Why Global Warming is like smoking...

Well, you start off young and think its cool (Industrial Revolution). Everyone else around is doing it, which by your standards is acceptable. You hear people lecturing you: "You know that stuff will kill ya?". But you fail to see the significance at an early age and snub the thought. You then get addicted and before you know it you're smoking two packs a day. Problem is that with everyone around you doing it, it is very hard to quit, as smokers will tell you. The best way to quit is to limit your time with smokers. This is a hard thing to do. The nicotine of global warming is the everyday conveniences we have. Driving to work, turning on our AC or heat, etc, etc. In order to quit smoking, we must give up some of those conveniences, which I agree are very hard to put aside. But that is the nicotine patch we all desperately need. That is the agony of not having a smoke for a couple of days. But once you get over the "3 Day Hump" it will only get easier. Hell, with cigarette prices going up (gas, oil, coal) it should be a little bit easier.

What ideas should we employ to quit "smoking"? Or at least cut down to half a pack a day?

I don't see people making any sort of change.

Here is an interesting quote, from the paper yesterday, that I found shocking:

Were Canada to eliminate all of its GHG emissions, China's increases (averaging a 6% increase very year) would replace them - every last ounce - in 18 months. Were Canada to eliminate10% of its emissions, China's increases would replace them all in 60 days.

Source: Can't post link because Globe and Mail requires a subscription, but here is the work cited

Reynolds, Neil. "As China spews pell-mell, why bother with Kyoto?" Globe and Mail Newspaper. Wednesday, February 21, 2007


[edit on 23-2-2007 by LuDaCrIs]

Maybe people ought to spend the day in a closed garage with the car running to fully grasp the effects of pollution. People don't change until they are forced too, then it's usually too late.






[edit on 23-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

I’ll agree with your analogy. It’s a slow killer that people won’t recognize until they start dying from it.

People want incentives. Currently, global warming is not affecting suburbia, so people will continue to drive their SUVs. As long as fuel and heating prices stay the same, people won’t change. Perhaps the US Government could tax gas and reinvest the money into renewable alternative energy. Then, maybe Detroit will start making cars people will want to buy and our auto industry will be able to compete with Japan. Maybe there will be less money in the pockets of unstable Middle Eastern countries. Who knows?

I think it’s social inertia.

TJ11240

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Maybe people ought to spend the day in a closed garage with the car running to fully grasp the effects of pollution. People don't change until they are forced too, then it's usually too late.

Except for the fact that the Earth is not a "closed system" as some apparently want to claim.

The fact that our oceans hold 98.5% of the CO2 on Earth, and that the fluctuations of CO2 in the upper parts of our oceans are 10-100 times more than the amount of anthropogenic CO2 released, should give you an idea that natural factors add more CO2 to the atmosphere than anthropogenic CO2.

Our oceans also absorb CO2 because it is more soluble than other gases in water. CO2 molecules react with water to form carbonic acid and other byproducts such as bicarbonate ions.

Curbing pollution is always a good idea, but mankind is the not the cause for "Climate Change", or "Global warming".

BTW Regenmacher, why don't you and others like yourself follow your own advice and stop using computers, your car, your AC at your apartment or house, and your heating system during winter?

You are part of the problem you speak of, so why don't you lead by example?

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Who's to say that the sun is not getting hotter ( or closer to Earth ) & this is the real reason we're heating up?
What I hate about this issue is that everyone is out to try to make a buck for their research, etc. Why can't we just be told the truth by someone impartial?

Originally posted by Figjam
Who's to say that the sun is not getting hotter ( or closer to Earth ) & this is the real reason we're heating up?
What I hate about this issue is that everyone is out to try to make a buck for their research, etc. Why can't we just be told the truth by someone impartial?

Who is saying that there is no "impartial research" on this topic?...

Everytime a scientists presents data that refutes the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of Climate Change, immediately they are branded as "working for the interests of the oil industry", but that's not true.

Yes, the sun's output has increased in the past 60 years more than in the last 8,000 years, but that is not the only natural forcing which is changing the climate.

I already gave links and excerpts to dozens of researh papers and articles which talk about the different natural factors which do influence the climate.

We do not understand eery factor, in fact there are many past climatic changes which research work has not been able to explain completely, yet this time around the same is happening and immediately thee are people who want to blame mankind for Climatic Change which is normal.

