We *Need* to stop climate change

[PakledHostage]

Technically, if you were to stop and reverse climate change entirely, you'd be on a barren, lifeless, kind of mars/mercury/moon like planet being constantly bombarded by planetoid objects, or comets and asteroid as they now are.

[citation needed]

[RainDreamer]

[citation needed]

Fixed with link to relevant website. Because I clicked that a few times before I realized it wasn't a link.

[m4v]

^ Correlation <> causation.

Yeah, scientist know that, you don't need to lecture them about it.

[Nibb31]

Also, to my knowledge, nobody has published a peer reviewed paper that associates the number of pirates with global temperatures.

Besides, I'm not even sure that his chart is true. Maritime piracy is still very present in some parts of the World, and since the World's population is now over 10 times what it was in the 17th Century, and it is much easier to get your hands on a speedboat and an RPG, I wouldn't be surprised if there are actually more pirates now than 400 years ago.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Nibb31

[gmiddlemass]

I'll just leave this here...

[RainDreamer]

So back on topic: I don't know why people are so defensive about this.

Here is the thing: Climate change is going to happen. Earth may become uninhabitable, because nothing last forever.

Was it our fault? Was it a natural process and nothing we can do anyway? We don't know. (actually we do, but bears with me)

Would it happen soon? Would it happen later? We don't know either, only estimates.

So with all those uncertainties, how about we just take it safe and find a way to survive a hostile environment? It would be better than bickering about what we do now in the short term. All this politics getting in the way of science...hah.

[m4v]

So with all those uncertainties, how about we just take it safe and find a way to survive a hostile environment? It would be better than bickering about what we do now in the short term. All this politics getting in the way of science...hah.

No, because it gets in the way of short term economic gain.

edit:

I'll just leave this here...

Widely discredited "documentary" done in 2007. Compare the graph they show in 27:29 against the real one from nasa, data manipulation is evident. Just googling a bit shows statements like this one proving that they deliberately misrepresented scientists in order to make them look like they don't believe in anthropomorphic climate change:

In the part of the “Swindle†film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerousâ€â€because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important  diametrically opposite to the point I was making  which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.

Many of us feel an obligation to talk to the mediaâ€â€it’s part of our role as scientists, citizens, and educators. The subjects are complicated, and it is easy to be misquoted or quoted out context. My experience in the past is that these things do happen, but usually inadvertently  most reporters really do want to get it right.

Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of “polemicsâ€Â. There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face valueâ€â€clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.

Edited March 11, 2015 by m4v

[Arugela]

Yet that's pretty much the definition of all human activity since the dawn of its existence.

Whether or not climate change is happening is not up to debate. We are seeing the effects with glaciers melting, sea levels rising, methane being released from melting permafrost, and more violent meteorological events than ever. The positive feedback loops are measured, explained, and predictable in models. The entire scientific community agrees that there is a climate problem and that it's getting out of control. And no, the entire scientific community is not part of a Greenpeace-driven conspiracy.

You might debate whether climate change is due to human activity or not. So we really have two options here:

- Either it is due to us burning stuff, in which case we should probably stop burning stuff.

- It is due to some other unexplained natural cause, but burning stuff is making it worse, in which case we should probably stop burning stuff.

Other than that, there are plenty of other reasons for us to stop burning stuff (burnt stuff residue isn't healthy to breathe, the more stuff we burn, the less there is to burn, and the more expensive it gets, we need to import stuff that burns from countries that are run by bad people, etc...)

I see absolutely no rational reason for us to keep on burning stuff, other than "I sell stuff that burns, so I don't want people to stop burning stuff" and "I want to keep on burning stuff because I don't care".

Funnily enough, the only place in the World that has influential decision-makers who are constantly denying scientific results also happens to be the only place in the World where politicians are openly funded by people who sell stuff that burns and are elected by people who don't care. What a coincidence !

Whether it is happening is absolutely up for debate. So is the existence of human affect on it or anything other level of argument. Everything is always up for debate. Sorry, but the fact that a person does something does not mean it's harmful(at which point the argument that affect of humans is not up for debate has it's end. Beyond that you can still argue there is 0 affect. No argument every stops to exist and in a serious manner. EVER.). You do not know wiping out the rain forests is even bad. How do you know we are not part of the ecosystem and it expects us to do it!? How do you know the planet won't turn into Venus if we don't cut it all down and it's vital we do it? How do you know the data you see is not part of something larger, or some other misconception, and it is not something good or vital?

