Climate Change

[Whispered]

I don't really think we need to argue it - the Earth is getting, on average, warmer, over the years.

What we need to argue (or debate) is whether humans have a huge impact on this, a small impact, none at all. Science has shown that the Earth goes through cycles, and that we're in a warming cycle (this based on fossil records instead of pseudo-science computer models based on manipulated data). So, do you think humans are accelerating the warming? If so, do you think that this will cause the next ice age to either not happen, or on the other extreme be more extreme than normal? Or do you think that it's just nature taking it's course with our temps?

 

[Thrill]

Some warming would have happened, but we're accelerating the process drastically. The greenhouse effect is now considered to be pretty conclusive, and human activities pour out these gases in mass quantities (particularly methane, through livestock, and carbon dioxide, through energy emissions).

Some will refute global warming by pointing to winters like the last one. Firstly, the warming is global -- that is, the Earth's average temperature is rising. It is rising very quickly at the poles, while something bizarre is happening elsewhere. As the pole temperatures rise, the jetstrem is losing its definition. It's wavering, and the weaker jetstream lets out those bursts of relatively cold Arctic/Antarctic air. So the polar vortex is not evidence that global warming isn't happening; it's simply another effect of a rising climate at the poles. Secondly, the warming effects are tempered by pollution. Thanks to China's lax factory emissions laws, we have a steady supply of man-made sulfates being poured into the atmosphere. Sulfates reverse the greenhouse effect to some level.

 

[allison]

Al gore said the ice caps would melt by 2014

Well he also said that he invented the internet so we should probably take everything he says with a grain of salt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cat]

I don't really think there's an argument as to whether or not humans have influenced climate change, the proof is in the pudding and all the facts are right there.
I'm taking ap environmental science this year and literally all we do in class is watch TED talks and documentaries on netflix and stuff, so I mean I could just be a walking, talking product of all that.
But the facts are that yes- climate change exists naturally and the earth DOES go through stages, however, we ARE speeding this process up by burning fossil fuels and emitting CO2 gasses (among many other greenhouse gases) at a faster rate than has ever been emitted naturally. I'm literally pulling out direct facts from my AP guide for Environmental (which is convienantlly on my desk since I have the exam tomorrow morning). 85% of the world's energy needs are derived from fossil fuels-- Oil about 36%, coal about 26% and natural gas about 23%.
Although I don't agree with the ways we're going about 'helping to protect the earth' by letting people believe that ONE day a year (Earth Day) of being especially conscious about our impact on the environment and having this whole 'blackout hour' will actually make some sort of difference is ridiculous. Which, by the way: the energy saved from ONE city turning off it's lights for ONE hour is so incrementally small, it can't even be calculated.
Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is the first start to helping slow down climate change, through means of developing wind power, water power, wave power, geothermal power, solar power, etc etc technologies.
I strongly recommend watching the documentary 'Cool It' ft. Bjorn Lomborg. It talks about how climate change obviously does exist, how we're currently being stupid humans about it, and how to properly go about it.

imbd link for it- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1694015/

 

[Atlantis]

Some warming would have happened, but we're accelerating the process drastically. The greenhouse effect is now considered to be pretty conclusive, and human activities pour out these gases in mass quantities (particularly methane, through livestock, and carbon dioxide, through energy emissions).

Some will refute global warming by pointing to winters like the last one. Firstly, the warming is global -- that is, the Earth's average temperature is rising. It is rising very quickly at the poles, while something bizarre is happening elsewhere. As the pole temperatures rise, the jetstrem is losing its definition. It's wavering, and the weaker jetstream lets out those bursts of relatively cold Arctic/Antarctic air. So the polar vortex is not evidence that global warming isn't happening; it's simply another effect of a rising climate at the poles. Secondly, the warming effects are tempered by pollution. Thanks to China's lax factory emissions laws, we have a steady supply of man-made sulfates being poured into the atmosphere. Sulfates reverse the greenhouse effect to some level.

This explained the issue very well. I think we need to focus on the term climate change rather than global warming. Some areas are exactly getting colder, but the important thing to remember is that climate change is causing extreme weather. This extreme weather happens because climates that are not used to certain weather are experiencing these weather patterns.