Other members and myself have excerpted several articles and research work which shows our oceans have been heating up because of the increase in magmatic and seismic activities in our oceans.

When temperatures go up in the oceans more CO2 is being released into the atmosphere, and the oceans have been heating up. Our oceans are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind's activities.

All the data from past climatic research have shown that CO2 always lags temperatures, that is when temperatures increase CO2 levels increase later. The time that CO2 increases after temperature increases in past climatic research differ. Sometimes it has taken 60 years for CO2 levels to increase after temperatures have increased, and at other times up to 120 years if I remember correctly.

The increase in temperatures we are experiencing began since the 1600s.


[edit on 24-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Is there impartial unfunded research going into this? If so, show me the evidence, because THAT'S what I want to hear.

Originally posted by Figjam
Is there impartial unfunded research going into this? If so, show me the evidence, because THAT'S what I want to hear.

I don't think you understand what "scientific research is"...

Scientific research is always funded...

If you are looking for research where no money was spent, then you will never find one.

Even just by looking for research on the internet you are spending money, so asking for scientific research that is not funded is unrealistic.

If you can refute "with facts" anything that I explained, then go ahead present that data and lets discuss it.

Claiming that you will not accept any data because it is "funded" is only foolish.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Muaddib]

See thats sad, because I'm not alone on this. Oh well, I'll keep looking.............

Originally posted by Figjam
See thats sad, because I'm not alone on this. Oh well, I'll keep looking.............

You do realize that when you post here you are using electricity, which you, or your family pay with the earnings you make from your jobs, don't you?...

Scientific research is more complicated than "looking through the internet" and thus a lot more expensive...

Keep looking all you want.. You will never find any scientific research which is not funded or paid for one way or another.

Why even bother with this topic if you are going to dismiss all scientific data just because it is being funded?

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

BTW Regenmacher, why don't you and others like yourself follow your own advice and stop using computers, your car, your AC at your apartment or house, and your heating system during winter?

You are part of the problem you speak of, so why don't you lead by example?

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Where does Regenmacher advise anyone to stop using those things?
How do you know Regenmacher isn't doing their best to conserve our resources and prevent unneeded combustion?

Personally I do what I can, though I'm sure there is more I can do.
*I don't drive. I don't even own a car and haven't for years now.
*My home is completely lit using compact fluorescent light bulb.
*I don't have news paper subscriptions so I don't have to worry about recycling newspaper. I do recycle my bottles and cans. Well, technically I don’t recycle them. I give them to the guy who collects bottles to get the deposit refund.
*I rarely water my lawn in the summer.
*I cover my windows with plastic in the winter.
*When I pee at home I don’t flush the toilet.
But we have a thread for that topic here

I'll also take a moment to post this link for everyone to read.
The topic of this thread isn't "What is the cause of global warming" or "How is Regenmacher leading by example?"
Debating Global Warming/ Derailing Threads.

Originally posted by Umbrax

Where does Regenmacher advise anyone to stop using those things?
How do you know Regenmacher isn't doing their best to conserve our resources and prevent unneeded combustion?

He is trying to compare Global warming with "smoking inside a closed room". It does not work that way, the Earth is not a closed system, and if we follow this analogy, the Earth is a "natural smoker" then.

If CO2 is a "pollutant", or is the same as "smoking inside a closed room", then the Earth is the #1 smoker there is.

In case you didn't know, Earth's natural ecosystem produces and stores more CO2 than mankind will ever produce.

Perhaps we should cut down trees too, since they produce CO2 at night...

BTW, I am not a smoker, but I am trying to show this is a bad analogy.

Originally posted by Umbrax
............
*When I pee at home I don’t flush the toilet.

Good for you, but you are still using a computer... which means you are using electricity. Half of the electricity in the U.S. is produced by burning coal, so you shouldn't be using your computer.

Originally posted by Umbrax
I'll also take a moment to post this link for everyone to read.
The topic of this thread isn't "What is the cause of global warming" or "How is Regenmacher leading by example?"
Debating Global Warming/ Derailing Threads.

No, the topic of this thread is some members trying to compare Global Warming with "smoking inside a closed room".

The first thing people need to understand is that "CO2 is not a pollutant", and the Earth is not a closed system, hence Climate Change, or as it is most often called Global Warming on Earth, is nothing like "smoking inside a closed room".

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Yes, the sun's output has increased in the past 60 years more than in the last 8,000 years, but that is not the only natural forcing which is changing the climate.

Actually, we don;t know that - them pesky Neolithic men were too busy putting up stone circles to bother keeping detailed and accurate records of solar activity. Just like the infamous 'hockey stick' it's an asssmption based on proxies - which some might dispute

I already gave links and excerpts to dozens of researh papers and articles which talk about the different natural factors which do influence the climate.

Don't forget human activities - other than carbon emissions - which also affect the climate

Other members and myself have excerpted several articles and research work which shows our oceans have been heating up because of the increase in magmatic and seismic activities in our oceans.

Hmmm, peer reviewed research? I've not heard of any?

And iceagenow is not regarded as a reputable source for info

When temperatures go up in the oceans more CO2 is being released into the atmosphere, and the oceans have been heating up. Our oceans are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind's activities.

All the data from past climatic research have shown that CO2 always lags temperatures, that is when temperatures increase CO2 levels increase later.

Yes. But that does not mean that the reverse can also happen Besides which, no one has just proferred any explanation as to how carbon dioxide can increase without causing some increase in temperature, The argument is over how much.

The increase in temperatures we are experiencing began since the 1600s.

Odd, I thought the Little ice Age was cooler than the preceeding Medieval Warm Period Current warming has been going on since the end of the LIA - about 150 years ago

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Essan]

Originally posted by Muaddib
You are part of the problem you speak of, so why don't you lead by example?

Anthropogenic portion of aerosols since 1750 have resulted in a globally averaged net radiative forcing of roughly -1.2 W/m2, in comparison to the overall average CO2 forcing of +1.66 W/m2, and I don't give damn about politicized scientifically illiterate fool talk on how dumping tons of carbonized gases into the atmosphere has no effect.

Considering I own a zero emissions vehicle, drive less than 10 miles a week, live well below my means, fund green research projects, and have been a diehard conservationist since scouts....my pollution footprint is about a 1/10th of the average US consumer, and where damn few could follow my example in putting more back than I take. So go worry about your own universe and its karmic repercussions.

Pay it forward....



[edit on 24-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Im about as far from a tree hugging hippie that you can get but I:

-recycle paper, cans and plastic - it costs nothing and its picked up from my house like normal waste
-I get paperless billing because I pay on the net, easier for me and saves paper
-I flush every other time if I pee
Dont drive
-use energy saver lights, saves me 90% of light bulb consumption
-Have a well insulated home, I rarely need to put the heating on.

Nothing has any negative effect on me in terms of time or money and if someone like me does it, surely everyone else can?

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Anthropogenic portion of aerosols since 1750 have resulted in a globally averaged net radiative forcing of roughly -1.2 W/m2, in comparison to the overall average CO2 forcing of +1.66 W/m2,

Wait a second there. First of all "lets assume", even though you do know what they say about assuming right?....anyways, let's assume that the monitoring of anthropogenic aerosols is "flawless", and that we don't have any doubts on the data we get from monitoring aerosols which don't last very long in the atmosphere.

Aerosol RF is much more difficult to quantify than GHG RF. Because aerosols are short-lived, their atmospheric concentrations and forcing effects are highly localized and transient. There are no comprehensive measurements of the global distribution or long-term trends for aerosols, which severely limits our ability to calculate their global effects.

es.epa.gov...

Second of all, to those people that don't understand what a "radiactive forcing of -1.2 W/m2 means", lets make clear that it means a cooling effect... That's without going into a whole discussion exactly as to how much of that forcing we think we have observed, which some say it is -0.3 W/m2...

Now the question. How exactly does that prove anthropogenic activities are the cause of Global WARMING?.....

Originally posted by Regenmacher
and I don't give damn about politicized scientifically illiterate fool talk on how dumping tons of carbonized gases into the atmosphere has no effect.

Wow, talking about "illiterate fool talk" while at the same time agreeing with a comparison of "Global Warming with a closed room full of smoke"....hummm.... yep "illiterate fool talk indeed"....

