The myth of carbon emissions and global warming.

fresco-

As I know you are a man of science perhaps you might be good enough to inform us of the total amount of energy the earth receives, nett, from the sun in one day and also the total of energy obtained from that consumption of fossil fuels which takes place in the same time and thus comes to add to the former quantity.

Thanking you in anticipation etc.

Re: The myth of carbon emissions and global warming.


I don't know about political motives, or sensational media, but judging from the long term ice core evidence, it seems clear that the recent warming trend started long before we came along, and it's happened many times before. And every single time it happened before, it reached a certain level, and then crashed back down again.

Judging from the short term evidence, it seems clear that our industrial activities are probably exacerbating the long term trend. But to what degree is unclear. Adding a bucket of water to Naigra Falls also increases it's flow, but in the scheme of things...

I'm all in favor of cleaning up the environment as much as possible without derailing economies. "Leave only footprints, and take only pictures" is probably the best target to shoot for while still allowing ourselves to walk through the park, so to speak.

But regardless of whether our contributions to greenhouse gas are a drop in the bucket, or a torrent the result is probably inevitible; a collapse back into another period of glaciation. Based on previous climate behavior, it seems clear that hotter it gets, the sooner something is triggered which causes a strong return to glaciation.

If we had never been here the temp would probably rise slowly for 1000 years and then drop sharply for the next 50000 years.

If we pollute like crazy then temps might get to the trigger point in 500 years intead of 1000. Who knows. But either way, it's gonna hit the top, and it's gonna crash. It's just my gut feel, but I doubt any amount of greenhouse gas we can add to the atmosphere is going to overcome whetever event triggers a return to glaciation.

I think we should stop polluting as much as possible for a whole bunch of reasons. But I think no matter what we do, we're gonna have to learn to control the climate on this planet, or endure glaciations. Because right now, the way the continents are configured, the planet seems prone to glaciation more than the relative warmth we're accustomed to.



I have another thread related to this. I wanted the other thread to avoid the political arguments and focus on the data, which it seems to be doing pretty well with currently. This thread teases the political strings a bit more.

The greenies have been on about this for almost three decades.

The boffins have figured out how to make a dollar out of it.

Whoopee farquin doo. What are they proposing we actually do about it?

Go nuclear? Yeah, right.

Retards.

Re: The myth of carbon emissions and global warming.


In the nearest future Channel 4 will broadcast the Oscar-winning film by Gore as well (they've bought the exclusive rights for tv-broadcast).

Re: The myth of carbon emissions and global warming.


I've seen Gore's film. It's a very good documentary, and he presents himself well. He makes a strong case for the fact that we are altering greenhouse gas composition in the atmosphere. And he shows how lots of bad things (bad for current human civilization) can happen due to warming. But he doesn't really acknowledge the fact that things were gonna get warm anyway. All we're doing is speeding up the process.

That may not sound so bad, after all, things were gonna get warm anyway, but the faster climate change occurs, the more difficult, and more expensive, it will be for humans to cope with it.

I think the question is not whether we are contributing to warming (we are) or whether warming was inevitible anyway (it is). The better quesion is whether it's worth it economically and environmentally to reduce polution now to buy ourselves more time to adapt to the inevitible changes. Buying time to delay dealing with something costly is not a new idea, but I think it's been covered up here by the debate over whether warming is inevitible or not. Warming is probably inevitible, but the timeline while it wams is probably not.

It's hard to decide whether leaving the engines running all night with a brick on the accelerator and turning the central heating up full blast is more socially responsible than living in a cave eating seaweed.

On the one hand the former may prevent glaciation down to Mexico City and on the other the latter might bring it on.

Politicians are designed to make these fine judgements, after consulting with their scientific advisers, and what's the point in having them,the politicians I mean, bearing in mind all their negative aspects, if we have to do it for ourselves?

On with the motley.

Spendius,

Its a long time since I did A-level Physics and Chemistry.

I seem to recall Stefans Law involved with the suns energy, and the "Green Sites" will have some figures for energy consumption.
No doubt some hands on scientist here can answer the question.

Rosborne,

The political agenda involves both catching the "green vote" and keeping the "developing world" out of the competition.

Which should test their juggling skills I should think.

I sold all my carbon credits to Al Gore. I live under a bridge, have no clothes, no car, no possessions whatsoever, never go father from my bridge than I can walk, and eat sewage.

Al looks like he's having a pretty good life.

I'm actually thinking whatever the reason for global warming that actions taken now to reduce carbon emissions or recapture emissions and store them will be of benefit both economically socially and environmentally. Carbon storage can and already does generate environmentally responsible revenue. Reducing the use of non renewable materials (increased availability of timber). Pressure on populations to reduce consumption and emissions can be of benefit, making non reneweables available for longer.

I see it as win win regardless of the correctness of the science.

You need to get off the island first.

If you say so.

rosborne,

Those political claims were made in the programme. I concur with the first
but the second may only be an inference based on the "political logic" of self interest.

The link to the Channel 4 forum provides some interesting comment.

Oh man..... that one's gonna cost me!

One must try to remember that the programme is entertainment designed to bring viewers into the proper location to see the adverts between which it is sandwiched and to allow them to think they have gravitas whilst sat on their idle fat backsides farting on the spot.

As with all advanced programming the content is designed to flatter the viewers sense of self worth in as many facets as possible and enable him to go out into social discourse armed with all the apperturances of superiority and assurance.

He can even talk authoritatively about the "earth" as if it was a marble in his hand.

Unlike televised sporting events on which discerning viewers place wagers, and where they are humbled somewhat more often than they are reassured, the advanced programming offers a continuous rise in self-estimation which can remain profitable for ever and ever providing one avoids the company of those with a more jaundiced view of contemporary life.

This is easily achieved but A2K is not the best place because the whole wide world, which they say is round, is listening rather that just those in one's immediate circles.

As Yossarian didn't say but well might- "You are going to get screwed though."

From "Letters" in today's The Observer (not online, copied/pasted)

I had to flush my low flow toilet three times... is that bad?

The effects of Global Flushing have not been determined yet. But Al Gore is working on a new film called An Inconvenient Flush.

Meanwhile congress is debating bills about **** (nothing new), and peopple are flushing as they see fit (also nothing new).