For instance, I lived in Boulder, Colorado this year when we had floods. Though the amount of rain we got for a state like say Florida was average, we live in a semi-arid desert. We got our yearly cumulative rainfall in the process of three days. We had incredible erosion and land slides that were devastating to the area. They were calling it the 500 year flood because the chance of it happening is so slim. Interestingly enough, the year previous our entire state was ON FIRE. To say that extremes for the area is a understatement.

An economic perspective: That only begins to dip into the issue, the amount of natural disasters occurring all over the world is appalling. I think we are beginning to see the large economic toll it is taking (which may get laws to change). Just look at China, they are being affected to such an extent that worker's health is declining. Destroy your human capital and an economy goes down the drain, not to mention your physical capital that is destroyed every time we've got a natural disaster. While I believe there are many energy sources trying to aim towards cleaner energy, the rapid rate our technology is accelerating, the higher our demand for energy. Not enough of our capital is going into researching into our energy.

I'm not sure what it is going to take for us to begin to take act, but to ignore an issue as obvious as climate change is foolish.

 

[Dempsey]

humans are the problem to everything, we need another plague

 

[Thrill]

Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is the first start to helping slow down climate change, through means of developing wind power, water power, wave power, geothermal power, solar power, etc etc technologies.

Fossil fuels are an issue, but I'm going to point back to livestock. According to this* article, livestock cause 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, and that this can be cut by 30% relatively easily. That's a huge opportunity, and we can't overlook the significance of rising meat (particularly of the red persuasion) consumption going forward. And another study** suggests that livestock actually represent over half of greenhouse emissions -- again, enormous. If this is the case, people are going to have to re-evaluate their diets from the ground up if we want to prevent climate change. Minimal red meat, if any. Poultry and the occasional pork product, but in small portions and certainly not for every meal (or even every day).

* = http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197608/icode/
** = http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog...s-account-for-51-percent-of-greenhouse-gases/

You also leave out nuclear, which I think is a curious decision. Thorium salt reactors* are incredibly promising. They're remarkably safe (extant nuclear, if I recall correctly, is already the safest power source; thorium is a lot better at handling meltdowns, because the fuel is already molten). Thorium is abundant, and provides incredible power when reacted. But due to the oft-misinformed public, I worry we'll never see the day when nuclear is seen as a legitimate option. Thanks, hippies!

* = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

EDIT: On livestock, I forgot this TED Talk. I'm not 100% sure about his methods (I think this was attempted in the American west and failed), but it's intriguing nonetheless. http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

 

[Princess_Stitch]

humans are the problem to everything, we need another plague

Since I have no interest in dying from a plague, I think we'd be much better off simply eliminating the morons. How? Just throw everyone's phones over the Grand Canyon and that will solve the issue naturally. We'll clean up the phones afterwards, of course. Go green!

 

[Cat]

Fossil fuels are an issue, but I'm going to point back to livestock. According to this* article, livestock cause 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, and that this can be cut by 30% relatively easily. That's a huge opportunity, and we can't overlook the significance of rising meat (particularly of the red persuasion) consumption going forward. And another study** suggests that livestock actually represent over half of greenhouse emissions -- again, enormous. If this is the case, people are going to have to re-evaluate their diets from the ground up if we want to prevent climate change. Minimal red meat, if any. Poultry and the occasional pork product, but in small portions and certainly not for every meal (or even every day).

* = http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197608/icode/
** = http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog...s-account-for-51-percent-of-greenhouse-gases/

You also leave out nuclear, which I think is a curious decision. Thorium salt reactors* are incredibly promising. They're remarkably safe (extant nuclear, if I recall correctly, is already the safest power source; thorium is a lot better at handling meltdowns, because the fuel is already molten). Thorium is abundant, and provides incredible power when reacted. But due to the oft-misinformed public, I worry we'll never see the day when nuclear is seen as a legitimate option. Thanks, hippies!

* = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

EDIT: On livestock, I forgot this TED Talk. I'm not 100% sure about his methods (I think this was attempted in the American west and failed), but it's intriguing nonetheless. http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

I totally did not intentionally leave out nuclear, I think it is a viable option. However, I am personally concerned with the storage of the radioactive waste it leaves behind. In the event of 'World War III' or a terrorist attack, it would be very scary if waste facility were to get upset. But yes, without hippies and people who argue and form lawsuits against the building of power plants, nuclear energy would actually be relatively cheap and a much more viable option when you consider the benefits of the costs.

