions.

[Virgil]

There were some omissions by the IPCC people that were dishonest and shouldn't have been done. However, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of evidence suggests that carbon emissions have effected climate change.


Fact? Really? You've seen the evidence? And you've concluded it's man made? Really? My, my.

[OrphanPip]

There isn't a reputable academic institution in the world that denies anthropogenic climate change. I don't presume to be an expert on climate change, but I would rather accept the opinions of the experts until some sort of convincing evidence appears to disprove their position.

[JuniperWoolf]

There isn't a reputable academic institution in the world that denies anthropogenic climate change. I don't presume to be an expert on climate change, but I would rather accept the opinions of the experts until some sort of convincing evidence appears to disprove their position.

I just came back from reading up, and I'm in agreement with Pip. Although recent issues came to light which prove that ONE study was manipulated, that doesn't mean that they were covering up facts which prove the study in question to be erroneous. In fact, the scientists in question claim to have "lost" the actual data which they tampered with. The clear course of action then is to ignore this single particular study and to focus on the many, many remaining studies which have been proven valid (even under the increased scepticism which has been incited by the recent “scandal”). I haven’t yet been able to find an article from a valid source that makes a convincing argument against global warming, but if you'll (meaning Virgil) provide a link I'd really like to read it.

[Lulim]

I can't imagine that the solution lies in nuclear energy -- they are doing research on it for more than 50 years and still no answer to the question as to how to dispose of the nuclear waste.

@ For Juniper Woolf some links to -- in my estimation anyway -- unbiased information:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/infodesk/tipping-points

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/infodesk/climate-change-knowledge-in-a-nutshell

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php

http://unfccc.int/methods_and_science/items/2722.php


As to the worries concerning the economy and the loss of jobs, I didn't want to say that all the mines and oilfields are to be shut down the very next day. Fossil fuels are being exhausted in the foreseeable future anyway, and so is uranium. Not within the next five or ten years of course, but within the next five to ten decades probably which leaves a margin for making decisions towards conversion of the industry and for creating new sectors for employment. (It worked some 30 or 40 years ago when they realised that the coal mines in our Ruhr area ran out and one mine after the other had to be closed. It's been hard on the workers at the beginning, of course, but there was just no choice.)

[Virgil]

There isn't a reputable academic institution in the world that denies anthropogenic climate change. I don't presume to be an expert on climate change, but I would rather accept the opinions of the experts until some sort of convincing evidence appears to disprove their position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&ISBN=9780980076318&ourl=Deniers%2FLawrence%2DSolomon&cm_mmc=yahoossp-_-plp-_-books2-_-Deniers-9780980076318

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/japanese-scientists-cool-on-theories/story-e6frg6t6-1111119126656

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFd4icZki4I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDm9b_69pDg&feature=related

Listen I know this issue. I don't blame the average guy who just reads the papers. The journalists have been swindled and have passed on the swindle to the general public.


I can't imagine that the solution lies in nuclear energy -- they are doing research on it for more than 50 years and still no answer to the question as to how to dispose of the nuclear waste.

@ For Juniper Woolf some links to -- in my estimation anyway -- unbiased information:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/infodesk/tipping-points

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/infodesk/climate-change-knowledge-in-a-nutshell

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php

http://unfccc.int/methods_and_science/items/2722.php


As to the worries concerning the economy and the loss of jobs, I didn't want to say that all the mines and oilfields are to be shut down the very next day. Fossil fuels are being exhausted in the foreseeable future anyway, and so is uranium. Not within the next five or ten years of course, but within the next five to ten decades probably which leaves a margin for making decisions towards conversion of the industry and for creating new sectors for employment. (It worked some 30 or 40 years ago when they realised that the coal mines in our Ruhr area ran out and one mine after the other had to be closed. It's been hard on the workers at the beginning, of course, but there was just no choice.)

They didn't collect their own data and set up their own models. It's the same one or two places that collected their own data, and if that data is flawed they all lead to the same flawed conclusion. It doesn't matter how many scientist believe in global warming. They are all looking at the same flawed data from the few places that collected it and modeled it.

I'm an engineer, and we do a lot of modeling. The phrase that's common in modeling is garbage in - garbage out. Even if the model is correctly put together (and in this case it's so complex to figure out all the environmental inputs that I seriously doubt it's comprehensive to model to a fraction of a degree accuracy) the flawed data going in results in erroneous data coming out. The fact that the models were predicting a continuous heating trend when in reality the planet has cooled in the last ten years (FACT!!!!) is conclusive that the models are not capturing reality. THE MODELS DID NOT PREDICT THE COOLING TREND!!!