You are almost, if not literally, assuming perpetuity is the norm. Or any other endless combination of logic. It is too complicated to say with the current arguments being thrown around what is what. Maybe the destruction of the rainforest is the most important part of the lifecycle of the rainforest?! That is actually very normal with plants and ecosystems. The fact is most people don't know and don't have the knowledge or information to know this sort of thing or anything like. That is why I refered to people not having a background with plants or having one sufficiently. The more you learn about plants the more you learn about their complexity and diversity. It changes per plant. There is no simple set anything in regards to them and what is good bad. It's all over the place! And talking about an ecosystem is that much more complex. There is nothing you can say easily, if ever, is good or bad for them in the end in any way.

If you don't beleive me. Grow a garden.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Arugela

[Nibb31]

Whether it is happening is absolutely up for debate.

Well, no it isn't. The only place where there is a debate is in one particular country from a vocal minority of people who are not experts in climatology, and by some strange coincidence, have vested interests in the oil industry.

The rest of the world outside of that country, including some pretty smart people who have been studying the subject for decades, are pretty unanimous about the issue. And these scientists, from hundreds of organisations from all over the world, aren't all subsidized by large industries.

Usually, when you certain that you are right and the entire world is wrong, then either you are a misunderstood genius or you are wrong. Statistically, most people who are in denial aren't all misunderstood geniuses.

So is the existence of human affect on it or anything other level of argument. Everything is always up for debate. Sorry, but the fact that a person does something does not mean it's harmful(at which point the argument that affect is not up for debate has it's end.). You do not know wiping out the rain forests is even bad. How do you know we are not part of the ecosystem and it expects us to do it!? How do you know the planet won't turn into Venus if we don't cut it all down and it's vital we do it?

You're grasping at straws here. If you are that oblivious of the obvious consequences of doing something, you shouldn't do it. But really, it doesn't take a degree in environmental science to figure that cutting down all the trees isn't a great idea.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Nibb31

[Arugela]

But really, it doesn't take a degree in environmental science to figure that cutting down all the trees isn't a great idea.

That is absolutely mistaken. If you have never grown plants you would probably not know that though.

[PakledHostage]

That is absolutely mistaken. If you have never grown plants you would probably not know that though.

So are we to believe that no climate scientist has ever grown a garden or a kept a simple house plant in their home or office? Presumably they would also be privy to your "gardener's wisdom" if they had?

[Nibb31]

If you have grown plants, you would know that if you cut down all your plants, you have no more plants left. That might be ok if you're a GMO farmer on contract with Monsanto, but the tropical rainforests contain an amazing variety of ecosystems that are thousands of years old and cannot be replaced. Some of the species in there might actually be useful to us. Biodiversity is something that might actually be worth preserving.

So, irregardless of whether global climate change is real or not, do you actually think that it's ok that we base our entire economy on burning stuff and that we should definitely go ahead and get more and more people to burn more and more stuff?

[Robotengineer]

--snip--

We know about almost all of the things you list, we know that humans have an effect on our environment, we know that wiping out the rainforests is bad for the climate. Why do you think NASA spends so much on Earth science? It's because they need to get data, to confirm hypotheses, so that they can then say things like, 'We know that chopping down all the rainforests is a bad thing for the ecosystem.' We have been doing climate observations for decades, and the research has pointed to a rise in carbon emissions with industrialization, which affects the atmosphere, which affects the climate.

Scientists, in general, are to timid, convey ideas rather poorly to people who are not fellow scientists, and are always second guessing themselves, in effect, shooting themselves in the foot when they actually try to push for action. Then there are the denialists who churn out "data" that opposes mainstream science, and try to appear the underdog in media. The news media is responsible for giving the aforementioned denialists air time, or newspaper space. The all to common, 'For the opposition view we go to...' way of presenting controversial issues diminishes the side that actually does research and hard work, and bolsters the side that is just an industry mouthpiece. So until the scientists and intellectuals actually start doing activism as well as research, not much will change.

[whiterafter]

I don't know if there's a way to stop it at this point.

Very disappointed in the planet for coming this far with no progress. I mean, unless we cut down our carbon emissions to 1/1000 of current levels, global warming will still happen, albeit slower. And with deforestation there is no way in hell we could even stop or reduce global warming.

There is literally no progress being made. I'm just hoping I can finish my life before earth is completely ruined

[EdFred]

So how many of you have stopped consuming human produced energy in order to stop global warming, since you know it's human energy production/consumptions that's contributed to it?

None of you? So I guess you don't really want to stop it do you? Advocate for everyone else to do it, but not you. There's a term for that...start with an h.

[Nibb31]

So how many of you have stopped consuming human produced energy in order to stop global warming, since you know it's human energy production/consumptions that's contributed to it?

None of you? So I guess you don't really want to stop it do you? Advocate for everyone else to do it, but not you. There's a term for that...start with an h.

It's better to be a hypocrite than to live in denial. Awareness is better than ignorance. At least hypocrite recognizes that there's a problem, which is the first step to finding a solution.

But really it's not something that can be done at an individual level, or even on a national level. In today's world, it's hard to completely cut your emissions as an individual, but you can always get an electric car, use electric heating, and buy stuff that is produced locally. You can also vote for people who will take measures to reduce industrial emissions instead of those who are funded by oil companies.

Still, that's not a reason to burn more and more oil. Reducing our reliance on burning stuff is just as much an economical issue as an ecological one. We have nothing to lose by slowing down. We have a lot more to lose by not even trying. It's a no brainer.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Nibb31

[Kinglet]

It's better to be a hypocrite than to live in denial. Awareness is better than ignorance. At least hypocrite recognizes that there's a problem, which is the first step to finding a solution.

But really it's not something that can be done at an individual level, or even on a national level. In today's world, it's hard to completely cut your emissions as an individual, but you can always get an electric car, use electric heating, and buy stuff that is produced locally. You can also vote for people who will take measures to reduce industrial emissions instead of those who are funded by oil companies.

Still, that's not a reason to burn more and more oil. Reducing our reliance on burning stuff is just as much an economical issue as an ecological one. We have nothing to lose by slowing down. We have a lot more to lose by not even trying. It's a no brainer.

In most cases, electric cars produce MUCH more emissions than small, efficient fossil fuel cars. Most of the time, the car will probably be charged using fossil energy, which produces emissions. Also, manufacturing a electric car produces much more emissions than a fossil fuel car the same size as it.

What we really need are efficient fusion plants and a good hydrogen infrastructure. But sadly, economics prevents us from stopping global warming, and few people care about space, so we will probably ruin our planet and slowly die off with no new home.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Kinglet

[PakledHostage]

So how many of you have stopped consuming human produced energy in order to stop global warming, since you know it's human energy production/consumptions that's contributed to it?

None of you? So I guess you don't really want to stop it do you? Advocate for everyone else to do it, but not you. There's a term for that...start with an h.

Call it what you want, but there is a difference between shrugging and saying "oh well, climate change is inevitable. Now get your Prius out of there so I can get through in my F350!" and doing what you can to reduce your own impact. I own a car but I try to minimize how much I drive it. I take public transit or ride my bike to get to and from work. I try to cut down on how much I fly. I don't leave lights or appliances on unnecessarily. I follow the three R's (reduce, reuse and recycle - in that order). Yes I am sure you can still fault me for my energy consumption, but at least I and many others are trying. Every little bit helps if everybody pitches in. What are you doing other than name calling?

[Nibb31]

In most cases, electric cars produce MUCH more emissions than small, efficient fossil fuel cars. Most of the time, the car will probably be charged using fossil energy, which produces emissions. Also, manufacturing a electric car produces much more emissions than a fossil fuel car the same size as it.

You're right, I intended to add "if your local electricity is produced with a low emissions method", but I forgot. Of course, if your country has chosen to burn stuff to produce electricity, then switching to an electric vehicle doesn't help. Which pretty much illustrates my point that individual choices don't have a big influence.

[EdFred]

Call it what you want, but there is a difference between shrugging and saying "oh well, climate change is inevitable. Now get your Prius out of there so I can get through in my F350!" and doing what you can to reduce your own impact. I own a car but I try to minimize how much I drive it. I take public transit or ride my bike to get to and from work. I try to cut down on how much I fly. I don't leave lights or appliances on unnecessarily. I follow the three R's (reduce, reuse and recycle - in that order). Yes I am sure you can still fault me for my energy consumption, but at least I and many others are trying. Every little bit helps if everybody pitches in. What are you doing other than name calling?