And I did not mention livestock, but I do agree with you. Livestock is a huge factor of pollution in many forms. Their waste runs into water, causing water pollution problems, algae to grow and disrupt dissolved oxygen levels, thus disrupting the ecosystems existent in those waters. In addition to water pollution, livestock is the leading contributer to methane emissions, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. But still, there are over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane.

While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes. Here is a graph of the various forcings that influence climate (methane is CH4, right above CO2).

https://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm
But in order to effectively address the reduction of greenhouse gases we have to look at all the contributing factors, livestock included. Unfortunately, meat is a huge part of our diets (which is a whole other argument in itself), which fast food chains like McDonald's being the biggest buyer of meat, selling 75 hamburgers per second and serving one billion pounds of beef to Americans alone annually. While there are negatives to the environment when it comes to fast food chains like McDonald's, it still provides many jobs to many people in need- which is beneficial to the economy. http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-mcdonalds-blow-your-mind-2011-11?op=1#!Iz2qt
To save the environment and preserve our current resources for future generations we MUST change our lifestyles- that is the only way. There has to be compromise, and at the moment, I don't see anybody willing to give up their yearly cellphone upgrades or meat servings in every meal.

 

[Atlantis]

Fossil fuels are an issue, but I'm going to point back to livestock. According to this* article, livestock cause 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, and that this can be cut by 30% relatively easily. That's a huge opportunity, and we can't overlook the significance of rising meat (particularly of the red persuasion) consumption going forward. And another study** suggests that livestock actually represent over half of greenhouse emissions -- again, enormous. If this is the case, people are going to have to re-evaluate their diets from the ground up if we want to prevent climate change. Minimal red meat, if any. Poultry and the occasional pork product, but in small portions and certainly not for every meal (or even every day).

* = http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197608/icode/
** = http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog...s-account-for-51-percent-of-greenhouse-gases/

You also leave out nuclear, which I think is a curious decision. Thorium salt reactors* are incredibly promising. They're remarkably safe (extant nuclear, if I recall correctly, is already the safest power source; thorium is a lot better at handling meltdowns, because the fuel is already molten). Thorium is abundant, and provides incredible power when reacted. But due to the oft-misinformed public, I worry we'll never see the day when nuclear is seen as a legitimate option. Thanks, hippies!

* = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

EDIT: On livestock, I forgot this TED Talk. I'm not 100% sure about his methods (I think this was attempted in the American west and failed), but it's intriguing nonetheless. http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change

Lifestock is a great mention to bring to the debate. Keep in mind, most of these studies forget to report that 18% of the greenhouse gas emission is actually do to agriculture and though livestock takes up a large portion, it simply doesn't cover the debate. The amount of fertilizers we spray on field run into waters and deplete the already largely depleted, soil we grow our crops in. It's important to consider greenhouse solutions.

*I do want to say though that the livestock experiment stating it is worth 50% was very skewed and figured out through malscience practices. 15% is closer though.

 

[Whispered]

On the point of extremes, does anyone have any slice staying there is a higher occurrence of rare events (100 year floods, etc)? Because the whole point of a 100 year flood is it's expected to occur, on average, every 100 years.

 

[Atlantis]

On the point of extremes, does anyone have any slice staying there is a higher occurrence of rare events (100 year floods, etc)? Because the whole point of a 100 year flood is it's expected to occur, on average, every 100 years.

I had to search around a little for this one but I did find one summary of a report:

Steady Increase in Climate Related Natural Disasters

And here is a great graph from it:

Most of this information is still in the raw, dense most form but I did look a little more into EM-DAT where the information was pulled from and it seems refutable.

 

[Whispered]

I had to search around a little for this one but I did find one summary of a report:

Steady Increase in Climate Related Natural Disasters

And here is a great graph from it:

Most of this information is still in the raw, dense most form but I did look a little more into EM-DAT where the information was pulled from and it seems refutable.

One could say that the number had increased due simply new reporting methods, new definitions of disaster, etc. What I'm looking for is if anyone has actually come out with proof that there has been a higher occurrence of "100 year whatevers" than would be expected, and significantly so.

Honestly, it sometimes looks as if people are using numbers and changes that are, statistically speaking not abnormal enough to be significant to prove climate change. I'm just looking for someone to provide some significant data. Many SDs away from the expected.