Global Warming: Is humanity screwed?

[Girl Drink Drunk]

Or will countrys like Canada and the US eventually be pushed (amongst other countrys)towards competence, and make an actuall effort to cut down on pollution signicantly? What do you think? I know this isnt probably the most well-crafted thread in this section, and I know I am paranoid, but I could really use some positive comments right now

[Grislygus]

Yeah, we're gonna avert the apocalypse with carbon credits.

[ItalianStereotype]

I find it telling that Mars is going through many of the same ozone issues that we ourselves are.

I also don't like it when kevin lets you post in here, sniper.

[kahljorn]

I actually posted something about other planets atmosphere in one of the threads kevin deleted because of that grave digger guy...

Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The pressure at the planet's surface is about 90 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect that raises the surface temperature to over 400 °C (752°F). This makes Venus' surface hotter than Mercury's, even though Venus is nearly twice as distant from the Sun and receives only 25% of the solar irradiance.
Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus' atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[13] Venus is thus an extreme example of climate change, making it a useful tool in climate change studies.
Thermal inertia and the transfer of heat by winds in the lower atmosphere mean that the temperature of Venus' surface does not vary significantly between the night and day sides, despite the planet's extremely slow rotation. Winds at the surface are slow, moving at a few kilometers per hour, but because of the high density of the atmosphere at Venus' surface, they exert a significant amount of force against obstructions, and transport dust and small stones across the surface.[14] Above the dense CO2 layer are thick clouds consisting mainly of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid droplets. [15][16] These clouds reflect about 60% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space, and prevent the direct observation of Venus' surface in visible light. The permanent cloud cover means that although Venus is closer than Earth to the Sun, the Venusian surface is not as well heated or lit. In the absence of the greenhouse effect caused by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature at the surface of Venus would be quite similar to that on Earth. Strong 300 km/h winds at the cloud tops circle the planet about every four to five earth days.[17]

[mburbank]

Depends on what you mean by screwed.

I think things will change a LOT, but will the big changes be my generation, my kids? The models I look at suggest that even if we got very serious on a global scale about reducing greenhouse gasses right now, (and I hardly see that happening) we are looking at some pretty significant climate rearaanging in the next couple hundred years. On a human scale it will be very dramatic, and humans tend to get very violent when things change. No have spies likes getting their hive shoved around.

The planet, however, is very resiliant. Earths original brand of oragnic life altered earths climate before, killing themselves off and creating mass extinctions. Given a several million years, earth bounced back.

Humans are similarly resourceful. I don't not think the climate change we've set in motion will do anything like reducing us to the very small gene pool the last major ice age did, and as a species we made a complete recovery from that.

[Perndog]

"No have spies likes getting their hive shoved around." - Max Burbank, 45, taking his first step over the edge into senility.

[Fathom Zero]

I question the validity of global warming, at least immediately, (i.e. within a few hundred years or so.) Everything is supposed to be bad for the atmosphere and the ozone layer to the point that nothing is good and it's only prolonging the inevitable "cleansing", (for lack of a better word), of the planet. I believe that global warming is a natural process that the planet goes through, like a sauna. That might sound like bullshit to you guys; but I believe it, nonetheless.

In answer to your question, though, yes. The U.S. and Canada will be bullied into the green lifestyle because of fear tactics and disinformation. Clean living is trendy.

But those are just my two cents. Take 'em for what you will.

[kahljorn]

Global warming and cooling is historically considered a fact. Whether or not humans can influence it, however, is as far as I know not a "fact."

[Sethomas]

No, it's just a belief that the most recent international committee on the subject deemed to have 95% certainty.

[kahljorn]

Although there are things to suggest that high levels of c02 in the atmosphere causes a "Greenhouse effect," right?

[mburbank]

"No have spies likes getting their hive shoved around."


WOW! That's my best one. I cannot even imagine how that one came out my fingers. I must have had a stroke.

Would you believe, in my head, that sentence read:

"No hive species likes getting their hive shoved around"

[Perndog]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

No, it's just a belief that the most recent international committee on the subject deemed to have 95% certainty.

The Ptolemaic system used to be believed internationally with better than 95% certainty. More recently, it was believed with better than 95% certainty that human flight was impossible. The scientific establishment, in this time no less than in any other, is not infallible to the point where you can blithely use its consensus to end an argument.

[Preechr]

Lol... Global Warming is SO yesterday...

