UN: Climate Change Is Happening...

originally posted by: Calalini
It's been proven that humans are innately optimistic about the future. It's an evolutionary mechanism that keeps us perpetually doing stupid stuff, like throwing all of our trash into the oceans and cutting down millions of acres of trees to wipe our asses with, because the opposite attitude wouldn't be very good for our survival capabilities.
.

Did you ever try wiping your ass with a leaf? (Eucalyptus aside)
However some sectarian humans do the real stupid stuff, like exploding nuclear weapons into the atmosphere..the real shiite.

We are releasing gases through unnatural processes that are known to be greenhouse gases. If we add more of these gases than there would be naturally if we didn't exist we are by definition changing climate. You can argue the when but not the if. It will happen. So let's just be cautious now and curb the release of these gases, rather than wait until it's unstoppable to act. We need to start being proactive not reactive.

The argument over weather data is meaningless.

Venus is a living example of the process.

www.universetoday.com...

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

Simple math...

Arrogance + theoretical assumptions = exploitable ignorance

The illusion is that mankind is in any way the master, or keeper of this world. Our time in this world has been brief, and will not likely be long enough to either understand or appreciate our brief existence here.

We are a failed experiment.

its is indeed a mere blink of an eye on this floating rock we call home, + 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct .. a sobering thought , and i think we are still young in the grand scheme of things, and we are the first ( we think) species to arise that has at least in principal the ability to leave our Rock in search of fresh rocks, coincidentally the universe seems to provide an unlimited supply of them

lets hope we reach them before natural events decide we are no longer fit for this rock.

Q

originally posted by: tavi45
We are releasing gases through unnatural processes that are known to be greenhouse gases. If we add more of these gases than there would be naturally if we didn't exist we are by definition changing climate. You can argue the when but not the if. It will happen. So let's just be cautious now and curb the release of these gases, rather than wait until it's unstoppable to act. We need to start being proactive not reactive.

The argument over weather data is meaningless.

Venus is a living example of the process.

www.universetoday.com...

how do you know this process is not occurring due to some natural phenomenon we are unaware of?

Q

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

I don't. Better safe than sorry though is my thought on it. You can skip car insurance because you're a good driver and have no accidents. You'll be sorry if you get in one though.

the rest of the world is not and has not stopped dumping Chlorofluorocarbons and Hydro chlorofluorocarbons.

The reason we stopped doing this was because we were given a theory NOT FACTS..

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

This point doesn't make sense to me - or most intellectuals. And I hate using the term "intellectuals', because I know how it can feel for others; but it does mean something, for me anyways, that most thinking people aren't persuaded by that argument.

For me, this isn't an issue of true or not; but of probability. And in order to be in a position to assess the probability of something, you need a thorough knowledge of whats relevant.

The knowledge that we have is important.

For example, and as I think I mentioned, the atmosphere is composed of different elemental gases; the main two of which, nitrogen and oxygen, are mostly 'permeable' to solar energy. Carbon Dioxide on the other hand is highly activated by solar energy. Thus, we can say that carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas".

There are other green house gases: methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor and ozone. However, the largest and most primary greenhouse gas appears to be carbon dioxide.

Secondly, there are processes in nature which appear to be highly stable - so much so that we call them universal laws. This is the land of chaos theory and non-linear system dynamics. This is where concepts like feedback loops - positive feedback - become highly relevant to our calculation of risk.

This being the case, we need to pay very close attention - as climate scientists have - to carbon 'sinks'. We need to explain why carbon dioxide has increased since 1780 from 280 parts per million to today's 395. Carbon doesn't manifest out of nowhere. Rather, the stable atmospheric amount, at the time of first measurements, was the atmosphere. Since those early measurements, Co2 has increased by 115 parts per million. This is no paltry number, and it would be unconscionable to imagine that our extraction of NATURAL Co2 deposits - as oil, natural gas, coal, and limestone (for making concrete) - as well as our destruction of natural forests - also natural "sinks" for Co2, hasn't contributed to this increase.

Correspondingly, the planets global temperature has increased nearly 1 degree in that last 50 years, exactly that which would be predicted by the increase in Co2.

So, there really shouldn't be any debate about carbon dioxides role in temperature regulation; and there should be no contention about our role in infusing the atmosphere via our industrial activities with more Co2. Whats important here is not absolute knowledge: no one can say, ABSOLUTELY, that this is the case. But the evidence and the scientific method show, without doubt, that an intelligent appraisal SHOULD consider this information as highly relevant to our assessment of future risk. No one can say 100%; but its pretty up there, 97% agreement between the people who study these processes is pretty damn good. And you would be remarkably arrogant to deny what you have no authority to pronounce upon.

