Humans are the Cause of Global Warming
- Thread starter NorthStar
- Start date
More interesting is the question as to why a question of science is considered to be a political issue?
no doubt the climate is changing. It always has. Now the question remains, to what extent has human civilization contributed ? That science is not exact. When one side of the isle purports the solution is carbon taxes, we all will pay more...I take issue with that. I have no problem with improved emission controls for cars, power plants, ect. The urgency to act in an irrational way can and does skew report data/estimates to better make their case for their funding constituency.
The thing that confuses me is that rather than debate the policy needed to find a solution to a real problem, we end up debating whether the problem itself is real(I hope the distinction between the two is clear?)
The thing I can't get my head around is that when we say "pay more" we mean money. Money is exchanged for economic activity. Economic activity uses energy. So by "pay more" we mean "use more energy"..?
A politician on a UK programme the other day was promoting green energy, but pointing out that, unfortunately, green energy is more expensive than conventional. The same argument as above, applies. If the only way to buy a bit of green energy is to burn more energy than would otherwise have been burned, it all seems a bit pointless.
This is where the energy rebound effect comes into action. Whatever anyone saves in energy efficiency is then available for spending on other things, or invested in making even more useless stuff.
I think the solution to the paradox is that in the context of a (sort-of) free market economy, 'green' business and energy is a red herring. Whatever notional 'green'-ness is imposed, the energy will continue to be burned in ever-greater quantities until it runs out. That is the very essence and purpose of the market. Growth is everything and will not be stopped until forced to by natural limits.
Last edited:
The massive increase in size this year of the polar ice cap is making agencies rethink the process of global warming. It was originally predicted that arctic ice would completely disappear this year, and NASA photos show over half a million square miles of new ice instead. I agree that the whole climate change issue has been manipulated by those wishing to push agendas and make money. Global warming actually "paused" in the late 1990's, but causing panic was a good way to generate large tax increases on "non-green" energy production, etc.
Lee
Lee
The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from .03% to .04% this year.
I don't think it has ever been that high.
On a more cynical note:
Beavers build dams. Humans build dams. They use wood and we use steel and concrete because we're more technologically advanced. We're also technologically advanced enough to refine dead dinosaurs into burnable fuel which raises the temperature of the planet. We also like to make long chain polymers among other things.
It's just what humans do. It's completely natural. If it wasn't natural, it wouldn't happen.
It's just one of life's self limiting factors. We're simply not going to be around forever.
I don't think it has ever been that high.
On a more cynical note:
Beavers build dams. Humans build dams. They use wood and we use steel and concrete because we're more technologically advanced. We're also technologically advanced enough to refine dead dinosaurs into burnable fuel which raises the temperature of the planet. We also like to make long chain polymers among other things.
It's just what humans do. It's completely natural. If it wasn't natural, it wouldn't happen.
It's just one of life's self limiting factors. We're simply not going to be around forever.
No. Except in the sense that the apparent paradoxes of 'green business' and 'green growth' are not paradoxes if you realise that they're not 'green' at all.
That pause was due to a volcanic eruption that kicked huge amounts of ash into the atmosphere. I remember everything here being covered in ash and the eruption was over 100km away.
The variety and randomness of natural climatic events presents (IMO) too many confounding variables to make concrete statements about this topic. The earth has undergone many cyclical climatic changes. In the end, as Gary stated, we are basically parasites slowly devouring our host.
Lee
That, is a fact. ...Our planet cannot sustain humanity's activities forever; not at that very fast growth.
There are a bunch Tim; the first report is 2,000-page long (from 257 scientists), plus a 36-page Summary for Policymakers.
...And with another two 'encyclopedias' (volumes) coming next year.
as opposed to the Greenland icecap which has virtually disappeared this summer decades ahead of predictions??
I think it's clear that only some (unknown, or at least not definitively known) part of the current global warming is man-made, but it's the only part we have any effect on. I think it's also pretty clear that things like carbon taxes do little if anything to affect it.
(disclaimer; I'm pretty far in the environmentalist direction on this issue)
Last edited:
I got my years wrong. I was referring to Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines which dropped global temperatures in 1991.
The volcano's Plinian / Ultra-Plinian eruption on June 15, 1991 produced the second largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th century after the 1912 eruption of Novarupta in the Alaska Peninsula.[5] Complicating the eruption was the arrival of Typhoon Yunya bringing a lethal mix of ash and rain. Successful predictions at the onset of the climactic eruption led to the evacuation of tens of thousands of people from the surrounding areas, saving many lives, but the surrounding areas were severely damaged by pyroclastic flows, ash deposits, and subsequently, by the lahars caused by rainwaters re-mobilizing earlier volcanic deposits causing extensive destruction to infrastructure and altering the river systems months to years after the eruption.[5][6]
The effects of the eruption were felt worldwide. It ejected roughly 10,000,000,000 tonnes (1.1×1010 short tons) or 10 km3 (2.4 cu mi) of magma, and 20,000,000 tonnes (22,000,000 short tons) SO
2, bringing vast quantities of minerals and metals to the surface environment. It injected large amounts of aerosol into the stratosphere – more than any eruption since that of Krakatoa in 1883. Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F), and ozone depletion temporarily increased substantially.[7]
What was the volcano in Iceland?
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |