The Global Warming Megathread

[Cyclone 10]

The issue is the planet is getting warmer. As a species that will throw up a lot of problems for us to adapt to and overcome if we're to survive. Wouldn't it be better of science devoted itself to finding ways of overcoming these new problems rather than trying to establish blame?

 

It's a very good point.

But the problem is that to address the issue, we have to understand the root cause of the warming. So it's not about establishing 'blame' per se, it's about finding out the mechanism involved so that we can then target it to adjust the balance to one we'd like.

[discodown 11]

Yes you did, you said that instead of "trying to establish blame" ie. identifying what if any human activities are causing global warming and who's doing them science should devote 'itself to finding ways of overcoming these new problems'. You clearly said that we should treat the sytoms whilst doing nothing to cure the disease.

No I didn't, you've taken what I said out of context. I simple enough error so I forgive you;). What I mean is....

 

...it doesn't matter what i mean you'll only twist it to suit your own opinion theres no point trying to argue with a fanatic.

So how exactly do you 'fix' this particular problem without identifying what or who is causing it?

If I were a scientist or in a position to do something about it i would tell you.

Which 'rabid foam' is this? My previous post used no intemperate language, unlike yours contained nothing in the way of insults and addressed the content of your last post.

I know but usually you resort to insults and aggression so I thought i'd get in first for once.

Exactly, you want to treat the symptoms of global warming whilst deliberately doing nothing to find out what's causing it and if we can remove or limit the causes.

No I don't. You can easily establish what the problems are and fix them but I doubt that GW is manmade. The planet is warming. Of that there is no doubt. the planet will continue to warm no matter what people do. At best we can only reduce how much it warms overall. Therefore no matter what we are going to have new problems to overcome. Isn't it a better solution to look at what those problems are likely to be and develop solutions for them rather than focus on the relatively tiny issues of how much the average person recycles. That is merely re-arranging deckchairs on the titanic.

 

Have I made this simple enough for you or should I break it down some more?

[discodown 11]

It's a very good point.

But the problem is that to address the issue, we have to understand the root cause of the warming. So it's not about establishing 'blame' per se, it's about finding out the mechanism involved so that we can then target it to adjust the balance to one we'd like.

Am I really making my point so badly that people don't understand what i'm trying to get at?!

[Cyclone 10]

Carbon footprint my arse! A few thousand years ago the ice caps were a lot smaller than they are now... It's just earth going through a natural change but we blame ourselves! When the climate on the poles warm and snow starts to fall replenishing the ice caps (due to it not being too cold to snow) in a few hundered years time we'll say it was us that have done it by becoming greener irrespective of the fact that it would all have happened irrespective of our greenhouse emissions etc.....

 

I can find no literature to support this...

The planet came out of the younger dryas cold snap (lasting about 1300 years) approx 11k years ago and has been relatively stable since then until the early 1900's, with the exception of the 'mini ice age' in europe in 600 years ago.

[Cyclone 10]

Am I really making my point so badly that people don't understand what i'm trying to get at?!

 

I'm not sure, it seemed clear that you though that apportioning blame was pointless, and on a human scale I agree.

 

It's not pointless though to find out why the planet is warming, and you discredit us as a race if you don't believe that we can then do anything about it.

 

If you wish to believe that the planet is warming naturally, despite the evidence, then I can't be bothered to argue, at least you agree it's warming.

 

So governments should start investigating what we can do to arrest this warming.

 

Carbon sequestration for example... On a huge industrial scale. Coupled with producing less CO2 in the first place. For this we clean energy, so pouring money into nuclear and sustainable power and alternate sources of power for transport would all be smart things to do.

[plekhanov 10]

No I didn't, you've taken what I said out of context. I simple enough error so I forgive you;). What I mean is....

 

...it doesn't matter what i mean you'll only twist it to suit your own opinion theres no point trying to argue with a fanatic.

Do you deny that you were arguing that we shouldn’t discover which if any human activities are causing global warming and seek to reduce and/or end them?

 

If I were a scientist or in a position to do something about it i would tell you.

Yet despite your lack of knowledge on the subject you still consider yourself to be in a position to say that we shouldn’t try to find the causes of global warming and seek to reduce and/or end them.

 

I know but usually you resort to insults and aggression so I thought i'd get in first for once.

Considering how you’ve behaved in this and the previous thread on global warming a certain phrase concerning pots & kettles springs to mind.

 

No I don't. You can easily establish what the problems are and fix them but I doubt that GW is manmade.

On what grounds do you doubt it?

