What does the Arctic have to do to get equal billing? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1003_051003_arctic_ice.html It occurs to me that logically it would be best to start looking for solutions now instead of putting our heads in the sand just because we dont want to believe we are doing anything wrong. What is the worst that could happen if we look at solutions now? If we are right, we can start tryin to reduce the amount of pollution in our air. If we are wrong, at least we have cleaner air and a cleaner environment. Why would anyone have a problem with that?
thats right. we should be doing something about this even if temps are not rising, because oil WILL run out and we're gonna be effed. and who could argue with cleaner air?
Thanks for the compliment. Regarding your last statement, yes, for the most part, they are discredited. I won't bother with the links, but here's the deal... with anything as complex as the Earth's climate, there are bound to be disagreements over data, over interpretation, over conclusions, and we certainly see that in the current science on climate change. However, the issues are at the margins of the theory (scientific usage of the term, not Clue usage where a theory means you think it was Mr. Mustard) and the general, overarching analysis of climate change is broadly accepted. Naysayers take these little disagreements or tweaks in the models or incompleteness of data and build it into something bigger and try to discredit the whole kit-n-kaboodle. It really is like the cigarette companies denying anything about cancer because people originally couldn't absolutely prove that a cigarette would cause cancer.Don't fall prey to that kind of manipulation.
well, off the top of my head....any corporation that has factories (anywhere in the world) that spew tons of pollution into the air. Fixing those factories to run on cleaner sources of power and/or installing scrubbers to clean the exhaust would cost a great deal of money. and since alot of politicians most assuredly are looking out for those corporations, it is an uphill battle convincing our politicians to act. In response to the inevitable reference to India and China....how can we have the moral authority to call them out for excessive pollution if we do nothing to handle our own? why is it a bad thing to want to look out for our world? Please explain that to me....quit the useless political pigeonholing, adn act like a damn human...not a repub/dem/neocon/libpig
You pretty much nailed it here. A nation is composed of individuals, and the world is composed of various nations. Change in the world starts with each one of us, and each one of us is responsible for the future of our planet. "Be the change you want to see in the world." - Ghandi
foo82: The science GHG gas infrared absorptive capability is undeniable. Outside of water vapor (which humans have little control over in the atmosphere) CO2 and methane are especially good at trapping the infrared radiation that earth releases to space. Normally, this water vapor and CO2 combination maintains a reasonably good balance that keeps the earth warm enough to support life, but not so warm as to make earth another venus. The problem is that since mankind organized, increased CO2 releases from burning wood/coal/gas has altered this natural balance. So much so, in fact, that some scientists argue that the Vostak ice core reveals that early human development actually negated an impending ice age. This brings us to the real policy problem of global warming. The science is simple - the question that gets people all hung up is whether or not the CO2/methane dumped into the atmosphere by humans is the true culprit of the increased temperatures (particularly the temperature of the ocean - which acts like a giant heatsink for the entire planet). Panels of people much smarter than me (the IPCC) have concluded that natural emissions (volcanoes, etc.) cannot alone account for the increase, and that it is highly likely that human GHG emissions have upset natural climate patterns. The answer to your question then is, yes - any atmospheric science textbook can prove that CO2 causes warming via the greenhouse effect. Are humans for sure causing this increase? - well that's a lot trickier. For me, it seems like a moot point. The evidence is strongly in support of global warming being the result of anthropogenic sources. Now, wether or not this correlation is irrefutably indicative of causation is ridiculous - the data indicates that something is not right, and the effects could be really bad. Therefore, the prudent thing to do is to start lowering this unnatural release of carbon into the atmosphere - global warming deniers that argue this temperature increase is natural are throwing out a colossal red herring. Reducing carbon emissions would aid in public health, reduce stress on the planet's atmospheric systems, and preserve the viability of huge man-made investments. That seems pretty darn natural to me. Furthermore, arguing about "natural" anything from a human point of view strikes me as rather odd - seeing as our current existance is so reliant on "unnatural" sources of power, comfort, and ingenuity.
The arctic doesn't contribute to sea-level rises since all the ice there floats on water. If it melts, it actually may be economically advantageous. The concerns are Greenland and Antarctica. Antarctica has been thickening in it's ice shelf since 1977, although it may be losing net ice for the period of the last few years. Too short of a timeframe to be alarmed. Global Warming models predict that increased temperatures will result in heavier snowfall in antarctica - resulting in potentially an increase in ice, but the western ice shelf will likely errode at least somewhat. In any case, we're currenly seeing about 0.08 inch sea level rise a year from melting ice. that means less than a foot over the next century. A concern? Yes. Enough of an alarm for radical policy that may result in economic hardship for a billion or more people? No.
first I didnt ask about sea levels, so why devote most of your answer to that aspect? my point was simple, if the average planetary temperature is not rising, then why is the Arctic ice melting more than has ever been recorded? I was reading in Time a few weeks back that the Arctic ice is so bad off, the surrounding countries are starting to argue over who has the rights to access the area that has historically been permanently frozen over. now, on another point... I doubt even you are willing to argue that there are NOT excessive amounts of pollution being churned into the sky from many industrial sources. Why should we not start seriously looking into methods of severely curbing the amounts of pollutants we release into the atmosphere? That is the issue. Why should the almighty dollar have the final say on how we attempt to clean our environment? I frankly would rather have a few less dollars in my pocket and a clean place to raise my children than be rich and have to wear permanent sun protection. your position is not logical.
I think nuclear engergy might not be bad for right now. We should dump the nuclear waste on the moon! Or send it on a speceship out of solar system.
How dare we make companies pay for the massive negative externalities that their manufacturing processes generate
Because that's the negative impact of warming - is sea-level rise. I'm not saying warming isn't happening, it is. I'm saying that it's going to be nearly impossible to stop, and that stopping it will cost many people a lot of harm. Look, it doesn't impact me negatively if CO2 levels are cut. I own beach property, I have stuff at risk. I'll stay employed, I don't work in an industry that depends of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere. But ya know what, it's going to hurt a lot of poor people. It's not about being rich, it's about people being able to have a standard of living like the rest of us do. And I'm all for cutting air-pollution, as well any many other forms of pollution. I'm only saying that the danger and threat from CO2 is being overblown, and there are more productive ways of dealing with it, and we should focus instead of more toxic forms of pollution. What's so illogical about that?
uh... it'll cost us a better quality of life? ... better health and reduced cancer mortality? Were those the answers you were looking for?
what's to address. if all the polar floating ice melts (which isn't likely to happen even in a warmer world), the density difference between salt water and fresh water would contribute 4 cm to the total sea level rise. that's if all of it melts. ALL. It's a tiny contribution and not something we need to worry about.
