Global Warming

[Magn]

Well, I'm about halfway through reading "The Empty Tank" from Jeremy Legett.

His argumentation about peak oil was very convincing and his argumentations about global warming so far is pretty good (but I'm not done reading that part yet).

However, I find a lot of people to be very resistent to the idea of global warming (especially when sacrifices are in order) and while trying to convince some of those people about the seriousness of the issue, I had to admit that my argumentation concerning the scientific side of it was not very well developed.

Here's what I have so far:

Carbon and temperature have been intimately linked in the past to the point where the issue is not really debatable.

Yes, 95% of the carbon produced is produced naturally, but is also reabsorbed which create an equilibrium. The extra 5% that we produce upsets that equilibrium (which makes sense considering that we're taking stuff that was buried underground and put it in the atmosphere so we increase the overall amount of carbon in circulation). The fact that atmospheric carbon has increased dramatically starting at the time of the industrial revolution is pretty damning evidence that we are responsible for atmospheric carbon increase.

However, I recently saw someone argue that while carbon in the atmosphere and temperature and linked, the link is the other way around. Basically, the temperature increases or decreases and the carbon follows.

I'm pretty sure the last argumentation is rubbish and I think was answered to, but I have yet to read the answer.

At this point, I'm inclined to believe the global warming side, because most scientists agree to it and they don't have much to gain from holding that opinion while those that agree against it are obviously primarily motivated by their bottom line.

I'm trying to reseach more of it on my own (because I feel the issue is serious and its important that I know more), but the time I can dedicate to it is limited so it might take a while. I was hoping some knowledgeable people in here might give me a head start.

[Daivler]

>>The extra 5% that we produce upsets that equilibrium <<

Basic chemistry, if you alter a system it will find a new equilibrium so therefore its not "upset" for long and is just finding a new equilibrium...

I say all the carbon talk is b******s, don't hear much beaching about methane and thats worse. Carbon this carbon that. Whats hilarious is this "Carbon Number" sh!!!te going around.

how does it feel to be the medias b!!tch? Lol

[Magn]

>Basic chemistry, if you alter a system it will find a new equilibrium so therefore its not "upset" for long and is just finding a new equilibrium...<

Yes, it is also biology, physics and to a lesser extent, mathematics as well (well, mathematic helps to model it anyhow).

However, the new equilibrium it creates might not agree with us much (since we build the entire infrastructure for our civilisation in an equilibrium that was different).

>I say all the carbon talk is b******s, don't hear much beaching about methane and thats worse. Carbon this carbon that. Whats hilarious is this "Carbon Number" sh!!!te going around.<

Yeah, methane's worse. Thats the part I'm reading now. Carbon still doesn't help.

>how does it feel to be the medias b!!tch? Lol <

Aren't we all?

We all get our learning from some kind of medium (whether its from a book, the internet or from word to mouth).

Things definitely need to be filtered (which is what I'm doing now), but shutting yourself off to the outside world to avoid "being contaminated" is not a solution.

[hsihp81]

Basic chemistry, if you alter a system it will find a new equilibrium so therefore its not "upset" for long and is just finding a new equilibrium...

Well if we're talking in vague generalities, then your theory may work, but I'd like to offer my own general food for thought. In addition producing more carbon, we're also killing off the parts of the system that would create this new equilibrium- trees, for one. As with acid rain and other things people would prefer to shrug off to continue their lifestyle guilt-free, the environment can only neutralize so much. You do get to a point where a system is overwhelmed and can't find a natural equilibrium. The debate should be on whether or not that point is imminent or surpassed, not whether or not that point exists...

don't hear much beaching about methane and thats worse.

True. However, a good chunk of that is produced by our insane cattle population, (equal to just under 20% of the human population!) so good luck getting any attention paid to that...

[Daivler]

>>Yes, it is also biology, physics and to a lesser extent, mathematics as well (well, mathematic helps to model it anyhow).<<

True but in my chemisrty classes Le Chateliers principal was a practical example with stuff so i just mentioned chemisrty for that reason.

Check out nitrogen oxide compounds also, some are as bad as methane.

Well to be the medias b!!tch is to take everything they say seriously but you should be somehwat sceptical about whats in the media, especially since it goes through phases of buzzwords. And IMO global warming is one of them, it's clinging on a little longer than other however.

[Daivler]

@hsihp81

Who is producing more carbon though?! It's fine to take initiative in the EU and developed countries but theres only so much efficiency we can have with all the laws. An example is the emissions requirements for cars here, fine making them stricter as Europe is a densely populated continent. But ever so slight improvements make a much smaller difference to the "terrible carbon" in the atmosphere compared to making restrictions in countries such as china and the US. But it will take a while to happen in US and China.

[Daivler]

Attention won't come to methan since its the necessary evil that provides us with bounties of milk, steak and many peoples livelyhood. It's not as easy a target as carbon is.

[Magn]

Attention won't come to methan since its the necessary evil that provides us with bounties of milk, steak and many peoples livelyhood. It's not as easy a target as carbon is.

Haha, if you think carbon is an easy target, you should go talk to most Albertans or representatives from OPEC or for that matter, anybody who make their livelyhood from oil (which represents a sizeable body of people).

Who is producing more carbon though?! It's fine to take initiative in the EU and developed countries but theres only so much efficiency we can have with all the laws. An example is the emissions requirements for cars here, fine making them stricter as Europe is a densely populated continent. But ever so slight improvements make a much smaller difference to the "terrible carbon" in the atmosphere compared to making restrictions in countries such as china and the US. But it will take a while to happen in US and China.

Yeah, but logically, you would need a miracle for EVERYONE to take action all at once.

If we wait for that, we'll wait for a long time.

The best you can do is to take action for your corner of the world (so that this part is done) and then wait for others to follow suit so that things can get fixed, one piece at a time.

But for the US, Obama gives me some hope. At least he's planning some measures. With Bush, talking about the environment was like hitting against a brick wall.

Heck, Arnold had to sue a government lead by his own party in order to be able to take some mesures for his own state to preserve the environment.

[hsihp81]

I'm not placing blame on carbon emissions. There is a hell of a lot that the U.S. needs to do, and sadly, we're about to lose out some more. It looks like Bush will roll back some environmental rules before leaving office. There are some things that have been sought after for a long time, and once granted it will be a lot harder for Obama to just undo what Bush is about to do, let alone make further progress.

Haha, if you think carbon is an easy target, you should go talk to most Albertans

That's another problem.. oy... Not much I can say though, we buy most of it- piped right into the west. Of course our absurd consumption of natural resources had to eventually lead us to dirtier sources of oil than traditional crude.. :p

[waheed]

global warming is a rather complex scientific issue. its not so much chemical reactions, its more like a quantum mechanical issue

when radiations from the sun shines into a planet, most of it will be reflected by the surface. thats why temperatures in the surface of moon is so much colder than the earth despite being almost equidistant from the sun. what makes earth different is that its surrounded by a gas layer (the atmosphere), where gases like CO2 exist. those gases can absorb a portion of the light reflected by the earth surface and re-emit it back to the earth, and thats why we are able to have relatively warmer temperatures to host life

of course there are a lot of other gases other than CO2 that contributes to this effect, but CO2 is by far the main concern, because we are emitting A LOT of it into the air. the concentration of CO2 has REALLY increased in the past decade. moreover, the relationship between temperature and CO2 is an exponential increase, and rather small increases in CO2 concentration can result in large increases in temperature

also i would like to add, even the increase of 1 degree is HUGE. it will have severe biological effects as enzymes are extremely temperature sensitive (for example if ur body temperature is 37 degrees u r fine, but u'll sure feel it if its at 38 degrees. and if u maintain temperature at 38+ degrees for a month i guarentee u will not like it)

also, a VERY serious bogus science argument is when ppl say the average temperature of the earth did not change much in the past few years. yes that statement is correct, BUT AVERAGE TEMPERATURE DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING!! the truth is, areas such as the arctics are far more sensitive to global warming than lets say the equator. believe it or not, the temperature in the arctics has actually changed SEVERAL DEGREES. that is causing icebergs to melt. and the icesheets in the arctics plays a large role in reflecting sunlight back, and if ice continue to melt, the amount of light reflected will be less, and the earth will absorb more heat, resulting in a downwards spiral and cause more global warming

as for stuff like 95% of the carbon argument, atoms cannot be produced or destroyed (we ignore nuclear reaction for now). most carbon exist in very complex forms. unfortunately there are too many flaws to that argument because its extremely scientifically wrong :(

CO2 is mostly a bi-product from burning anything with carbon in it, with main contributors being coals/fossil fuels/natural gas. its great because its much cleaner than some of the other stuff that can potentially be produced. however our economy is so much relied on carbon and we produce so much of it, resulting in an accumulation of CO2 in the air. and the most scary thing is so many people refuse to recognize it. we are not exactly in grave danger, not like if we emit another carbon the planet will blow up, but we should be taking action right now instead of waiting until the last minute

the main thing holding us back from alternative energy is money unfortunately. fossil fuels are the cheapest source of energy. there are a lot of other MUCH cleaner and MUCH more efficient processes than fossil fuel (for example, a gasoline car is only about 30% efficient, whereas a fuel cell car can be more than 80% efficient). there was a talk back then about if the gas price continue to go up it might force people into switching to alternative resources. unfortunately dumbass polititians drove it back down and people who did not understand global warming supported them :(

anyway i wrote a lot lol hopefully someone interested will read it. education ftw!

[Catwalk]

Global warming is cowmade.

[Ishandra]

Even if people 'dont believe in global warming' they should at least appreciate facts such as...

The less fuel you use, the cheaper it gets

The less things you burn, the cleaner your air is

The less energy you waste, the lower your bills are




These are the kinds of things that drive real change. People tend to be scared of science, unless its a miracle cure for something and even then people are sceptical.

[Swirvin' Birds]

If it's cowmade then its humanmade... :)

[1eye]

every organism will impact it's own habitat, and then impact it's own environment in some way...

the question is how much change, and is it a reversible change?


VOTE FOR CHANGE PPL!

[Daivler]

Reason i say carbon is an easy target is because it is produced (in form of diox or monoxide) in so many ways in our every day lives and it is targetted at specific things not just the petroleum companies. Think of electricity production (most), cars(fuel, lubrication, etc), plastics/materials production. People are encouraged to cut down on those, hell i'm charged for plastic bags at shops for the past few years (more an environmental issue but you get the idea), so thats why carbon is an easy target not the petroleum companies themselves.

>>The best you can do is to take action for your corner of the world (so that this part is done) and then wait for others to follow suit so that things can get fixed, one piece at a time.<<

I'm in Ireland and they are taking action (copying UK as per usual. even the green party got into power FFS) so I'm covered. But I'm in engineering/science/manufacturing so I bring work habits home and try to be naturally efficient about energy and such anyways. Maybe that's why sheet annoys me :o reminds me of work lol.

And Waheed I read all your post :) at first you grasped the "efficiency vs practicality" very well until the last paragraph with the fuel cell cars though...