qondio.com/Ifsi

Global Warming IS it happening?

By Peter Simmons

Those who deny global warming casued by human emissions might make me smile at the sheer juvenile silliness of their argument if it weren't for the fact that they are becoming a major irritant to the science and action to mitigate what is becoming a major threat not only to humans continued existance, but also to other species and the ecosystem generally. Even if we become extinct, the mess we have created will last for a long time, and challenge the Earth's ecosystem long after we are gone.

Someone here has written a silly piece claiming that because their measurements [a non scientist, what monumental arrogance!] over the course of a few years 'prove' that climate change is invented for real scientists to get grants, shows the utter juvenile paucity of the mental processes of these deniers. Such is the lack of their understanding that they think their narrow little view, incapable of taking in the vast swathe of knowledge that's been built up over decades, is as true as the bible, which many of them seem to put great store by.

Others I have read display the same small-mindedness, prefering to believe the statements of discredited quasi-scientists like David Bellamy [who's a Nimby, objecting because wind turbines 'spoil his view'] to real scientists who have spent their whole careers investigating an issue which is a major threat to humanity, and which was first signalled in the sixties by several far-sighted individuals, taken up by the so-called hippes and later by the greens. I wonder if it's this history which the deniers have difficulty with accepting.

Since then the evidence has mounted up as measurements were taken and assessed, put into computer models, extrapolated into the future. We are seeing much of the forecasts coming true already, or being surpassed as data we were unaware of then becomes available. Climate change is happening.

Now it's so obvious, the deniers have abandoned their denial of it, and have fallen back on our culpability; 'ok, it's happening, but we didn't do it' quite a juvenile attitude one expects more from a three year old caught with jam smeared round their face. Since they have some difficulty in understanding this concept, I think it's necessary to elaborate it in a simple to understand manner.

During the history of our planet there have been many changes [the deniers like to use this as 'proof' it has always been like this and we can't be responsible] as the planet cooled and became colonised by lifeforms. From the simplest which could exist in a primeval [toxic to us] soup, the atmosphere changed over billions of years of biochemical modification by living species to what we have today. Millions of years of forest growth and death laid down the carbon deposits - oil, coal, gas - and increased the oxygen content of the atmosphere which made the atmosphere breathable by more complex lifeforms, and ultimately mammals and humans. We could not have survived in previous times.

Now, within a little more than a hundred years, a mere moment in Earth time, we have burned over half of all the carbon deposits, and are continuing to burn them at an increasing rate. Apart from the fact this is unsustainable, it is also polluting the atmosphere, and increasing the greenhouse effect which has kept the planet warm enough for life, until now it is a threat to life. There is only a small difference between temperatures suitable for us to live and grow food and desert.

Climate scientists in their tens of thousands across the planet have been measuring both the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases [methane and water vapour principally] and the rise in temperature, principally of the oceans as this is where the extra heat is absorbed. Warmer water means increased evaporation as any schoolkid knows, increased evaporation means increased precipitation [rainfall] and this is what is happening. But because the climate systems are essentially chaotic [responding constantly to inputs from millions of sources] some areas get increased rainfall [the UK is one of these because of its geographical position on the edge of the Atlantic] and others have less [Australia is currently in its seventh year of a drought that's the worst on record, Spain is becoming like the Sahara]. But overall there is more water in the atmosphere being moved around the planet.

Ice sheets are melting, glaciers are melting, the poles will be ice free eventually. The glaciers that supply most of Asia with water [melting slowly into rivers which serve China and India with most of their usable water for agriculture] are shrinking back at an increasing rate, when they are gone, there will be no water to grow food for the bulk of humanity. I don't think they can all fit into the UK along with the climate refugees from Africa and southern Europe.

Still rainforests are being felled and burned to provide land for crops for the increasing human population, in the knowledge that within a few years the soil will be exhausted and unable to sustain anything, and will wash away when it rains. Other forests are also being felled across the planet, often for such things as toilet rolls and newspapers.

That anyone thinks we have nothing to do with this is risible. It betrays a lack of joined up thinking and a pathetic attempt to carry on consuming everything despite all the signs. As other species sink into the endangered category, human numbers just keep growing and are set to double by the end of this century at present rates of growth, how could anyone not think this is a problem? When species like lemmings and locusts swarm in unbelievable numbers it is temporary as when the food supply runs out they die off again. There is only so far we can go in increasing food supply, suggestions that bio-technology can produce 'something for nothing' to keep us fed are techno-pipedreams; there is an inevitable time when it comes apart at the seams, it's all unsustainable.

So, far from the simplistic, pathetic, and self-serving denials being relevent, they are actually dangerous as they slow down human's willingness to change. If we aren't just another grazing animal, contentedly filling our stomachs without a thought, we actually need to act, and act fast to avert a catastrophe that will engulf us and the other species that have the misfortune to occupy planet Earth with us. The denialists all seem to be not very bright people [Palin the lipstick pig is a denier], simplistic and challenged, and very very paranoid of governments conspiring against them. They haven't explained yet why governments would do this.

There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth, we are all crew.

We should all realize that we are only caretakers, who must take care to protect for those who shall follow. With the technology we have today, there shouldn't be a single house built that doesn't have alternative energy.
Great intel. Thanks for the information.
Frederick

frederick Dec 13, 2009 06:15

There will always be people who think of themselves first rather than considering others (and other species) and it seems all those who deny climate change fall into this category.

One Point of Light Dec 13, 2009 06:23

My problem with environmentalists who ALL agree that we are in a period of global warming, are the same "scientists" who were claiming 15 years ago that the global climate was cooling. The problem with the issue of long term climate change is that no one lives long enough to really study the long term effects.

There is no doubt that all of us need to conserve energy and be good stewards of the earth that God has entrusted to us. I for one see a lot of politics and dollar signs in promoting legislation like the so-called Cap and Trade Bill. If signed into law, our utility costs will skyrocket. People like Al Gore, who invested heavily in Green technology, would reap windfall profits.

There should be a middle ground where we agree for a need to conserve without massive Government intervention. Also, the scientific community should be more open to debate how much of the problem is due to use of greenhouse gas emitting, fossil fuel burning, plants; and how much is due to naturally occurring natural disasters. The eruption of Mount St. Helen and the more recent eruption of the volcano in Greenland dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the coal burning plants in the world combined, if they were operating for many years.

You are confusing two sets of people who are not necessarily the same; environmentalists who don't have to be scientists, although many are, and scientists, who don't have to be environmentalists but some are. You are also wrong that fifteen years ago environmentalists and/or scientists were claiming the climate was cooling. There was speculation in some scientific circles that another ice age [the next one is overdue] was about to happen. The media, as they always do, ran with this to an hysterical degree and pumped it up to increase sales. It has nothing to do with the science of anthropogenic global warming, which is not a theory or speculation but established fact. Natural events like volvanoes have always happened and thus are not part of the equation.
And I'm afraid the mass of humanity is supine, self interested and slow to learn even when their future is at stake. Having convinced, at last, politicians, it's way too late in the game to have to convince every selfish son of a bitch to stop driving an SUV, stop flying round the planet for fun, stop burning energy as if it was free with devices left on standby 24/7. When they all gonna wake up and stop? No, legislation is the only way. Forget Gore, he came in late and just like every politician set about building a career out of it. He didn't invent climate change, and whether he benefits or not is irrelevent since he will be dead by the time the climate really takes off and starts cullinghomo sapiens. Already there are many deaths associated with climarte change, mostly in poor countries so far, but all will suffer eventually.

I too won't be around when it gets really grim, around the middle of the century, but my grandchildren will.

Many people just plain don't like Al Gore or believe anything he says. I think his involvement is more detrimental than helpful.

You're right, but he's also made the facts clear to a lot of others, so he's not all bad. He's helped publicise the issue for those who can't think for themselves and understand the science, that he's a rich politician is unhelpful and makes him easy to dismiss if you've a mind to. But it's all our futures at stake here, Gore really is irrelevent, a sidetrack we don't need.
Remember, many of us were aware and campaigning on the issue before Al thought of being a vice president.

I would love to read about the science that supports the conclusion that there is in fact man caused global climate change.

Most of what I have read is based on averages which is great for baseball but I would hardly call it science.

I am not sure how scientists measure something that is constantly changing. There seems to me to be lots of variables to take into account.

In a world where we can't even count how many votes are in a political election when that number is a finite number it seems questionable that we can measure something that is constantly changing hour to hour and location to location.

Most people who I know who CAN think for themselves don't subscribe to the fallacy that if you repeat something enough times it will become true if it is not.

I would just like someone to tell me all the facts that both support the conclusion that there is global warming and the facts that don't support it.

You could start by looking elsewhere rather than the dinialist websites you seem to have got your 'information' from. Given you could understand the science, there is ample scientific dat out there, none of it is secret, you could try googling, No one is going to do the work for you because you can't be bothered to get informed.

If you understood science you would know that it works on best available evidence to support a theory until better evidence comes along to disprove it. Evidence over thirty years supports the theory now, and the conclusion is that we are responsible in large part.

You choose to deny that because you wish to continue to live selfishly as if you are the only one who matters, not even wishing to pay taxes that would benefit others with health care. This is nothing to do with science any more than thinking looking after the unfortunate is un-Christian and communistic/socialistic.

ROFLMAO I will give you points for at least admitting it is a THEORY and not a fact.

When people who support this keep avoiding to state facts that support it I can only conclude that there are no facts.