Then, as said, there are feedback processes. An increase in Co2 leads to an increase in temperature, which leads to...an increase in co2. Hotter temperatures lead to loss of planetary 'albedo" - the white ice - which reflect 80% of the suns rays away from the planet. Thus, a melting of the greenland and antarctic ice-sheets will enhance planetary temperatures.

Then there's the hydrates at the bottom of our ocean. Hydrates are pure co2; they are the plant life and other biota that falls to the ocean bottom - and are even sucked up into the earth and shot out in volcanic eruptions. Since the hydrates stay down because warm water is heavier than cold water, an increase in temperature might draw these hydrates upwards to the surface and lead to an increase in both atmospheric Co2 as well as ocean acidification.

Then theres the Co2 deposited in the frozen tundra in our planets north an southern regions. Increasing temperatures will lead to their melting - and releasing - their Co2 into the atmosphere.

I think, when you assess all these different processes and try to model them, or even think about them, it becomes pretty clear to most minds that this situation could be catastrophic. In a worse case scenario, the planet might fall into what Carl Sagan called the "venus effect": run away greenhouse.

So, in light of all of what I've written (and I am by no means the best source of information on this subject) I think it is careless and an example of justifying the unjustifiable - exactly the type of psychological process I tried to explain above which "searches" for cognitive explanations as a way to minimize negative affect - i.e avoid all the actions necessary to prevent future crisis.

a reply to: Bicent76

the rest of the world is not and has not stopped dumping Chlorofluorocarbons and Hydro chlorofluorocarbons.

Not the whole world maybe, but a pretty good chunk of it.

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer has been signed by almost every country in the world: more than 190 countries are now Parties to the treaty. Across the planet, major corporations continue to make dramatic strides replacing ozone-depleting substances (ODS) with safer substitutes, which will slow and eventually reverse the thinning of the ozone layer as well as provide important climate benefits.

www.epa.gov...

Pretty good dent in global production:
www.amstat.org...

The reason we stopped doing this was because we were given a theory NOT FACTS..

You know what a scientific theory is, right? It's backed up with facts. It's not just something someone guessed at.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

This point doesn't make sense to me - or most intellectuals. And I hate using the term "intellectuals', because I know how it can feel for others; but it does mean something, for me anyways, that most thinking people aren't persuaded by that argument.

For me, this isn't an issue of true or not; but of probability. And in order to be in a position to assess the probability of something, you need a thorough knowledge of whats relevant.

The knowledge that we have is important.

For example, and as I think I mentioned, the atmosphere is composed of different elemental gases; the main two of which, nitrogen and oxygen, are mostly 'permeable' to solar energy. Carbon Dioxide on the other hand is highly activated by solar energy. Thus, we can say that carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas".

There are other green house gases: methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor and ozone. However, the largest and most primary greenhouse gas appears to be carbon dioxide.

Secondly, there are processes in nature which appear to be highly stable - so much so that we call them universal laws. This is the land of chaos theory and non-linear system dynamics. This is where concepts like feedback loops - positive feedback - become highly relevant to our calculation of risk.

This being the case, we need to pay very close attention - as climate scientists have - to carbon 'sinks'. We need to explain why carbon dioxide has increased since 1780 from 280 parts per million to today's 395. Carbon doesn't manifest out of nowhere. Rather, the stable atmospheric amount, at the time of first measurements, was the atmosphere. Since those early measurements, Co2 has increased by 115 parts per million. This is no paltry number, and it would be unconscionable to imagine that our extraction of NATURAL Co2 deposits - as oil, natural gas, coal, and limestone (for making concrete) - as well as our destruction of natural forests - also natural "sinks" for Co2, hasn't contributed to this increase.

Correspondingly, the planets global temperature has increased nearly 1 degree in that last 50 years, exactly that which would be predicted by the increase in Co2.

So, there really shouldn't be any debate about carbon dioxides role in temperature regulation; and there should be no contention about our role in infusing the atmosphere via our industrial activities with more Co2. Whats important here is not absolute knowledge: no one can say, ABSOLUTELY, that this is the case. But the evidence and the scientific method show, without doubt, that an intelligent appraisal SHOULD consider this information as highly relevant to our assessment of future risk. No one can say 100%; but its pretty up there, 97% agreement between the people who study these processes is pretty damn good. And you would be remarkably arrogant to deny what you have no authority to pronounce upon.

Then, as said, there are feedback processes. An increase in Co2 leads to an increase in temperature, which leads to...an increase in co2. Hotter temperatures lead to loss of planetary 'albedo" - the white ice - which reflect 80% of the suns rays away from the planet. Thus, a melting of the greenland and antarctic ice-sheets will enhance planetary temperatures.