[Lulim]

:lol:

I didn' realise, at first, this was a joke thread.

[prendrelemick]

There are two facts we know.

1 CO2 levels are rising.

2 The climate is changing.

Are they connected ? Who knows these two things have never been constant.

What is really worrying is the way subject has become embroiled in factionalism and self interest, both sides engage in exaggeration and hunting the sound bite. The green lobby has been pursueing this approach to such an extent that it has done itself real harm. Where is the truth? How can we tell?

In the meantime, the only clean energy source that can maintain our industrial society is nuclear. Everyone knows this- including the Greens- but to admit it is to admit that their most sucessful campaign ever, against Nuclear power, has harmed the enviroment in terms of a few extra billion tons of CO2 emissions.

[Virgil]

:lol:

I didn' realise, at first, this was a joke thread.

Be that as it may that you're insulting me, may I ask what your expertise is? Do you even have a science degree?

[Lulim]

Be that as it may that you're insulting me, may I ask what your expertise is? Do you even have a science degree?

I didn' mean to insult you, and I do apologise if I did. -- I just couldn't imagine that you meant your statement about "global cooling" quite in earnest. But you seemingly do. I was of the impression that there is a kind of consensus as to the basics, and the talk was about how to replace fossil energy.

I am still puzzled as to your intention in asking for my expertise, though.

[Taliesin]

They didn't collect their own data and set up their own models. It's the same one or two places that collected their own data, and if that data is flawed they all lead to the same flawed conclusion. It doesn't matter how many scientist believe in global warming. They are all looking at the same flawed data from the few places that collected it and modeled it.

I'm an engineer, and we do a lot of modeling. The phrase that's common in modeling is garbage in - garbage out. Even if the model is correctly put together (and in this case it's so complex to figure out all the environmental inputs that I seriously doubt it's comprehensive to model to a fraction of a degree accuracy) the flawed data going in results in erroneous data coming out. The fact that the models were predicting a continuous heating trend when in reality the planet has cooled in the last ten years (FACT!!!!) is conclusive that the models are not capturing reality. THE MODELS DID NOT PREDICT THE COOLING TREND!!!

I am curious - do you mean by flawed data that the amount of data is insufficient? Obviously the data about temperatures in the recent times cannot be insufficient - therefore I gather that the insufficient data must be about the temperatures in the ages past.(or am I mistaken?) What kind of data is that, how big is the amount of it and has anyone found data against the hypothesis? (leaving aside the cooling in recent ten years)
Anyhow, disregarding the recent cooling, what I mean to ask is whether instead of "Climate warming" we should hold the position "buggered if we know"?

[Virgil]

I didn' mean to insult you, and I do apologise if I did. -- I just couldn't imagine that you meant your statement about "global cooling" quite in earnest. But you seemingly do. I was of the impression that there is a kind of consensus as to the basics, and the talk was about how to replace fossil energy.

I am still puzzled as to your intention in asking for my expertise, though.


So, is global warming taking place? Over the last ten years, there has been global cooling.
The last hundred years has seen warming. The last 2000 years has been cooling, The last
10,000 years has been cooling. The last 200,000 years has been warming. It's a matter of
choosing a time-scale.
http://home.comcast.net/~pdrallos131681/CO2/co2.pdf

It is widely acknowledged even by the global warming crowd that the last eleven years now (that article is a year old) have seen a cooling trend from what was claimed to be the high temperature mark of the 20th century. That's why they switched from calling it global warming to climate change. And let me emphasize, that was a political calculation. And my point was that the cooling trend of the eleven years was not predicted in the computer models.


I am curious - do you mean by flawed data that the amount of data is insufficient? Obviously the data about temperatures in the recent times cannot be insufficient - therefore I gather that the insufficient data must be about the temperatures in the ages past.(or am I mistaken?) What kind of data is that, how big is the amount of it and has anyone found data against the hypothesis? (leaving aside the cooling in recent ten years)


Actually I personally question both. We are talking about trying to assess a fraction of a degree over the course of a 100+ years not just at one specific place in the world, but across the whole world. How does one measure the temperature of the world? One can take the temperature of discrete places, but somehow one has to consolidate that into a world temperature. Now look at all the different errors that could go in there. There are measurement errors in the instruments. There are errors in locating stations next to heat sources. There are errors in synthesizing the discrete data into a single temperature. And like you point out, there are errors in the fidelity of the data from a hundred years ago. And we are trying to find a fraction of a degree change from 100+ years ago? The errors alone amount to more than a fraction of a degree. And I want to emphasize, the models did not predict this eleven year cooling trend.