You are quite free to search for facts yourself, it's not my job to do it for you. There is plenty of proof, you won't find it on Qondio however, why think you could? You are clearly utterly ignorant of science; to science EVERYTHING is a theory, scientists are always aware that evidence could at some future point emerge to disprove it, so they keep open minds, unlike yours which is closed to the very idea of climate change and our role in it despite your lack of scientific knowledge. If you actually wanted to find the evidence, you would look for it with the various universities across the world which fund investigations into a variety of aspects of global warming such as glacier melt, sea level temperatures, species decline, species movement, precipitation change and many many others. That you choose rather to exhibit your unscientific and ignorant views here and doubtless elsewhere is illustrative of where you're coming from. Despite which it will affect you as well as everyone else, and one day you will realise how wrong you were.

Here is the way it works:
Someone advances a theory
All the well educated left leaning Liberals subscribe to the theory
Those who don't are called "dinialists" or some other denigrating term
Then those who oppose the "theory" are told to prove it wrong

Why are the people who sometimes look at these theories with distrust, somehow seen as uneducated morons who can't be enlightened? Forgive me for being cynical! When I see vast sums of money changing from one person's pocket to another person's, due to Federal regulations, I become suspicious. I usually ask myself who is benefiting, and why?

I say it's time for the theorists to provide the evidence for their theories instead of asking those who oppose them to "disprove" the theories. If you are thoroughly convinced that first of all, Global mean temperatures are rising over the long term , and secondly that man-made emissions are the cause of it, then you should change the title of your intel. When I saw the title, I expected a vigorous debate. What I didn't expect was an attitude that this theory is somehow too Holy to have to show statistics that prove it.

You stated that "Natural events like volcanoes have always happened and thus are not part of the equation". My point for mentioning them is that they contribute FAR more pollution than man will ever create. Further, I don't deny that we should conserve, just that Government regulation as currently proposed is going to cause a huge transfer of wealth to, GUESS WHO...the proponents of this Global Warming "Theory"

Oh dear Jim, you spout these phrases like a well trained parrot, have you no original thoughts of your own? You appear paranoid about 'educated left-leaning liberals' is that because you're uneducated right-leaning anti-liberal? Scientists and others who totally accept anthropogenic global warming are all shades of the political spectrum, despite your silly attempts to label it a left wing conspiracy. The reason why people who deny it are looked on as uneducated is that generally they are. Their pathetic attempts at denial don't amountto much, certainly no scientific explanation for all the phenomena which make scientists convinced it IS happening, just slurs and innuendo about people on the make, and money being made [which doesn't affect your attitude to anything else of course, normally I'm sure you admire people making money whether it is from selling guns or running a church.

The scientists have provided ample evidence, that's why governments around the world have taken note and have met to agree on action several times. You just missed it. Try looking again. It's not theory any more [in the way you understand theory] it's got so much piled up evidence now that only a moron or someone with an axe to grind and a contrarian position to defend denies it. Where's this 'huge transfer of wealth to proponents of global warming' exactly? Sounds like paranoia to me, I know scientists who receive a salary, nothing more. They have spent their professional [highly educated to at least doctorate level] lives working on it and have no vested interests. Your slur is contentless and denigrates honest professionals that I'd wager would leave you speechless in a corner if they ever started telling you the proof that's built up over the decades this subject has been examined [and long before Gore became interested in it as a career move].
I find it strange that those who demand cast-iron, irrefutable proof are the same ones who swallow the stories in a book cobbled together by various authors 2000 years ago as totally true. Who demand no proof even of the existance of a man called Jesus, despite him filling a role long forecast in Jewish mythology and contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls [try reading them, carbon dated to a time before the historical 'Jesus' is supposed to have existed]. And you demand facts?

Well, try this site http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php where there are 109 arguments against global warming ... bet you had no idea there were so many huh? The bad news as far as you are concerned is that they are all answered, cogently, logically and precisely. So if you genuinely want facts on the subject, now you know where to go rather than the deranged consiracy clubs you've got this nonsense from in the first place. And guess who's funding these sites and the whole contrarian argument... Saudi Arabia [rich in oil and not wishing us to slow our addiction] and oil companies [who are also hedging thier bets by investing in solar and wind as well, 'just in case']. How does it feel to be the dupe of the Saudis?

Regarding volcanoes; you state they 'they contribute FAR more pollution than man will ever create' which is simply not true,and anyway, volcanoes emit mostly ash and soot, which is dangerous to jets flying through it for sure, but adds nothing to the greenhouse gases which cause global warming [well, there's a small amount of carbon dioxide, neglibable though]. Ash and soot eventually wash out with the rain and join the ecosystem where they provide rich nutrients, which is why people have historically farmed close to volcanoes despite the risks. All pollution isn't the same.

The copyright for this content entitled "Global Warming IS it happening?" has been specified by the contributor as:

This content may be copied, distributed, or modified as long as the original author is acknowledged with a link back to the content page. If you use this content according to the license specified, you must link to the following URL: