Politics Global Warming - My thoughts/questions

[OSUBlazerfan]

I'll start by stating that I've been a denier and sort of an agnostic to the issue because of my religious beliefs, "if its what God desires to happen, it will happen", but I started thinking about it more from a non-religious angle and I think I'm changing my mind on this issue.

Why the sudden deep thought? Well, this might sound silly, but I watched Interstellar last night and even though the main theme of the movie was not global warming/climate change, it still was a subplot. I usually don't like my movies to be a vehicle of ideology in my life, but it did get me thinking.

I've read countless of forum post where Denny tries to disprove the link between Global Warming and CO2 levels, but I just can't disagree with the majority of scientists who believe it. This article is fairly new, and touches on this subject.

Lead author Daniel Feldman, said, “Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/27/surprise-co2-directly-linked-to-global-warming/

So, can anyone still refute this is going on? Shouldn't we all be joining together to fight this issue?

For the record, I'm a conservative, but it looks like my party is completely dropping the ball on this.

 

[MarAzul]

If the CO2 levels graph out like this over the last half million years;

Why get in a sweat over a graph only showing the last few hundred years?

It is rising but...? It has before. More than likely, it will again.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'll start by stating that I've been a denier and sort of an agnostic to the issue because of my religious beliefs, "if its what God desires to happen, it will happen", but I started thinking about it more from a non-religious angle and I think I'm changing my mind on this issue.

Why the sudden deep thought? Well, this might sound silly, but I watched Interstellar last night and even though the main theme of the movie was not global warming/climate change, it still was a subplot. I usually don't like my movies to be a vehicle of ideology in my life, but it did get me thinking.

I've read countless of forum post where Denny tries to disprove the link between Global Warming and CO2 levels, but I just can't disagree with the majority of scientists who believe it. This article is fairly new, and touches on this subject.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/27/surprise-co2-directly-linked-to-global-warming/

So, can anyone still refute this is going on? Shouldn't we all be joining together to fight this issue?

For the record, I'm a conservative, but it looks like my party is completely dropping the ball on this.

For me it comes down to this, we can change and alter our planet intentionally. We do it all the time, we will continue to do it. We will modify the weather and climate intentionally. If we can do these intentionally why is it so hard to believe that we can't do them unintentionally or by accident?

Some will have you believe that we are just passengers on this big blue marble. What ever happens, happens. Climates change, climates come and go.

To deny climate change is to deny the greatness that humankind can achieve and has achieve.

 

[Denny Crane]

Out of curiosity, what do you make of this part of the article?

The data indicate statistically-significant energy additions of 0.2 ± 0.07 Watts per square meter per decade. This may not seem like much compared to the average solar input of about 1,100 Watts per square meter , but the researchers linked this trend to the 22 part-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 over the eleven-year span of this study.

(In 100 years, 1100 + 2 watts/sq meter. Doom or not?)

 

[MarAzul]

deny the greatness that humankind can achieve

Heh?
I don't know where the deny comes from but I am lost in finding a connection with the greatness of humankind?

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

Out of curiosity, what do you make of this part of the article?

The data indicate statistically-significant energy additions of 0.2 ± 0.07 Watts per square meter per decade. This may not seem like much compared to the average solar input of about 1,100 Watts per square meter , but the researchers linked this trend to the 22 part-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 over the eleven-year span of this study.

(In 100 years, 1100 + 2 watts/sq meter. Doom or not?)

22 PPM per decade = 220ppm per 100 years which would land us at 620ppm. Isnt that dire?

 

[Denny Crane]

22 PPM per decade = 220ppm per 100 years which would land us at 620ppm. Isnt that dire?

No. Not dire at all. The effect of that much CO2 has a negligible effect on the planet's warming. The 1102 watts/square meter isn't scary at all.

I'd be interested in seeing if the energy reaching the surface would be 1102 watts/sq meter even without adding more CO2 to the mix. I bet it is increasing no matter what.

Anyhow, for comparison, the earth's CO2 levels have been as high as 7000 ppm and we didn't turn into Venus. It's been as high as 4000 during the time of the dinos - plants and very large animals thrived. At the time we had 7000 ppm, there was an explosion in the number of different life forms/species on the planet.

 

[magnifier661]

The planet has froze and warmed for billions of years. Humankind has only been around for 100,000 years. And you could even put that to 1,000 years of technology to actually have the slightest of impact.

I believe we should be responsible "top of the food chain" animals and do our best to save it, but the planet will still do its thing. Our evolution is on our ability to evolve enugh to adapt to the rapid climate changes.