 

The planet is warming. Of that there is no doubt. the planet will continue to warm no matter what people do. At best we can only reduce how much it warms overall. Therefore no matter what we are going to have new problems to overcome. Isn't it a better solution to look at what those problems are likely to be and develop solutions for them rather than focus on the relatively tiny issues of how much the average person recycles. That is merely re-arranging deckchairs on the titanic.

 

Have I made this simple enough for you or should I break it down some more?

So basically you are posing a false dilemma.

 

Why do you assume that we have a choice of trying to reduce human activities or dealing with the problems that global warming causes? Does the possibility of doing both escape you?

 

If burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming (and it’s almost certain that it does) then wouldn’t it be sensible to try and move to alternate energy sources whilst improving our flood management and so forth?

[discodown 11]

I'm not sure, it seemed clear that you though that apportioning blame was pointless, and on a human scale I agree.

 

It's not pointless though to find out why the planet is warming, and you discredit us as a race if you don't believe that we can then do anything about it.

 

If you wish to believe that the planet is warming naturally, despite the evidence, then I can't be bothered to argue, at least you agree it's warming.

 

So governments should start investigating what we can do to arrest this warming.

 

Carbon sequestration for example... On a huge industrial scale. Coupled with producing less CO2 in the first place. For this we clean energy, so pouring money into nuclear and sustainable power and alternate sources of power for transport would all be smart things to do.

I'm not suggesting that we don't try to find out why the planet is warming.

 

The fact is the planet is warming. I don't believe that human activity is the sole cause the planet is warming. Is there any evidence that can prove that it is? I would doubt it, at best theres evidence that would strongly suggest that there is.

 

The planet warms and cools anyway, I agree that human activity has contributed to and will probably raise the temprature more than it would do anyway but I doubt that that we could stop the warming entirely and it would be redundant to try. The global climate is extremely complex and once it starts moving I doubt that theres much in the short term that we could do to stop it. At best all we could do is slow the warming and reduce the overall temprature that it is raised to. In order to do that we need to find out the best ways we can do this and then implement it.

 

It would be better if we accepted that the planet is warming and try to learn about what is likely to be the outcome of this and use science to try to combat the problems that will arise instead of trying to stop the warming happening which we can't do because not enough is known about the global climate in order to properly understand and change it.

 

Does this make better sense? It might be better if you ask me questions rather than me try to explain because clearly i'm not making much of a job.

[Cyclone 10]

I doubt it as well (about being the sole cause), but is that the point, or even a point?

 

So rather than try, you think we should what? Accept it and learn to swim/live on glaciers/deserts, and/or ignore our contribution and continue to burn coal and oil?

 

If we can only slow the warming and minimise the maximum temperature, then we should. If this involves active schemes to do so, and changes in the way we live now (ie burning fossil fuel like there's no tomorrow) then that's what needs to happen.

[discodown 11]

Do you deny that you were arguing that we shouldn’t discover which if any human activities are causing global warming and seek to reduce and/or end them?

Yes I deny it because i didn't explain myself properly.

Yet despite your lack of knowledge on the subject you still consider yourself to be in a position to say that we shouldn’t try to find the causes of global warming and seek to reduce and/or end them.

No

Considering how you’ve behaved in this and the previous thread on global warming a certain phrase concerning pots & kettles springs to mind.

So essentially you don't like it when your own tactics are used against you?

On what grounds do you doubt it?

I doubt it on the grounds that the planet throughout its history has warmed and cooled. The worst that human activity has done is alter that cycle.

So basically you are posing a false dilemma.

 

Why do you assume that we have a choice of trying to reduce human activities or dealing with the problems that global warming causes? Does the possibility of doing both escape you?

No as i've explained

If burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming (and it’s almost certain that it does) then wouldn’t it be sensible to try and move to alternate energy sources whilst improving our flood management and so forth?

Absolutely. thats what i'm saying. Lets find the problem and fix it. Not faff around deciding who did what and why and how to punish them.

 

I'm bored of constantly arguing with you because I can't seem to explain myself properly (which is my fault not yours). If you care what I think ask me one question at a time and i'll answer it. That would seem to be the way forward. If not then fair enough.

[Phanerothyme 12]

one power station could supply the full domestic market for electrical energy if we had safe, cheap, small, simple and 95% efficient electrical power storage. That would also make a lot of difference to the impact of domestic power generation from secondary sources (solar, thermal, kinetic etc.)

 

Larger electric vehicles would be more viable and cheaper without the large matrices of lead-acid deep cycle batteries on board

[discodown 11]

How long would it take to power the country without fossil fuels if we genuinely made the effort and started doing today? If anybody can can tell me Phan can!

[Grandad.Malky 11]

How long would it take to power the country without fossil fuels if we genuinely made the effort and started doing today? If anybody can can tell me Phan can!

 

I bet he can !