Global warming

[ProHypster]

Think of it like you're in a train. The train is going 50MPH (or about 80 KPH). You're at the back of the train. You move from the back of the train to the front of the train at a speed of 5MPH (about 8KPH).

 

From the vantage point from outside the train, you are traveling at a speed of 55MPH (about 88KPH). But no human can walk at 55MPH/88KPH, right?

 

That's similar to anthropogenic climate change. Yes, climate changes naturally, but there is evidence--conclusive evidence--that we are ADDING to the natural course of events (50+5=55).

 

The atmosphere is "fricking huge", of course, but think of it like poison ivy. Poison ivy contains a substance called urushiol. 50 micrograms (about the size of a grain of table salt) will cause a rash in a great majority of people which could spread and impede on the daily functions of life for a while.

 

A single drop of dimethylmercury, even on a gloved hand, will kill you.

 

Just because something is "huge" doesn't mean that we can't have an effect.

Are you talking to me?

Of course we are having an effect on the climate, but are we having a +5 or a plus 0.00005 effect and is this effect going to change the result dramatically?

 

If we are expecting a natural heat apocalypse anyways what would a -2 Years or a +5 Degrees Celcius do to the already 1 million celcisus destructible heat up. (Not that it works that way)

So I'm saying we don't know how Much we area dding and whether it's going for the worse, better, or neutral. So I say, let's slowly try to use other engines without any dramatic economic cutbacks which would kill unnecessary people.

[danielsangeo]

I've heard it said that we are already affecting the climate in ways that are detrimental to our species. We won't destroy the planet, but I think we're going to cause a lot of problems for a lot of people. Already, we're seeing shifts that are causing really strange things to happen.

 

You can't expect to do what we've done and not affect something. We are destroying our oxygen replenishers while simultaneously releasing said carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is TWO blows. Think of it this way. Destroying oxygen replenisher: -1. Introducing carbon dioxide: -1. Doing one thing: -2.

 

Nature is about balance. If we mess with that balance, then that balance will mess with us (as it were). I'd like humans to exist for a very long time and naturally evolve into future species. I don't want the human species to go extinct because we're stupid.

 

No, I'm not fear-mongering. I'm saying, you clean up your house because you don't want to live in filth. Why do you want to do that to the planet you live on?

[ProHypster]

I've heard it said that we are already affecting the climate in ways that are detrimental to our species. We won't destroy the planet, but I think we're going to cause a lot of problems for a lot of people. Already, we're seeing shifts that are causing really strange things to happen.

 

You can't expect to do what we've done and not affect something. We are destroying our oxygen replenishers while simultaneously releasing said carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is TWO blows. Think of it this way. Destroying oxygen replenisher: -1. Introducing carbon dioxide: -1. Doing one thing: -2.

 

Nature is about balance. If we mess with that balance, then that balance will mess with us (as it were). I'd like humans to exist for a very long time and naturally evolve into future species. I don't want the human species to go extinct because we're stupid.

 

No, I'm not fear-mongering. I'm saying, you clean up your house because you don't want to live in filth. Why do you want to do that to the planet you live on?

 

That makes no sense, I thought in atheism, humans are nature, why would humans be any special and since when is there a "balance". Isn't everything natural, including us and our actions.

[danielsangeo]

Yes. Everything is natural, including us and our actions. However, nature has a history of doing away with dominant species... The last T-Rex I saw was a skeleton in a natural history museum.

[ProHypster]

Yes. Everything is natural, including us and our actions. However, nature has a history of doing away with dominant species... The last T-Rex I saw was a skeleton in a natural history museum.

 

Yet, in atheism it doesn't matter what we decide, it will be something natural.

I can see this directly brings to Nihilism, all kinds of it. Which brings us to Killing isn't wrong nor right it's a sequence. Surely atheists know that murder won't do them any good, and will bring moral pain, that's the only reason they don't do it.

 

Brings the question to the point, if there really is a choice or if everything is just a sequence and we think that we have a choice while we don't.

 

Of course I'm not an atheist yet so I don't think that way.

[danielsangeo]

Hold up a moment. Simply because something might be "natural" doesn't make it right. Look up the "is-ought problem" which is related to the naturalistic fallacy.

 

Atheists don't murder because it's wrong.

[ProHypster]

Well yeah, that's where philosophy comes in, even if I'm convinced of atheism, I just want to help people, I feel no need to do anything that might harm an entity that I can feel empathy for.

 

Like right now I'm not going to debate on that subject, on that subject debating is dangerous and can be misunderstood, leading an innocent one to do something foolish. Agreed to just stick to the topic?

 

As for me, I will continue to live on this earth with the most important mission to get smarter and wiser, it doesn't matter if I find all the answers, just the action to get smarter is enough for me. I will also try not to pollute the environment since it will not require of much strength from me.

[danielsangeo]

I like the mantra in the Bible (I'm allowed to do that!) which states that God put us in charge of the Earth to be "good stewards".

 

I don't believe we've been "good stewards" lately....

[ProHypster]

You sort of remind me of an agnostic-atheist philosopher here (In Ukraine)... We always play chess and have some coffee over these discussions.

 

Alright, have a good night's sleep there.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

Thanks! I am an agnostic atheist.

 

And I'm in bed right now....

 

Laptops are the work of the devil!

[rridgway]

I suggest we change the title of this thread to Climate Change. The term Global Warming is a tad of a misnomer, in my opinion.

 

As for my opinion on this subject. Yeah, we're having a substantial effect, but we don't currently know enough about the climate to definitively know how large that effect is. Other effects need to be taken into account than just GHG emissions. A case in point is the odd correlation between the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age, as well the effects of clouds regarding absorption of infrared radiation posited by Henrik Svensmark. As a future physicist, I have complete faith in the non political scientists working to this regard.

 

My personal idea is to assume we are making the largest possible effect, and then plan and react accordingly. Like Scotland has, by setting a 100% renewable energy target by 2020!

[danielsangeo]

Global warming is an okay with me. The globe is getting warming. It's those that claim that it "snows in winter, therefore, global warming isn't happening" which has caused the change to "climate change". And now these same...well, let's not be PC about this this....idiots believe that we're changing it because we don't believe that the globe is warming.

 

Which it is.

 

We should be entering a mini-ice age and we're not. Can you imagine what's going to happen when we come OUT of the ice age we're supposed to be entering?

 

I like what you said about Scotland. We have a long way to go in the United States before getting to THAT point...

 

I don't really understand the fear about advancing our technology to so-called "green technology". When cars first came out, they were inefficient and clunky and there was no infrastructure in place for them. Now, if you don't have a car, you're pretty limited on what you can do.

 

Why not do this for the future? Naysayers complain that X technology or Y technology isn't as good as oil or coal...there's a reason for that. Oil and coal technologies have been heavily subsidized and we've been doing it a long time so we've gotten good at it.

 

It's like VCRs first coming out being a $1,000 or more and they couldn't do much but now you can't give them away hardly! Or the fact that a digital camera's computer today is much more advanced than the computers that helped the astronauts get to the moon! "640K is enough for anyone!"

 

Get my drift? Just because we're still at the "hard drives the size of washing machines" stage doesn't mean that it'll never work. We just need courage.

 

Sadly, that's far too lacking.

[Doom Shepherd]

I've become convinced that solar power is the way to go. And not just home solar power (though that's a good start) but space-based solar power, for many reasons:

 

1. It's unlimited. Space is big. And there's ALWAYS sunshine. No clouds. Your only limits are the size and efficiency of the collectors in orbit, and the one helps get over the limits of the other. We can collect the energy, transform it into microwaves, and "beam" it to a receiving generator on the ground. Clouds won't scatter the beam much, and we can actually set the beam to be diffuse enough that it won't harm living things passing through it (unless you have fillings. Then you'll need shielding.)

 

2. (and here's where I get nasty) Dual-use.

Imagine what happens if we DO focus the microwave beam. Say, on a system of caves in Afghanistan that our soldiers can't get in to. Or on a formation of Iranian armored vehicles.

 

Sizzle.

 

The collectors are launched into space, as well as the equipment to convert the solar energy to microwaves for transmision (Not difficult, microwave ovens do essentially the same thing). The receivers are built on the ground, in open, usually fairly sunny places like Mojave. Besides the microwave recievers, the stations are basically just like any other electrical power generation plant, except that instead of using combustion to turn turbines, they reconvert the microwaves back into electricity.

 

The only "launch-into-space" costs after the initial launch would be maintenance and upgrades to the orbital equipment, or adding new collectors (and receivers) as our energy needs continue to grow (or we decide to export some of the energy elsewhere for profit, which we should be able to do just as people with home solar collectors can currently sell their excess energy to the power companies. This would also offset any future costs.)

 

We have, or are on the verge of developing, the technology for this. What's really holding us back are two things: 1) The startup cost is pretty high - we're talking a ratio of spending equal to the Apollo program, at least. 2) Oil would lobby against it like mad.

 

However, I have two solutions to these problems.

 

1. Remember the X-Prize? We have the government and interested parties fund another one. Say... 5 billion dollars, and a guaranteed contract to supply the Federal government's energy needs for 10 years, to the first corporation to safely and successfully "beam" back 5 megawatts of power form an orbital station.

 

2. As my first official act as your Emperor, I hereby declare the United States's energy needs to be a matter of national security (because it is), and therefore I will do whatever is necessary to insure that those needs are met. If any Oil company executives or lobbyists want to object, a few days with my favorite CIA interrogators should cure them of these disloyal thoughts.

 

That said, all I need to know about the modern enviro movement, I learned from watching this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

[Michael Archer]

Let's look at reality and then the speculation and then moral issues: There is some legitimate evidence that the global temperature is rising and melting the ice caps, but there's no solid evidence linking human emissions that are causing it; this is reality. There is no "conspiracy", although some groups are using this to their advantage. The environmentalists hate capitalism and human production; that's why they protest every factory they can. This is the perfect excuse for them to stop production since saying "if they don't stop, we're all going to die!" is more reasonable than "we're socialists who hate capitalism, wealth and human production so they should stop." If it is true, the extent we'd have to cut back to save the planet would be catastrophic for humans. Everything you take for granted e.g. transportation, your computer, your house being heated during the winter, hospitals using energy to save lives; would have to be used parsimoniously. The earth's value is determined only by how much human's can use it; this is the very definition of value: supply and demand. The environmentalists are trying to convince you that nature's worth exists outside of reality i.e. that it has an "intrinsic" value not objectively defined, but only what they decide it is. I don't know the solution to the global warming "problem", if it's even a problem and if humans are even causing it, but I do know that the solution does not involve cutting back our production and the centuries of progression of our species. I refuse to let the government infringe on our right to life and property any further.

[danielsangeo]

Let's look at reality and then the speculation and then moral issues:

 

There is some legitimate evidence that the global temperature is rising and melting the ice caps, but there's no solid evidence linking human emissions that are causing it

 

Not really. There is solid evidence and the vast majority of the scientific community on climatology shows that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

 

The environmentalists hate capitalism and human production

 

Not really.

 

that's why they protest every factory they can.

 

No. Protesting a factory has nothing to do with hating capitalism and human production.

 

The earth's value is determined only by how much human's can use it; this is the very definition of value: supply and demand. The environmentalists are trying to convince you that nature's worth exists outside of reality i.e. that it has an "intrinsic" value not objectively defined, but only what they decide it is.

 

Dude, I'm an environmentalist. And I can say, flat out, that you're just 100% wrong.

 

I don't know the solution to the global warming "problem", if it's even a problem and if humans are even causing it, but I do know that the solution does not involve cutting back our production and the centuries of progression of our species.

 

Great. No need to cut back on production. I realize you don't understand this, but environmentalists are very pro-capitalist. If you'd like, I can explain why, but first, you need to assure me that you'll listen to an environmentalist such as myself.

 

I refuse to let the government infringe on our right to life and property any further.

 

Where did THAT come from?

[Rover]

Let's look at reality and then the speculation and then moral issues:

 

There is some legitimate evidence that the global temperature is rising and melting the ice caps, but there's no solid evidence linking human emissions that are causing it; this is reality.

 

Could you direct me to the peer reviewed scientific literature you got this information from?

[Doom Shepherd]

Well, crap.

http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html

 

"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades," Hill said. "That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."

 

Maunder Minimum FTW!

[Ross Scott]

I've become convinced that solar power is the way to go. And not just home solar power (though that's a good start) but space-based solar power, for many reasons

My understanding is that fossil fuels still go into the manufacturing of solar panels, which will keep costs a certain level, plus they wear out after several years (I believe 5-10, but maybe that's changed). While solar power has potential, you really have to consider the level of resources that go into the entire process in terms of its sustainability. In terms of atmosphere change however, the footprint for solar is immensely lower than something like coal.

[Michael Archer]

Not really. There is solid evidence and the vast majority of the scientific community on climatology shows that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

 

There's a correlation between CO2 and the warming temperatures that's it. It means nothing.

 

"Vast majority" means nothing either; that's an argumentum ad populum if I've ever heard one. When it comes to science, number of supporters of a theory means nothing.

 

The environmentalists hate capitalism and human production

Not really.

 

Anyone who thinks that nature should be saved at the expense of human well being hates production and capitalism.

 

Great. No need to cut back on production. I realize you don't understand this, but environmentalists are very pro-capitalist. If you'd like, I can explain why, but first, you need to assure me that you'll listen to an environmentalist such as myself.

 

I'd really like to hear. I'd really like to believe that people don't want to destroy human progress, but I haven't seen a single environmentalist who is pro-capitalist since on their faces, their conflicting theories.

 

I am an agnostic atheist.

 

Off topic, aren't those conflicting theories?

 

I refuse to let the government infringe on our right to life and property any further.

Where did THAT come from?

 

People are getting mad at Canada since we're not following the Kyoto accord. To follow the accord, the government would have to put even more restrictions on us.

 

Could you direct me to the peer reviewed scientific literature you got this information from?

 

Please stop putting the burden of proof on the negative side.

 

Actually, a lot of people think that CO2 is the independent variable and that global temperatures are the dependent, but I personally think it's the other way around i.e. CO2 is the dependent and global temperatures are the independent.

[danielsangeo]

Not really. There is solid evidence and the vast majority of the scientific community on climatology shows that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

 

There's a correlation between CO2 and the warming temperatures that's it. It means nothing.

 

Actually, there's a lot more to it than that.

 

"Vast majority" means nothing either; that's an argumentum ad populum if I've ever heard one. When it comes to science, number of supporters of a theory means nothing.

 

The vast majority of the people believe that gravity is a force that 'pulls' you to the ground. Does that mean that it doesn't exist? There is loads of evidence for it.

 

The environmentalists hate capitalism and human production

Not really.

 

Anyone who thinks that nature should be saved at the expense of human well being hates production and capitalism.

 

Well, good. Environmentalists don't think that nature should be saved at the expense of human well being.

 

Great. No need to cut back on production. I realize you don't understand this, but environmentalists are very pro-capitalist. If you'd like, I can explain why, but first, you need to assure me that you'll listen to an environmentalist such as myself.

 

I'd really like to hear. I'd really like to believe that people don't want to destroy human progress, but I haven't seen a single environmentalist who is pro-capitalist since on their faces, their conflicting theories.

 

You haven't been listening to them. You've been hearing what they say and reading their words, but you haven't been listening.

 

I am an agnostic atheist.

 

Off topic, aren't those conflicting theories?

 

Why would they be?

 

I refuse to let the government infringe on our right to life and property any further.

Where did THAT come from?

 

People are getting mad at Canada since we're not following the Kyoto accord. To follow the accord, the government would have to put even more restrictions on us.

 

Do you believe that I, as a person, have the right to protect myself from harm?