We are the only animals on this planet that has successfully migrated to all parts of the world, through all climates. We adapt and with further technology, we can reach technology to actually control our fate.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

We are going to kill the oceans before we all boil to death anyways

 

[Denny Crane]

We are going to kill the oceans before we all boil to death anyways

Asteroid collision. Some form of fire and brimstone- whatever sells

 

[SlyPokerDog]

We are going to kill the oceans before we all boil to death anyways

The oceans are dead. We done killed them.

 

[Denny Crane]

I was just at the ocean. It was plenty alive.

The pacific anyway.

Birds dive bombing for fish. There are dolphins even.

 

[Denny Crane]

If CO2 is such a problem, plant more trees. It doesn't cost $trillions

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I was just at the ocean. It was plenty alive.

The pacific anyway.

Birds dive bombing for fish. There are dolphins even.

"I saw a fish, the ocean is fine."

- Denny Crane

Overfished and under-protected: Oceans on the brink of catastrophic collapse

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/world/oceans-overfishing-climate-change/

 

[SlyPokerDog]

"I had fish for dinner, the oceans are fine."

- Denny Crane

 

[SlyPokerDog]

"I saw a bird, the oceans are fine."

- Denny Crane

 

[Denny Crane]

If the oceans are dead, there are no fish.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If the oceans are dead, there are no fish.

That article is one of many that shows that we have killed 90% of the big fish in the ocean. I would say that killing 90% of something is pretty damn close to being dead while you say as long as you can see a bird eating a fish everything is just fine.

 

[Denny Crane]

We have killed 90% of the buffalo, too. But the plains aren't dead.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Well, aside from being Monsanto-polluted cesspools of waaaay more toxicity than will ever be consumed by the denizens surrounding Fukushima, yeah.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

We have killed 90% of the buffalo, too. But the plains aren't dead.

If 90% of all mammals, including humans, were killed on the plains I would consider that area to be pretty damn close to dead.

 

[Denny Crane]

But it's not 90% of all of anything like that.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/18/governments-agree-20-hike-in-bluefin-tuna-catch

Governments agree 20% hike in bluefin tuna catch
Apparent recovery of Atlantic bluefin tuna stocks prompts decision by 48 countries to raise fishing quotas for species

In 2013, the bluefin tuna spawning stock in the East Atlantic and Mediterranean reached 585,000 tonnes, nearly double the levels of the 1950s, according to an ICCAT estimate.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=13&id=75207&l=e&special=&ndb=1 target=

The three most important tuna species in the world have improved significantly, according to the latest report by the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation(ISFF).

In the report, which compiles the scientific records of the different major tuna stocks done by each of the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) into one document, ISFF announced that Eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna has improved for abundance while Western Atlantic bluefin and Indian Ocean albacore tuna varieties have improved for exploitation rate.

However, SFF also explains that despite these improvements, there is continued evidence that overfishing is still occurring for several stocks, notably for Pacific bluefin tuna and for the Western and Central Pacific bigeye stock.

 

[magnifier661]

Oceans aren't even close to being dead

 

[SlyPokerDog]

But it's not 90% of all of anything like that.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/18/governments-agree-20-hike-in-bluefin-tuna-catch

Governments agree 20% hike in bluefin tuna catch
Apparent recovery of Atlantic bluefin tuna stocks prompts decision by 48 countries to raise fishing quotas for species

In 2013, the bluefin tuna spawning stock in the East Atlantic and Mediterranean reached 585,000 tonnes, nearly double the levels of the 1950s, according to an ICCAT estimate.

Maybe you should read the entire article instead of just skimming.

 

[Denny Crane]

I read the whole thing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-atlantic-fish-numbers-rise-time-decades.html

 

[Denny Crane]

You realize this 90% figure is for ONE breed of fish that is a popular food, right?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The three most important tuna species in the world have improved significantly, according to the latest report by the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation(ISFF).

In the report, which compiles the scientific records of the different major tuna stocks done by each of the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) into one document, ISFF announced that Eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna has improved for abundance while Western Atlantic bluefin and Indian Ocean albacore tuna varieties have improved for exploitation rate.

Those are fishing industry organizations. It's just like the tobacco industry quoting studies that they paid for saying that smoking is safe.

You're smarter than this. Click your own links. Click the About Us sections. One of the sites has a banner ad for fish processing machinery. Do you really think the information on those sites are objective?

 

[Denny Crane]

Those are fishing industry organizations. It's just like the tobacco industry quoting studies that they paid for saying that smoking is safe.

You're smarter than this. Click your own links. Click the About Us sections. One of the sites has a banner ad for fish processing machinery. Do you really think the information on those sites are objective?

So the fishing industry organizations want to kill the rest of the fish so they won't have anything to catch and sell anymore?

LOL

It's still ONE fish, not the entire ocean like you claimed.

 

[magnifier661]

All this talk about tuna makes me want to Make 10 orders of spicy tuna rolls