Anyhow, disregarding the recent cooling, what I mean to ask is whether instead of "Climate warming" we should hold the position "buggered if we know"?
Quite right. That's actually my position, though because there is such an overwhelming passion from the global warming fanatics I tend to argue in opposition. It's not clear but I can tell you that there is no imminent catastrophe looming either. No one questions, even the global warming fanatics, that during the middle ages the earth was actually warmer then than the 20th century. If it was warmer then and people survived, what's the rush to implement these economic strangling measures?

I found this to be quite helpful:
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

[skib]

I sure have had fun scraping this global warming off my truck the last few winters.

I read somewhere (and I'll have to do a little research on the matter) that something like 80 percent of the thermometers that were supposed to be used to measure 'global warming' were improperly placed- like Virgil said, near cities, close to asphalt, near ventilation ducts, etc. I'm no engineer, but I know that things like putting something in the wrong place is going to give you wrong results.

[Virgil]

I sure have had fun scraping this global warming off my truck the last few winters.

I read somewhere (and I'll have to do a little research on the matter) that something like 80 percent of the thermometers that were supposed to be used to measure 'global warming' were improperly placed- like Virgil said, near cities, close to asphalt, near ventilation ducts, etc. I'm no engineer, but I know that things like putting something in the wrong place is going to give you wrong results.

Thanks Skib. I've heard that too.

[skib]

You bet. And to add onto that, we've had the two coldest winters here in the last two years that have been recorded in a while. -20 a few nights ago. Global warming my rather skinny behind.

[Virgil]

You bet. And to add onto that, we've had the two coldest winters here in the last two years that have been recorded in a while. -20 a few nights ago. Global warming my rather skinny behind.
:lol: :lol:

[Virgil]

Lying sick in bed with a laptop is a dangerous thing. I just came across this funny video and think it's a hoot!! Had me laughing. :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF5F6eYho8U

[OrphanPip]

I sure have had fun scraping this global warming off my truck the last few winters.

I read somewhere (and I'll have to do a little research on the matter) that something like 80 percent of the thermometers that were supposed to be used to measure 'global warming' were improperly placed- like Virgil said, near cities, close to asphalt, near ventilation ducts, etc. I'm no engineer, but I know that things like putting something in the wrong place is going to give you wrong results.

Satellite measures of heating in the stratosphere show the warming effect as well, so you can't blame it on thermometers.

As to the coldest winter in 20 years, this is why it is officially called climate change and not global warming. The net global temperature is increasing, but because of complex meteorological effects some areas will get colder while other get warmer. You also have to remember the natural cycling effects. The global temperature has a net increase, but if you measured it every year you would see a cyclical up and down variation.

[skib]

Satellite measures of heating in the stratosphere show the warming effect as well, so you can't blame it on thermometers.

As to the coldest winter in 20 years, this is why it is officially called climate change and not global warming. The net global temperature is increasing, but because of complex meteorological effects some areas will get colder while other get warmer. You also have to remember the natural cycling effects. The global temperature has a net increase, but if you measured it every year you would see a cyclical up and down variation.

And if some areas are getting colder while others are getting warmer, whats all the big fuss about? It's still balanced, isn't it? I mean, its not like ALL the water in the world is melting at once.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I must say that I am frustrated by the whole issue surrounding global warming (I'm much happier sticking to novels). I'm annoyed at what seems to be the unreliabilty of the science, or more accurately probably, the manipulation of the science to conform with people's particular political/world view or their own agendas. Though I don't know why I'm surprised, nothing much changes.

I've been reading around the subject for a week or so, because unbelievably, I have found myself in the position to write an essay on it - something I would not have thought would have happened on a literature degree, but there you go. Anyway, the essay is out of the way, but I'm still rather annoyed and frustrated by the whole issue nevertheless.

For what it's worth, my accurate scientific conclusions, drawn from what I've read over my three days of half-intensive research, (including three whole hours in the library one day) seem to suggest that global warming is a man-made issue, resulting from a massive increase in carbon emissions, especially in the last 50 years or so. My expert analysis has lead me to the conclusions that greater investment in clean energy and the common sense approach of conserving and recycling is the way forward (I'm always on the side of common sense). According to Greenpeace (though can you trust anybody?) investment in clean energy has now overtaken investment in fossil fuels and clean energy represents around 20% of the world's energy. This sounds like a good thing to me, but who knows?

It is however, as I say, a frustrating subject. It is far from a new issue of course, it has been around actually since the end of the 19th century when a Swedish scientist suggested that the burning of fossil fuels would induce global warming, but it doesn't seem an issue that tends to ebb and flow in and out of favour in the media. At the moment (in the UK at least) it seems to be a non-issue (until perhaps we get flooding or a 99 degree day in August) which perhaps should be more prominent.

