Global Warming

Okay. I am trying to understand where your challenge lies. So you do believe that increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide from human sources and the increase in temperature (which I am gathering is no longer in dispute) are pure coincidental. Does that mean you do not believe carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, or more specifically, does not absorb and then re-radiate long-wave radiation?

 

Has there been any research done on global warming actually helping the planet? Ok, so some glaciers melt, polar bears die, and Boston gets flooded, but are there major positives to the warming of land? Will humans be able to populate once arctic areas? Will vegetation that hasn't been seen in thousands of years spring from the Earth? Will I be able to wear shorts in Nova Scotia in October?

These are the things I would like to know.

 

With all due respect, there won't be any of those things left two days before the day after tomorrow.

 

There have been many studies demonstrating "positive" effects of global warming. Humans will possibly be able to move into some new areas, new areas will be viable places to grow crops that were not before, etc.

But the benefits are outweighed by the costs. Make no mistake, there are a few places that are net "winners" with climate change.

 

I've always been skeptical of the man-made portion of the argument. I accept that climate change happens/has happened, I just don't agree with you and others that man is the sole cause (or exacerbated) of recent trends.

as pointed out before, Zwick doesn't help himself when his first sentence insinuates that skeptics are mentally challenged. That's like the Weather Channel chick declaring that skeptics should have their credentials stripped.

 

Humans are not the sole cause, they are just having a heck of an influence at this point in time. I know I am going to whacked for this, and it is something I am working on getting better at communicating in a non-jackass way, but:

If you are a scientist, it is very difficult to just dismiss the studies and observations that exist out of hand and have any credibility. The study discussed in that article bears that out, as it was funded by conservatives to disprove anthropogenic global climate change, and ended up confirming it with a higher degree of statistical certainty. The data just is what it is.

Maybe our entire knowledge base is completely off and all of our perceived confirmations of such have been coincidental. Practically impossible, but let us just say that is the case. Regardless, one can not take the observations and evidence and knowledge we have and spin it any other way. That is why the "credibility" thing gets tossed around.

 

so what is their solution? hasn't it also been shown that even if man ceases all forms of carbon emissions (effectively destroying the world economy) the resulting decrease in global temperatures would be insignificant?

I am all for alternative energy, but the environmental left is going to have to give somewhere. They are currently using the courts to halt construction of solar and wind farms, they resist the construction of new nuclear plants, they find some allegedly rare fish to stop hydroelectric projects.

what the [uck fay] do they want?

 

So your problem is with the implications of GCC, more than with the science? I agree, it is a serious problem with no painless solution. It doesn't mean we should just decide it isn't real because it sucks.

There is no magic solution. 7 billion people are going to impact the environment in some way no matter what they do. I don't understand why some people deny it or refuse to believe it.

 

7 billion people could fit comfortably into the state of Texas, it's not like the planet is anywhere near it's capacity.

that said, yeah, the implications do bother me because the Al Gores of the world have yet to propose any real, viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

 

I am not making a malthusian argument. The planet's "capacity" depends on how much each user is consuming, doing, etc. Our life styles are not sustainable for all 7 billion people at this time.

I'm also very, very skeptical of 7 billion people fitting "comfortably" in the state of Texas. How do you figure that? Or is that in a, "who gives a shit if there is room for a prong horn or rabbit, or if there is enough water for everyone" sort of way?

There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels at this time. That doesn't mean we should keep combusting them without a care. It is a fallacy to assume the way to global peace and happiness is eternal economic growth, or to even think eternal economic growth is even possible. There are equilibriums and thresholds.

Again, I am not a Malthist. I'm just being practical.

 

my point about Texas was that humans occupy a very very tiny percentage of the overall landmass of the planet. I never said they could live comfortably, only that they'd fit comfortably.

 

That is an important distinction, though. Humans aren't bricks to be laid. We need an environment. Did you know that New York City municipal water is unfiltered? They were faced with having to build a 5 billion dollar filtration system to improve the water quality for the city. Instead, they spent 2 billion dollars restoring river and stream-side vegetation and encouraging better farming practices by New York farmers concerning nitrogen runoff and cattle stream access, etc. that gave them even better water quality than the plant would have.

Our environment matters, and is much more efficient and industrious than our engineering tends to be.

 

Here's my ignorant opinion on the matter:

While global warming is in fact taking place, the degree of which man's impact is responsible for is minimal. While I do think man should be more aware of how it's technology deteriorates the environment, I think it's impractical to suggest that global warming and climate change are the result of it. Who's to say this isn't part of the earth's stage in life or mother nature's way of continuing to forge and shape the surface of this earth? One thing is for certain, the earth is constantly changing on many levels. This may simply be part of that change and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

 

Respectfully, the amount of warming we are experiencing corresponds to the amount of CO2 that is coming from burning coal and oil almost exactly. We know how much CO2 comes from where by looking at the isotopic signature. Yes, there are natural periods of warming and cooling, but this isn't one of them. That is unsettling in itself, in the sense that if you "break" the natural climate regime, you "buy" it-- in other words, now we have to either step out of the "modifying climate" game, or get control of it.

 

talk to the Chinese, then.

US output has decreased to near Kyoto-level mandates even without the US signing on to Kyoto.

 

You don't have to tell me that. I am not part of some sort of communist one world government plot hell-bent on destroying the US.

The US's carbon output has decreased by 7 % over the last 4 years, partly due to recession and partly due to more "green" energy initiatives coming online. Meanwhile, China's output is exploding and now exceeds that of the US by 30%, despite them being dead even with the US just 6 years ago. Similarly, India and other South Asian countries' outputs have continued to accelerate.

An important distinction to make is that China has 4 times the population of the US. Per capita, they are still polluting far less than we are. This is what the point out to anyone criticizing their continued emissions, and their new tactic of exporting their pollution and environmental degradation to the Third World where people are too desperate and poor to complain (see: Africa.)

 

Your response doesn't really address my post, but I believe that another study confirming temperatures are rising isn't exactly some groundbreaking "the debate is over" moment. Zwick implies you can't even be a skeptic at this point. To deny his viewpoint means you are "insane". If you agree with him, then all that needs to happen are radical changes to the global economy. So simple, why can't everyone get on board?

 

Your response doesn't really address my post, but I believe that another study confirming temperatures are rising isn't exactly some groundbreaking "the debate is over" moment. Zwick implies you can't even be a skeptic at this point. To deny his viewpoint means you are "insane". If you agree with him, then all that needs to happen are radical changes to the global economy. So simple, why can't everyone get on board?

 

I am not sure that radical changes in the economy would make a difference at this point otherwise, so I disagree with "if you agree with him, then all that needs to happen are...etc." I find resonance in the idea that you can't look at the physical evidence we have and interpret it as humans not playing a major role.

 

I'd like to break this down, kpt. Do you agree that the planet is warming? If so, what do you attribute to being possible causes?