Science Friday: Climate Change, Part 1


Thanks for the timely diary

that interactive map is wonderful. I wonder how good the coverage of the Copenhagen talks will be. It seems that hope of getting a treaty is dim.

Progressives are the true conservatives.

and Greenland just might live up to its name someday ...

From Science Daily

Thank you for the great post. Humans are starting the 21st century worried about oil; we will likely end the 21st century worried about water. The graphic showing the rivers originating in the Himalyas was very cool.

Thanks for helping educate everyone

As Copenhagen approaches and the Kerry-Boxer bill moves through the Senate, we have to keep the pressure on Congress. It's so important to remember how urgent this is.

Different theories

I agree that there are different theories and think that there is far too much dogma and posturing by both sides. However, for me, it comes down to this: we know that C02 levels have increased dramatically. Since we only have one atmosphere, can we please err on the side of caution for once and not keep this up while we don't know what it means?

I am not here to argue global warming/climate change/well maybe

Apex, there are so many different theories about global warming/climate change it is extremely difficult to know which one speaks to the issue correctly. A lot of it depends on your politics, sadly. Many people believe (or do not believe) there is a global warming problem/climate change problem based on their political dealings. Science argues with itself on it. That is why I posted the link I posted.

I do know that CO2 is taken out of our atmosphere by plant life that, for lack of a better term, filters it and regenerates O2, or oxygen that we breathe. What affect has the cutting of the forests around the world had on that? I read recently that over 20% of the world's oxygen in the air comes from the rainforests in Africa. That is being cut down at an exponential rate.

Yes, I know that industrial production and emission of CO2 has also grown exponentially over the years as well. There is more to this equation than what is being presented to us, in my considered opinion. I am NOT for the impending Cap and Trade bill for this reason until there is some kind of legitimate agreement first of all whether or not "global warming/climate change" is a real problem and second having some kind of resolution as to whether or not industrial production and auto emmissions and so forth are a major cause of it.

To me, I'm taking a wait-and-see stance.

Oh, and yes, I know that is not a particularly popular point of view here on BlueNC, so if you argue it, you will most certainly get support from most of the posters here. :)

Why not advocate caution?

I am not arguing global warming either. As I said, way too much dogma going on.

I am NOT for the impending Cap and Trade bill for this reason until there is some kind of legitimate agreement first of all whether or not "global warming/climate change" is a real problem and second having some kind of resolution as to whether or not industrial production and auto emmissions and so forth are a major cause of it.

I disagree with this stance on a basic level. I think that we know that CO2 levels are on the increase and that human activities, be they destruction of the forests or industrial emissions, are the major cause. We should stop or certainly limit doing that until we have a better idea about the long term impact it will have.

We only have one atmosphere. Whether you believe it was divinely created this way or our entire ecosystem evolved in concert with a specific composition, isn't it really more sensible to keep it the way it was rather than change it without knowing what that could mean?

Too often have we as a species acted first and considered the implications later. I am not sure that we will ever change, but to me, this isn't an issue of global warming, it is an issue of how we view ourselves as either a part of the planet or apart from it.

It's a good response

I agree that we most certainly should take human causes out of the equation, of course, if it can be determined that it is causing the problems some are advocating.

But, I am suspicious about this "Cap and Trade" bill/initiative. On the surface, it appears that it will be a bill that will help reduce greenhouse gasses but the truth is, a lot of it is conjecture. There are legitimate arguments as to its effectiveness. And, of course, there's the cost. What are the estimates of how much it will cost the average citizen in the increases in power bills? Yes, we can ask "what kind of cost can we put on having clean air", but that seems to be more rhetoric than anything.

I say we take the time to analyze things before we go off half-cocked, so to speak. It is just too important not to do that.

Cap and Trade

If you have a minute, read this:

Cap and Trade isn't a new idea and when applied to a previous air quality issue, it was not only very effective in getting the desired results, but also very cost effective.

This isn't to say that I think that Cap and Trade is the answer. In many ways it is just another case of the government playing favorites and paying them with out money.

I find it interesting that you say:

I say we take the time to analyze things before we go off half-cocked, so to speak. It is just too important not to do that.