I'm sorry, but I can't but once again feel that science, or the people who manipulate the science, have once again let us down, or that politicians/big business/media types have twisted the issue out of the realms of facts/common sense approaches into the realms of argument and confusion (as can be seen from every 7/8 LitNet threads on the subject for example).

Anyway, I'm frustrated with it all and I'm turning my back on the subject (I've done my essay on it :rolleyes:) and as soon as I've finished my last ever essay (on Mill and Marx) I'm going back to novels or losing myself in the world of opera, country walks, pubs, growing salad, wearing pyjamas etc, science and politics is too annoying...

[OrphanPip]

I don't see how it is science's fault, global warming is essential a consensus amongst climate scientist since the 80s, and has been the majority opinion since the 50s.

The problem here is that people think scientist are superhuman and have the ability to shape the world. They aren't. Usually, they're middle class public servants that no one cares to listen to unless they've got something buzzworthy for the news to say.

[Emil Miller]

The irony of the situation is that China, whose ongoing industrialization is a major cause of atmospheric pollution, is now the World's largest manufacturer of solar panels. It's what's known as a win win situation.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don't see how it is science's fault, global warming is essential a consensus amongst climate scientist since the 80s, and has been the majority opinion since the 50s.

The problem here is that people think scientist are superhuman and have the ability to shape the world. They aren't. Usually, they're middle class public servants that no one cares to listen to unless they've got something buzzworthy for the news to say.

Yes you say that global warming is a consensus amongst climate scientists and that's generally the impression I have been gaining. However, someone then crops up, equally convincing it seems, throws a whole load of data at you and says the opposite. Which is it?

[ralfyman]

Perhaps the best source on information regarding climate change is the NAS:

http://americasclimatechoices.org/

The catch is that we may already be too late to reverse the effects of climate change. Also, since the world is dominated by Big Business and Big Government, then likely very little will be done to plan for such effects, let alone pollution and environmental damage. And as problems like peak oil take place, then more will resort to other sources of energy.

Given the fact that the energy return for these other sources of energy won't be high (and that most will not provide any or sufficient levels of petrochemicals), then we will likely see significant drops in output from manufacturing and mechanized agriculture. Even then, the effects of climate change and pollution will continue, and we will also face chronic economic crises due to increasing debt. Meanwhile, both human population and demand per capita will still increase.

[MystyrMystyry]

We got this thing called a Golden Age - but we're at the end of it

While it was in full glory people bred like rabbits, and proceded to live longer through such advances as refrigeration, improved diet, medicine, and the ability to relax and take it easy rather than stress over where the next meal's going to come from

Then for the process of carrying the food to market it follows that the automotive industry burns a non-renewable resource (got any idea how much energy/fuel goes into producing just one truck? From mining the ore, carting it to the smelter, turnng it into steel, making the tyres, the fuel to power it - more than it will ever in all probability repay in its useful life)

So to burning - where do the greenhouse gases go? Into the atmosphere - and that's okay because the atmosphere's really big - but just how big? You' might imagine no-one's gotten around to measure it - well in fact they have, and if you were to compress it into a liquid it would take up an area a mere fifth the size of all the oceans and lakes and rivers everywhere

In nature trees breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen, and they are in perfect balance to counteract the emissions from all the animal life without the added burden of attempting to handle the airborne bi-products of industry

But in the process of building a house, trying to modernise and advance a banana republic economy by burning off the forests, not to mention illegal logging, oil industry moving into forests in order to drill for new wells and the spillage ruining the soil, general chopping down of native forests without replanting - wholesale destruction and waste not seen hither to the 20th century

So what plant life to take the place of the giant redwoods (remember the bigger the tree the more fresh air it produces)? The grasses? Ten football fields for one oak; the phytoplankton and seaweed? Forget it - if we keep polluting the oceans and creating dead areas at the rate we are the only life left in there will be jellyfish

The big problem with middle-class complacency in not fully being able to comprehend what's going on, is that in their fantasy land someone is doing something about it - the only reason first world countries have any forests to speak of is because they were protected - new ones just for the common-sense good aren't being created - invested forests maybe, but they're not old growth

This planet needs trillions and trillions of trees, a few billion won't cut it

Luckily some sane people are making their voice heard - when folks say stuff like 'to sustain our current lifestyles' they actually mean 'their' current lifestyles - and damn exeryone else

The oilfields are drying up - the Middle East 'governments' lie abut the estimations for their reserves in order to take care of their present greed, and dropping a drill into the ocean floor is increasingly expensive as the subaqueous fields are increasingly deeper - and never forget the ecological/economic disaster that was the Mexican Gulf

Those who say that will be the last and the worst we'll see - I for one doubt it very much

So let's look at solar cells, because Nuclear Waste isn't healthy - especially in the hands of tin pot dictators

Solar panels on every house will more than cover the cost of its needs, and with the excess, well it simply doesn't pollute and can be used to power power-intensive industries

They may be expensive to produce at present, but so were lcd television screens initially - and the thing is we already have improvements of the original technology, just need to be serious about moving into mass-production

As for the South American forests - sorry if I gave the impression that most of the damage has already been done, when the damage is still continuing while you read this, and for a long time after, but not to worry - once it's all gone and turned into prime desert no-one will have to worry about it ever again

Got a high unemployment problem where you live - get 'em to plant trees - but first you need a government that gives a toss about the future and less about their standing in the polls


And that equals Krazy Doom!

[JuniperWoolf]

However, someone then crops up, equally convincing it seems, throws a whole load of data at you and says the opposite. Which is it?

Well, when it comes to sources (which is really just groups of researchers who are being paid by various groups to study trends, and the professionals who interpret that data - there's nothing magical or all-powerful about it, it's really straight forward) you've got to check to make sure that the people paying for the study don't have any vested interest in the outcome. So, a study paid for by (for example) an oil company shouldn't get as much credence as one which is paid for by, say, a university or the government of a country because the ones running the show don't personally benefit one way or the other.


I'm sorry, but I can't but once again feel that science, or the people who manipulate the science, have once again let us down, or that politicians/big business/media types have twisted the issue out of the realms of facts/common sense approaches into the realms of argument and confusion (as can be seen from every 7/8 LitNet threads on the subject for example).

Well that's not fair because it personifies "science" as one cohesive entity which it isn't. Like I said before, science is just the word used for a straight-forward method of gathering information and then interpreting that information (and sometimes, taking the things that you learn and using it to make new stuff, like medicine for example). It's really a lot more simple than some folks seem to have a tendancy to believe. Those who have jobs in the field are just regular people, they don't "manipulate" some strange force called "science" and they don't all think the same or work together to shape the world. People always put it up as a sort of foil for religion or as something to "rally behind" or some kind of strange craze or deity which is going to doom us all, which is funny because it's just a method used to make sure that information is valid.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well, when it comes to sources (which is really just groups of researchers who are being paid by various groups to study trends, and the professionals who interpret that data - there's nothing magical or all-powerful about it, it's really straight forward) you've got to check to make sure that the people paying for the study don't have any vested interest in the outcome. So, a study paid for by (for example) an oil company shouldn't get as much credence as one which is paid for by, say, a university or the government of a country because the ones running the show don't personally benefit one way or the other.

Yes that makes a lot of sense, as does what has been said above. The common sense approach for me is certainly investment in green energy, got to come about eventually. However, how the hell should an oil company be allowed to fund "non-biased" research into climate change anyway? What a farce.



Well that's not fair because it personifies "science" as one cohesive entity which it isn't. Like I said before, science is just the word used for a straight-forward method of gathering information and then interpreting that information (and sometimes, taking the things that you learn and using it to make new stuff, like medicine for example). It's really a lot more simple than some folks seem to have a tendancy to believe. Those who have jobs in the field are just regular people, they don't "manipulate" some strange force called "science" and they don't all think the same or work together to shape the world. People always put it up as a sort of foil for religion or as something to "rally behind" or some kind of strange craze or deity which is going to doom us all, which is funny because it's just a method used to make sure that information is valid.

It most cases perhaps, but the whole global warming/climate change debate is full of so much manipulation and spin on both sides it makes a mockery of the whole thing. Leaked emails here, forged reports there, political conspiracy theory on both sides (it seems) data/charts/future predictions bend one way and then the other - it's a total mess. You would have never thought working out what a FACT was could be so complicated. As I say, I think I'd rather stick with real fiction, it's more real.

[Propter W.]

I see no reason to go away from the gas (petro) engine.

That says enough.

edit: Nuclear power has recently proved how safe a bet it is.

What exactly, Virgil, makes green energy (solar, wind, tidal... ) "child's play"?

[LitNetIsGreat]

That says enough.

edit: Nuclear power has recently proved how safe a bet it is.

What exactly, Virgil, makes green energy (solar, wind, tidal... ) "child's play"?

Ah maybe my fault, just to point out it is an older thread that I brought up, because there are so many and I didn't want to start another one, so maybe Virgil has changed his mind? I think he is more pro solar now.

Certainly though, I agree with you though by implication, green energy seems absolutely the only way forward and I wouldn't risk Nuclear one bit.