Then there's the hydrates at the bottom of our ocean. Hydrates are pure co2; they are the plant life and other biota that falls to the ocean bottom - and are even sucked up into the earth and shot out in volcanic eruptions. Since the hydrates stay down because warm water is heavier than cold water, an increase in temperature might draw these hydrates upwards to the surface and lead to an increase in both atmospheric Co2 as well as ocean acidification.

Then theres the Co2 deposited in the frozen tundra in our planets north an southern regions. Increasing temperatures will lead to their melting - and releasing - their Co2 into the atmosphere.

I think, when you assess all these different processes and try to model them, or even think about them, it becomes pretty clear to most minds that this situation could be catastrophic. In a worse case scenario, the planet might fall into what Carl Sagan called the "venus effect": run away greenhouse.

So, in light of all of what I've written (and I am by no means the best source of information on this subject) I think it is careless and an example of justifying the unjustifiable - exactly the type of psychological process I tried to explain above which "searches" for cognitive explanations as a way to minimize negative affect - i.e avoid all the actions necessary to prevent future crisis.

A well thought out and great post ...

I am not saying our knowledge and information is irrelevant.. after all its all we have on the subject, all i am saying is you have to entertain the possibility that this could be a natural cycle based on earth/the suns influence, or perhaps unseen interaction we are currently unaware of that may have happened countless times before or maybe never...

Q

a reply to: Phage

yes CL was found in the ozone, and a theory was born....

Last I checked ASIA, covered over more then half of the livable world for Humans..


Same with africa, SOuth America etc.

the good news thou.. Is Chlorofluorocarbons production will be reduced 90 percent after this year...

Also, what is th name of China's epa branch? Also Russia's? I said dumping gases into the atmosphere.... Not a treaty that has no teeth in russia, or CHINA.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

I don't. Better safe than sorry though is my thought on it. You can skip car insurance because you're a good driver and have no accidents. You'll be sorry if you get in one though.

The problem is I CAN'T skip on the insurance because global warming agents are forcing everyone to buy it and removing our freedom of choice. Besides, insurance is a scam just like global warming.

Yeah, but those cycles have been accounted for in the modeling and data analysis.

Many skeptics say what you just said. But... it's been addressed countless times in the studies. How many times does that need to be explained?

a reply to: Metallicus

So you focused on destroying the analogy.

How about the better safe than sorry part? It's not like something bad will happen because we try to be more environmentally conscious. Isn't the chance that the greed and selfishness of humans today might destroy humanity enough to act? At what point would you agree to limit things?

You realize that the moment it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt it's too late right? So if we wait for compete undeniable proof we've failed already. That's the whole point.

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

I understand. But when we have information that can account for the planets increase in co2 - and we know co2 regulates temperature - and we see that contemporary civilization is becoming ever more dependent on fossil fuels (because of growing economies like India and China) - to compare what we do know, to what we don't know, and to give weight to what we don't know "Just because" - is to me, enormously careless.

We can already account for planetary changes in co2 by measuring our own output in co2 via industrial activity. That is a pretty compelling picture: it tells us - not with any certainty - but with near-certainty, that yes, on a grand enough scale, billions of cars, millions of factories expelling carbon dioxide - and our cutting of trees (sinks for carbon dioxide) does have an effect.

Yes. We CAN and ARE likely changing our atmosphere. And if were intelligent and circumspect, we'll do what needs to be done to avoid the damage up ahead: more aggressive superstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes i.e storms which feed on heat/cold differentials; floods and droughts will happen in that order; too much water coming from melting icecaps because it's hotter than usual; and the water that usually sources rivers during the late season will run dry, thus creating draught. Lowlying coast-lines are at risk of being flooded forever: bangladesh, netherlands, london, miami, new york city. Island nations like tuvalu, the maldives and bermuda. And forest fires, which are already becoming more common, will increase as temperatures increase leading to more summer heatwaves.

Can you add all this up?

The chances that were wrong exist; but the knowledge that we have forces us to realize that we may have knowledge of a very real pattern: were meddling with our atmosphere as if "it just was". As if there weren't specific gas combinations in a certain harmonious combination making our biosphere a reality.

All of the evidence shows that this situation is probably the case.

a reply to: tavi45

So let's just be cautious now and curb the release of these gases, rather than wait until it's unstoppable to act.

So then, turn off the reactors and electrical plants that burn coal? Stop driving and walk or ride bikes?

Tear up the roads, plant ggardens and shoot out all the street lights.

I'm with you.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Very well said.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: Metallicus

So you focused on destroying the analogy.

How about the better safe than sorry part?.

Its not my fault if your analogy was poor, however, I do NOT live in fear of things that might happen. I have enough real things that require my concern.