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Considering I own a zero emissions vehicle, drive less than 10 miles a week, live well below my means, fund green research projects, and have been a diehard conservationist since scouts....my pollution footprint is about a 1/10th of the average US consumer, and where damn few could follow my example in putting more back than I take. So go worry about your own universe and its karmic repercussions.

Pay it forward....

Yep, claim all you want, you are still using a computer which uses electricity, half of which is being produced by burning coal.... You do know that coal is the worse greenhouse gas there is right? more so than CO2...

Oh but I forgot, "you do need your daily dose of internet and computer time"...otherwise you wouldn't live another day...

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Now,we all know that mankind has to slow down the pollution caused by our activity,but there are some very important things that politicians and the press like to leave out of their global warming comments.the most important thing,EARTH IS A LIVING BREATHING PLANET!!
why should that matter? well,the ice caps melting is being blamed on man alone.what ppl don't know is that the last ice age ended between 16,000bc and 14,000bc.what does that mean? obviously it means that they have been melting since that time.now mankind's pollution of the planets air only started during the industrial revoultion,which only hit a global scale in the 1800's.so for a cpl of 100yrs man is guilty of polluting the air we breathe.who's to blame for the 1000's of years before that,when the ice caps were melting but man wasn't involved? the planet itself of course!!
from the very moment the ice caps started to recede the planet has been getting warmer.if man stoped all pollution the ice caps would still carry on melting.why? because that is what the planet does.it creates and destroys in an endless cycle.floods,forest fires,earthquakes etc happen every year.but nature takes care of itself.land is destroyed by the sea,wind and rain.but land is also created by lava from volcanoes....the ice caps are a barren wasteland,and they are now giving way to lakes,tress and plants.which are all better for sustaining life....
some other things ppl don't know.when a volcano erupts it puts the equivelent of 30yrs worth of pollution into the air.30yrs worth in just a cpl of days!! and just think of all the volcanoes that have erupted over the centuries.
when we have a particularly bad case of weather,il nino for example,these always coincide with a huge sola flair from the sun.for ppl who don't think that the sun can effect the planet like that,just think of what the moon can do to it.and thats just a tiny planet in comparison!
huge core samples taken from the earth have shown that when man(going off the evidence we have now.)was still fairly primitive,there were extremely high samples of carbon monoxide around.(amongst others.)the sample of this plollution is so high it dwarfs anything that man has produced to this day.once again,the earth can cause more harm than man.but that does not mean we should not restrain our behaviour to our home planet...

whats my point in writing all this? 2 reasons,to help educate ppl on the true state of our planet.all the information i've mentioned can be found on the net.but also because i believe that governments around the world are using the threat of global warming to get more money out of ppl,and to try and control them more.for example;car drivers in britain are being taxed to death.each year over 30 billion! is made in road/car tax.yet less than 10 billion! is actually spent on the roads.where does the rest go? small affordable aeroplane companies(ryanair/easyjet.) are being told they should cut back on the number of flights each year.yet aeroplane companies(BA/virgin.) who are used by the rich are being told no such thing.in fact their getting ready to expand their number of flights! is this not the government trying to keep the working classes down?

Originally posted by Muaddib
No, the topic of this thread is some members trying to compare Global Warming with "smoking inside a closed room".

Muaddib, I think you need to reread my post as well as LuDaCrIs'

The topic doesn't compare gw to smoking in a closed room, nowhere in the original post does it make this comparison.

Now kindly drop the personal discussion and derailment. If you can't post on topic then don't bother posting at all.

Earth is an approximation of a closed system and traces of hydrogen that escape into the upper atmosphere have little bearing towards reducing anthropogenic CO2 forcing and feedback. Closed ecological system Wiki



How to tell if you are a member of the political dumbass club for the scientifically illiterate:

Cheney: ‘There Does Not Appear To Be A Consensus’ That Global Warming Is ‘Caused By Man’

JONATHAN KARL: Where is the science on this? Is global warming a fact? And is it human activity that is causing global warming?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Those are the two key questions. I think there’s an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we’re in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that’s part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it’s caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera.

Cheney added later in the interview, “I don’t know. I’m not a scientist.”

Any bets the dumbass club doesn't want to kick the fossil fool addiction?




[edit on 24-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

The petty little sniping in this thread needs to stop now. If you can't say something without being offensive to other members, then don't say anything.

Any further derailments of the discussion will be dealt with as well.