QUOTE (Drakonis)
Enough of my rant. Carry on people.
Thanks a lot ! Be assured that my post here is only meant to expose the failings of your argumentation and the randomness of the underlying postulates, thus fully emphasizing the ridiculousness of your position.
QUOTE That the Earth is getting warmer is an undeniable fact that can't be argued. The causes of this warming however, can be argued. The idea that humans are mostly, if not exclusively responsible for this warming is a ridiculous one. On a global scale the influence of humans on the climate is negligible.
Hmm, let's start with an authority argument:
The world - represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has come together in Paris last week to discuss the possibility of human impact on global warming. One of the conclusions of the summit was: there are 90% chances that the human species
bears indeed some of the responsibility for global warming.
Based on world's expert's opinions, not on your huffy complaints. Brilliant people have dedicated their lives to studying the phenomenon, and have concluded this. Whereas you, you living ***t, you, who barely reach your average C every semester in your studies, come and try to teach the world lessons ???
Based on what, on some doubtful reading you've done last night ???
QUOTE (Drakonis)A lot of people seem to hold the mistaken belief that the climate is static (stable and unchanging) and everything was fine until humans started mucking up the works. The climate is actually very dynamic (always changing). These changes may not always be perceptible given the relatively short life spans of humans but they are ALWAYS occuring. Stability in the global environment will Never Happen. Why will it never happen? It will never happen because of outside influences such as: Orbital occilation of the Earth around the sun, occilations in the rotation of the Earth on its axis, and most importantly, changes in the output of the sun. The sun you see, is also dynamic rather than static. In the last 100 or so years the output of the sun has increased by 0.2%. That sounds like a small number until you consider how large the energy output of the sun is. Small changes in solar output can have large effects on earth.
Duh. of course the global climate is a dynamic system, and a very complex one at that. Measurements in climate have been taken for over a century now
"Historical records include cave paintings, depth of grave digging in Greenland, diaries, documentary evidence of events (such as 'frost fairs' on the Thames) and evidence of areas of vine cultivation.
Daily weather reports have been kept since 1873, and the Royal Society has encouraged the collection of data since the seventeenth century. Parish records are often a good source of climate data."
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
So please cut the crap about the "short life spans of humans", unless you have a 134+ year-old grandma to testify that her life was short. Science makes use of all human intelligence because it communicates reliably over time and space. That's one of the cornerstones of its credibility.
This is for the existence of direct recent observations, but geology provides scores of information on ancient climates. That's how we know the ice ages even existed.
Granted, Earth is not an isolated system, so it may never reach equilibrium, but consider a system called "human environment" and formed of
1) the ecosphere --> humans and living beings (plants, bacteria, viruses etc.)
2) the atmosphere --> all gases surrounding earth, up to some 10,000 km into space (add the artificial satellites if you wish)
3) the hydrosphere --> all the oceans on earth and all water in liquid form
4) the lithosphere --> the earth's crust, made of solid rock, down to some 150 km (although at that depth the limit between solid and liquid is not clear-cut)
The outside influences upon this system are quantifiable, and if not measurable (sunlight input), or computable (gravitational trajectories in the Sun-Moon-Earth system) at least statistically assessable (volcanic eruptions, meteorites, drift of the magnetic axis of the globe etc.).
Their time scales are also very different from the interactions that occur within the "human environment", which makes it easier to estimate them over a 100-150 year period.
Put those in the mix and you have an approximation of an
isolated system out of equilibrium. Then check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics, first formulated in 1850 and verified numerous time since then, says
"The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
Meaning that the 'disorder' within the human 'environment system' will reach, at some future moment in time, a state were Earth as we know it will resemble much much more with a desert world like Mars or Venus.
Needless to say we will all be dead by then.
The principle does not say
"when" or "how fast" this will happen
or
"whose fault it is"
.
One thing is sure. That the people in Paris last week spoke of "global warming" as a phenomenon that is part of
this (entropy maximization) process, and not as the latest fad.
Then the question is :
"If the scientists saw it coming in 1850, why has nobody acted upon knowing about this irreversible change in our environment ?"
Well the answers are multiple:
1)
political situation on the globe --> it has enormously changed since the mid 19th century ( end of the industrial revolution, colonization then decolonization, 2 world wars, globalization = increased exchanges and communication, a relative standstill in power balance between nations due to nuclear weapons )
2) the coming into light of
blatant proof that the resources (easily exploitable energy, easily exploitable minerals, biodiversity, drinkable water) of our environment are dwindling DUE TO OUR CONTINUING EXPLOITATION
3) The
population on the globe has been multiplied by 5, and its growth is foreseen to continue at an exponential, not logarithmic, rate.
Experts have taken all these things into account and many many others before even coming together in Paris.
So don't think you can trick anyone by saying "Oh, they completely forgot about Mount Pinatubo"
QUOTE (Drakonis)
Greenhouse gases - There are many more greenhouse gases than just carbon dioxide, the main one of those being water vapor. Compared to water vapor the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule. For most of the 4 billion year history of the Earth CO2 levels were far, far higher than they are now (currently ~0.000034%). What happened? Well, there's these little things called plants that developed and for them, CO2 is food. Most people seem to think that CO2 has a linear effect on global warming (i.e. add one part CO2, get one part temp. increase). That is not the case. Atmospheric CO2 has a logarithmic effect. (Think of a line that starts low, shoots up rapidly, and then levels off. Kind of like an upside down L.) For most of the Earth's history, CO2 levels have been around or above the transition point where vertical becomes horizontal. That is called the point of diminishing returns. This means that the more CO2 you add, the less of an effect on global warming it has.
Again that crap ...
Of course they have taken into account the effect of water vapor. If the discussion is about CO2 it's because it is proved scientifically, like 2+2=4, that by reducing CO2 emissions from human activity, the world can act against global warming.
And "these little things called plants" are less and less present and less and less diverse (and therefore prone to quick extinction) on the emerged surface of Earth (I don't know about the oceanic plateau) DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY.
QUOTE (Drakonis)
Rising sea levels, so what? They're not going to rise overnight, or even over a year. They'll rise over centuries. I am unaware of any living thing, plant or animal, that is incapable of moving itself elsewhere. Animals by walking, plants by seed dispersal.
Yeah, well, fact is that if sea levels rise, coastal areas like New Orleans become much more exposed to catastrophes like Katrina, for instance.
You can build levees, but there's a limit to how much they can hold. Engineers can do miracles, but unlike god, they cannot foresee everything. And global warming might speed up out of the predictions. So just prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Plus check the cost of moving, by foot, millions of people from the seashore to the hills. And how happy people living in the hills will be about it.
The same is worth for plants and animals, with some violent turf clashes, natural selection and species becoming extinct.
QUOTE (Drakonis)
Extinction of species? Yes, human activities may speed them up some, but the majority of them would happen regardless of humans. Diversity among species is only valuable in so far as it increases the survival of the genus.
And diversity among genera is only valuable in so far as it increases the survival of the family.
And diversity among families is only valuable in so far as it increases the survival of the order.
And diversity among orders is only valuable in so far as it increases the survival of the class.
And diversity among classes is only valuable in so far as it increases the survival of the phylum.
And diversity among phyla is only valuable in so far as it increases the survival of the kingdom (or regnum). E.g. Animalia or Plantae
"But we humans are the toughest the wisest, the most beautiful, we are completely apart from the Linnaean classification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
so it's only normal that we (and our internal viruses and bacteria) remain the last ones standing."
QUOTE (Drakonis)
The most significant change that could be made to reduce greenhouse gases without destroying the world economy would be to make nuclear power plants the primary source of electricity and eliminate coal and natural gas fired plants. Nuclear power would supply the vital base load necessary and wind would provide for peak power consumption. (Currently the cost of solar panels is too high and their efficiency is too low to make them practical on a large scale, but in ten years....?) This change would have a far greater effect than the poor joke that the Kyoto Protocol would have had. Enacting the Kyoto Protocol would only have pushed 100 year warming predictions back to 103 years, and done so only at immense cost.
Nuclear power most certainly, but currently the trucks that deliver Uranium to the nuclear plants still use fossil fuels. Nuclear power is considered, but it comes at a non negligible environmental cost too. (Radioactive waste pollutes the lithosphere)
And some countries are denied access to civil nuclear technology by the stupid political stances of other countries ruled by assholes. => they are forced to continue using fossil fuels.
Same type of argument as yours:
What can be done about switching to
clean nuclear power is being done. Think of what you can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Especially regarding the transportation issue.
Wind power yes, provided that coastal areas that are so rich in this natural resource don't get submerged soon, provided that wind patterns don't change in this non-isolated, out of equilibrium, HUMAN INFLUENCED system that is the Earth atmosphere. Provided the technology is made available - no ! militantly spread - worldwide, to take advantage of the best winds out there. (Ok, please share that joke about farts with everyone now
)
Solar panels ? Yes - but not sure about the initial cost, the repairs required, the total lifetime, the efficiency. One thing is sure, plants make much more efficient use of the sunlight than any solar panel. They just happen to store the energy under a different, and currently not trendy, form. Yes, currently you cannot power your laptop with carrots and onions.
QUOTE (Drakonis)
For those who knock Americans for their consumption, consider this. Americans are 5% of the world's people and they consume 25% of world's resources, but Americans also produce 35% of the world's goods and services. Our production is 40% greater than our consumption. The rest of the world consumes the remaining 75% of resources and produces 65% of goods and services. The rest of the world consumes 15% more than it produces. It would appear to me that Americans are the model of efficiency and that the rest of the world could stand to learn from us. For those who think Europeans are so much more environmental than Americans, I'd suggest a visit to Rome. A friend of mine took a trip there last year and said the Tiber river made the worst river he'd seen in America look like a wonderful place to take a swim. Eurpeans have a tendency to place words above actions. They seem to think that if they say the right things often enough then they won't actually have to do anything.
[Americans also produce 35% of the world's goods and services.]
Bravooo !!!
But if Americans do so in a wasteful manner it is only normal for Chinese, Indians and other nations to think: we would do better if the rules of the game took environmental cost into account. We could share some 30% of those 35 between us.
The US citizen is a wasteful subspecies that is far too specialized. It cannot adapt itself to the new rules of the game and therefore it must croak in poverty.
[The rest of the world consumes the remaining 75% of resources and produces 65% of goods and services. The rest of the world consumes 15% more than it produces. It would appear to me that Americans are the model of efficiency and that the rest of the world could stand to learn from us.]
Hahaha. I don't know what you count under "good and services" but try this instead:
The USA represent 5% of the world population and they consume 25% of the world's resources to live.
The rest of the globe make up 95% of the world population and they consume 75% of the world's resources to live.
If there are too many people living on Earth, who should be eliminated first, in order to spare some resources ?
But I won't go further in this direction. My view is that there are not too many people living on Earth, but too much blind ambition and not enough shared knowledge.
And the drive towards more environment-respectful technologies is a legitimate one and it comes just in time.
After what happened in New Orleans, and while unprecedented floods strike Indonesia, hurricanes Florida, storms England, it is a crying shame and a slap in the face of human intelligence that there are people claiming we should continue living on just as if nothing had happened.
So US people try to be sports and participate to the effort