If everyone acted in a 'better safe than sorry' fashion then we would all be Christians so we can avoid hell...just in case.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

I understand. But when we have information that can account for the planets increase in co2 - and we know co2 regulates temperature - and we see that contemporary civilization is becoming ever more dependent on fossil fuels (because of growing economies like India and China) - to compare what we do know, to what we don't know, and to give weight to what we don't know "Just because" - is to me, enormously careless.

We can already account for planetary changes in co2 by measuring our own output in co2 via industrial activity. That is a pretty compelling picture: it tells us - not with any certainty - but with near-certainty, that yes, on a grand enough scale, billions of cars, millions of factories expelling carbon dioxide - and our cutting of trees (sinks for carbon dioxide) does have an effect.

Yes. We CAN and ARE likely changing our atmosphere. And if were intelligent and circumspect, we'll do what needs to be done to avoid the damage up ahead: more aggressive superstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes i.e storms which feed on heat/cold differentials; floods and droughts will happen in that order; too much water coming from melting icecaps because it's hotter than usual; and the water that usually sources rivers during the late season will run dry, thus creating draught. Lowlying coast-lines are at risk of being flooded forever: bangladesh, netherlands, london, miami, new york city. Island nations like tuvalu, the maldives and bermuda. And forest fires, which are already becoming more common, will increase as temperatures increase leading to more summer heatwaves.

Can you add all this up?

The chances that were wrong exist; but the knowledge that we have forces us to realize that we may have knowledge of a very real pattern: were meddling with our atmosphere as if "it just was". As if there weren't specific gas combinations in a certain harmonious combination making our biosphere a reality.

All of the evidence shows that this situation is probably the case.

what about the other planets in the solar system that are warming up? no doubt you will cite individual theories as to why this is happening on each specific celestial body, but nonetheless its happening to more than just Earth, so are my emissions effecting other planets in our neighborhood?
and yet we still no so little about the history of weather on Earth and even less in the grand scheme of things re solar system weather.

I'm not saying your wrong , or your theory does not have the possibilities to be correct , i am saying you have to consider other alternatives due to the % chance of your current theory being correct.

and is i stated in a very early post , the chances of getting the whole planet to agree to your world saving schemes are extremely minimal as right now we can't even get together as a planet to stop a poor defenseless child from starving to death. Your efforts if undertaken will be a mere breeze of an intervention on the grand scale. and likely not effective

!
Q

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

Actually, I wont mention individual theories because I am not an astrophysicist. And understanding another planets 'heating' is not partcularly relevant to our planets heating.

Again, and to return to my original point: since climate scientists are more interested in human industrial activities, carbon dioxide and cumulative effects on our climate, are you saying that they are all conspiring then? Or are they just not as smart as you and the 3% who feel it is warranted to extenuate and mitigate our own - well known and scientifically understood - carbon releasing activities, to somehow make sense of "planetary heating" on other planets.

For me, as I said, the boatloads of science support concern for what were doing; the fact that 97% of humans, just like myself, educated specially in the field of climate science, believe our industrial activities will lead to long term effects described in my earlier post - and ultimately, it is feared, to our own extinction - are all very good reasons to put your money on climate change being human caused; and that means we need to, even though it'll hurt - just like surgery hurts, or psychotherapy can be 'painful' for people who've wanted to avoid thinking about their problems - we need, as a society, to reform how we relate with our environment.

Even from the get-go, intuitively, there is nothing clean-looking about fossil fuel burning. Even as a kid, driving over to Hamilton, Ontario, I felt slightly disturbed by the sight of factories pumping smoke out into the atmosphere. I remember being transfixed on the ugliness of it.

The black goo, the fart smelling methane, coal - they look like they should be kept where they are. Science has merely shown us that, just as our intuition would have predicted - fossil fuels release a molecule that plays a big role in our planets climate regulation.

Any who, I feel that you are one of those people who is dedicated to an idea and willing to find "solutions" to every one of my counter-arguments. I would ask you - but I fear the same old - why you don't consider how your self-system - the narcissistic need we all have to "own" information and feel good about it - might be affecting your current judgements? Because it seems to me, in light of the overwhelming evidence proffered, that it is wholly irrational to reject what the majority of the experts believe - and to instead posit a more nebulous theory about the sun being the source of climate change.

Since climate scientists have access to this information as well - and have reviewed this information themselves, doesn't it seem relevant that you should ask: why isn't it as significant to them as it is to me?

Sadly, if you ask this question, you might find yourself believing in the conspiracy theory argument: climate scientists are unethical, morally bankrupt people who are fudging the evidence.

a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

what about the other planets in the solar system that are warming up?

Why do you think they are warming up? Do you know about the actual observations? Do you care? Why do you think we can even guess at changing global conditions on other planets? Do you know how long seasons last on Neptune?

Oh, yeah. What about the ones that aren't "warming up?"