CO2 is a byproduct of the natural global heating process, not the cause. "Consensus" has no place in scientific discussion, especially when it is invoked to stop debate and discovery. The Global Warming "debate" was specifically designed to be just that, an unending point of contention existing only for political purposes, and so joins the ranks of other non-issues like abortion, drugs and immigration. Just like them, it is used to divide and conquer, stripping whomever it can of rights and freedoms.

You want consensus? NOBODY is in favor of pollution. That is not at all what "Global Warming" is about. The main victim of real pollution is decidedly not air or thermometers. It is WATER. Salmonella Spinache, Mad Cow, Bird Flu, West Nile... these are all problems related to water, not SUVs. Plagues are popping up all over the world because people lack access to potable water, not because they are driving Escalades.

The goal of the Global Warming Brigades is to slow, stop and maybe even retard economic growth worldwide, which runs contrary to solving global water problems. As local economies increase around the world, so does access to water, medicine, education and every other thing that actually improves quality of life. Global Warming is not about that. It is specifically about killing people and making life worse for everybody.

[kahljorn]

Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The pressure at the planet's surface is about 90 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect that raises the surface temperature to over 400 °C (752°F). This makes Venus' surface hotter than Mercury's, even though Venus is nearly twice as distant from the Sun and receives only 25% of the solar irradiance.

maybe that is a partial source, but what do you think about it, preechr?

[Esuohlim]

My meager understanding of Global Warming:

1: Between the '40s and the '70s the world was afraid of future rapid Global Cooling.

2: If anyone's to blame for contributing to Global Warming, point fingers at cattle. Cows are worse than us, if we're even considered bad at all.

I'm not worried. I don't care about the environment anyway, for one thing, but the Earth has been through a lot during its existence and I think it's arrogant to think that we humans alone can ruin the Earth like this. I'm more concerned about the asteroid that's supposed to come disturbingly close to us on April 13, 2029 than Global Warming.

[kahljorn]

The only reason why there are enough cows to supposedly affect the environment is because of human beings who grow them in mass quantities. Otherwise there would be an ecological balance.

THATS WHY WE SHOULD ALL BE vegeTARIANS

[Esuohlim]

No way man don't take away my hamburgers

[kahljorn]

Cows also cosume more food than they produce when we eat them :O

but as a counter-point to that SOME cows eat foods that humans can't eat.

also, meat tastes really good ;O

[Sethomas]

While I do agree that presentism is an anthropological constant in the history of humanity, Perny doggy, one differing factor between science being wrong about geocentrism, aether, flight, spontaneous generation, whatever else you want to throw out, is that we didn't really have vested interest in any of them in the same sense that global warming has a high likelihood of causing economic and humanitarian devastation. We'll only know if we're right in hindsight, but increased CO2 emissions are directly associated with climate change and we are experiencing both. If we're wrong, we waste a little money. If we're right, then we're fucked. So this "science has been wrong and will probably be wrong again" thing is retarded.

[kahljorn]

lol

[RaNkeri]

I remember reading an article which stated that if the amount of CO2 keeps increasing at the same level it has increased so far, life on earth will be quite hellish(if not impossible) somewhere around year 2200.

[Perndog]

I think more than a little money is being wasted, and to be clear, I don't think human activity is an important factor in climate change, nor do I think that Venus used to be an Earthlike planet that became extremely hot due to the greenhouse effect, and I think that politics within science are pushing people very forcefully to whatever will pull in more money, effective results be damned, especially in this case because it's so well publicized. Mr. Milhouse's point that people used to be worried about global cooling is overlooked way too frequently.

But Preechr has quite a bit more vitriol than I do on this topic, and it sounds like he's got mostly the same opinion. I'm really not concerned, and I don't care to argue about it.

[Fathom Zero]

Science is being molested by politics and it's been brought upon the scientific community that you're either for the Earth or you're not so they've gotta pick sides before they release journals and studies and all objectivity is lost in the process. It's a damn shame that loaded questions like that go unchecked, but no one is against the destruction of Earth. Nobody with a public face, at any rate. So they let it go.

All of this doesn't even take into account that "green" products are bringing in billions of dollars a year from low emissions vehicles and recycled toilet paper. I don't particularly see recycling as unuseful, but it probably serves little purpose aside from saving a seagull or two from choking to death on a plastic bag or Coke rings.

[Sethomas]

So, Democrats pushing Green solutions is political, but Republicans kicking and screaming against it isn't? Nice.

[Fathom Zero]

That's not really what I was trying to convey.

What I was saying was that all politicians are using politics to affect the scientific community. What they're trying to push for in the issue of global warming is irrelevant because all it's going to amount to is a lot of hot air and wasted money.