That is how I feel about the issue of CO2 levels. Before we go off and screw things up beyond repair, shouldn't we analyze things? It really is too important not to.

This part of your post is not accurate

Science argues with itself on it.

Hundreds of peer reviewed research papers have been published supporting the idea of human caused climate change/global warming. If you can find 1 peer reviewed article refuting human caused cc/gw, I'd like to know.

The notion that this there is some kind of debate on this is typical of right wing "muddy the water" tactics.

Oh, my goodness persondem

I didn't present that from some "peer reviewed" kinda thing. It's nonsensical to try to quantify this from one kind of perspective or narrow point of view.

I'm not saying I disagree or agree with one side or the other. You are taking me wrong. I just presented a perspective I picked up that is different from the Al Gore perspective. Climate change and global warming needs to have a look-see, no doubt. No need to get thin-skinned about it, my man.

I presented a link that shows just another view. That's just another view...nothing more. Science does argue with science on this issue. I'm not trying to start some kind of argument or pro/con discussion about it here. Oh, and trust me, I am not presenting this from some kind of right wing philosophy. Isn't me.

But that is how science works ...

Through the peer review process. It is accurate to say that there are differing viewpoints on the topic, no doubt. But to say that there is debate within science is not accurate.
I do not think you are willfully promulgating a right wing agenda, but perhaps have been influenced by the reptitious pseudo-science out there on this topic. From your previous posts, you do seem a sensible sort of person (not that you need me to say so).

iirc the first testimony presented to Congress on GW/CC was over 20 years ago (1986?). Scientists noticed elevated CO2 in the 50's. How much analyzing needs to happen before we realize there's a problem and act to correct it? Perhaps you are familiar with the frog and the boiling water demo?

Let's not become enemies here, persondem

Look, any search on Google or or Bing will show that there are a kazillion differing views on GW/CC. All have their merits...most have their questions.

I'm not a "Cap and Trade" guy because of the costs and because of the questions as to whether or not this legislation will have a significant impact on a problem that is somewhat in question.

You believe differently, persondem. I respect that. I guess we should "agree to disagree" on some of the areas we see differently.

Thanks, my man.

There's beliefs and there's facts

Cap and trade works. It greatly reduced NOx and SOx emissions, resulting in curbing acid rain, for many years until regulators let the markets collapse during the Republican reign of terror. Sure it costs to clean up our messes, but so what? That's the price of entry to responsible adulthood.

If we're doing this kind of damage to our water supply without cries of alarm, how can you imagine we're doing less to the air that we breathe.

This is a moral issue, Foxtrot, not an economic one. We pretty much suck as a species when it comes to being stewards of the planet we inhabit. It's time we started cleaning up our act.

We're on the same wavelength Apex

I guess we can banter this around forever here on BlueNC, but the powers to be will do what they do, regardless, think?

What I dislike about many issues of the day is that our "leaders" seem to make decisions based more on political considerations than good old fashioned common sense and what is best for America and that comes from BOTH parties.

This video explains a lot about another angle of GW

Wake Up, Freak Out - then Get a Grip from Leo Murray on Vimeo.

I my have posted it here before, but it seems timely again.

Progressives are the true conservatives.

Seems I've opened up a can of worms here !!

I thought I might. HAHAHAHAHA...okay guys, remember that unless we question things, we're just "following along", right?

Okay, fine then

But, if we are, in fact, making "messes", then can we get the collective braintrust in our country together to come up with ways to "clean it up" without costing us an arm and a leg?

Just a thought.

Think of it this way

These messes have been made over many, many generations. There's nothing special about our generation beyond the fact that some of us (baby boomers) are part of a population explosion that was fundamentally unsustainable. We should have been paying the piper all along, but we weren't. We (the collective "we") were too busy making money and making "progress" to worry about a little old problem like poisoning our air, our water ... and our food chain. Trillions and trillions of dollars in profits have been made because companies and people never paid the real costs of their products. By "real costs" I mean the added-in cost of not polluting.

It's hard to imagine that it wouldn't cost billions or trillions of dollars to clean up the damage we've done.

What would it be worth to have a world filled with clean water and clean air instead of a world filled with this?