Let's see, I generate less than a kitchen sized bag of garbage/month, my heating/electric bills are less than half of what the average is for my house size. I have a truck that I bought new 8 years ago, and I still haven't hit 49,000 miles on the odometer. I fill it up once every 3 weeks, which is way, way, way under the average. I started putting LED bulbs in my house, when they were running $80/each. So yeah, I was ahead of everyone on that as well. I make furniture out of recycled wood, I compost, I don't throw out my grass clippings, I let them serve as a natural fertilizer as they decompose. I buy minimal packaged food, or canned food, which is why I generate less trash than anyone I know.

My next house, is designed to be earth covered on 3 walls and the roof, and it will be heated with direct solar energy, and supplemented with geothermal. It also means that I won't have a roof that's radiating heat, and I can keep grass/plants growing on that footprint and sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's also designed to be gridless, so my energy bills and usage will be almost nil. So until everyone else who's preaching "we need to do something" gets to the point where I am, they are just bloviating. Don't preach, do. Except they don't really want to do it, they just want to make noise. When they start living like it's the Middle Ages, then I will start listening to them.

- - - Updated - - -

It's better to be a hypocrite than to live in denial.

I disagree. The hypocrite knows what he should be doing, and doesn't do it. I like to use the poster boy for "we need to do something", Al Gore as a prime example. His MONTHLY energy usage is more than all of my company's employees energy usage for the ENTIRE YEAR - combined! Yes, I asked them to bring in their energy bills. So even though we are "in denial" or "ignorant," my entire company is doing less harm to the environment than Al Gore - the prime example of hypocrisy. That doesn't even take into account his private jet usage to fly around and tell everyone else how they should stop flying around. So yeah, hypocrisy is way, way better.

Edited March 12, 2015 by EdFred

[PakledHostage]

...

So you're half way to being a hippy. Congratulations! But why the finger pointing? Not everyone is ignoring or in denial about the problem. We may, as Nibb says, be mostly impotent in our own efforts to stop climate change but don't forget the immortal words of Margaret Mead:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

[EdFred]

Nah, I don't smell like patchouli.

[Beowolf]

If we don't stop it, this generation can be the last.

Huh? Hey, I get that our current "global climate change" is man-made. No argument from me there. But where do you possibly get extinction of humanity from it? I see a few trillion dollars of economic disruption, spread over a century. I see mass migration of around a billion people, with numerous regional wars resulting.

That's an ugly century, but it's a long, long way from extinction! Sh*t happens, and then people fight over whatever's left. It's the sad story of our species.

As I see it, very little can be done to stop it without having a world government. As long as nation-states each get to pollute internally as much as they like, and global economics is played like a zero-sum game, this is an inevitable outcome of the industrial revolution. We'll do what we always do: Put off any action until the last second, fight some wars over resources, then adapt to the new conditions.

My hippie family does what we can. We buy carbon credits for the car (blame us for the ocean algae-bloom experiments if you want), and pay extra to get all our electricity from wind and nuclear. And vote liberal, naturally. But China and India, and soon Brazil, intend to become first-world economies, and I don't think I can stop them, and am unsure I even have the right to try. They aren't doing anything the US didn't do first.

By the way, what's Canada's plan for when the US Midwest dries up and we come take your newly productive land? We will, you know. Nuclear superpowers don't starve peacefully. Not saying I approve of that, just that it's the way humanity works.

edit: fixed censored words.

[Kulebron]

What we really need are efficient fusion plants and a good hydrogen infrastructure.

Unfortunately, if you insist there is actual antropogenic global warming, these plants would also generate more heat.

[Nibb31]

Unfortunately, if you insist there is actual antropogenic global warming, these plants would also generate more heat.

The anthropogenic heat is generated by the greenhouse gasses that are emitted mostly by burning stuff (CO2) and by intensive breeding (Methane), not by radiating heat from power plants.

The greenhouse effect has then caused enough warming to start melting tundra areas that contained a lot of methane in the form of permafrost. There are similar effects at play with melting glaciers interfering with warm and cold ocean currents. These are called positive feedback loops and explain why the whole climate is getting out of control. Some of those effects are indeed natural, and much stronger than any man made direct influence, but they were triggered by human activity.

Fusion is still science fiction at this point. Even if a working model was invented now, it would still take at least 20 years to start the first production fusion plants, and many more decades before it becomes a significant power source.

Nuclear has its own problems, but at least it doesn't produce Methane or CO2. The problem of nuclear waste will have to be dealt with at some point, but the problem of greenhouse gasses has to be dealt with now.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Nibb31