Global Warming, the real threat to society

[max]

And the big-oil backed lobbies do not waste a minute as they start offering cash bribes for dissenting scientific papers...

[Outsider]

It's also a shame that some of the worlds wealthiest individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have donated most of their fortune towards medical research when they probably would save more lives (not to mention the earth) by making contributions to environmental causes.

I'm sorry, but after considering this one for a couple days I just couldn't let it pass: Thats a really really dumb thing to say.

In point of fact, almost nobody today or this year is going to drop dead due to global warming. Malaria, malnutrition, starvation, and other plagues and scourges will afflict millions of people this year. Global warming may be a larger problem in the long run, it may be THE looming problem of the century, but it is not so immediate that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet should pull the plug on all the various other problems that are in fact much more immediately threatening so many millions. If all the worst-case climate predictions come true it will still take decades or even a century for the death toll to equal that of just a few of the problems that Gates and Buffet are now trying to take on. You might as well say that they should put all their money into nuclear disarmament because a nuclear war could result in many more deaths than Malaria and other "little" problems that the Gates Foundation is addressing. The problem is the same - global warming or nuclear war MAY kill lots of people: hunger and disease are already killling lots of people, have been, and will continue to. So, I think that money is probably being perfectly well spent as is.

[Senor Grommet]

Until there is a measureable way for average humans to determine the amount of "good" ther are doing through their recycling/conserving/ carpooling/reducing/saving etc., most humans will continue to deny responsibility for their non-performance of these actions.

If you understand that statement, and if this cause means a lot to you, then you should be working on a method that will illuminate the "goodness," the progress that we achieve each time we do a positive, earth-saving activity.

Ill start:

It's a race, first person to reach the 5,000 mark in terms of performing earth-saving activities will get a thread made about them, proclaiming their heroicism to the entirety of Modified who reads the Kicking Circle (You must document your activities in some way and keep a running tally, and remember that God hates cheaters). I will make the post.

[Senor Grommet]

Here is a scale by which to monitor the points you've earned:


Recycle one thing= 1 point
Carpool to a destination (10 miles or less)= 2 points
Carpool to a destination (btwn 11 and 25 miles) = 3 points
Carpool to a destination (25 miles or more) = 5 points
Taking public transportation INSTEAD of driving like you normally would=7 points
Taking a shorter than normal shower=2 points
Conserve electricity by shutting off an unused light=1 point
Shutting off water drg. tooth brushing, etc.=1 point
Throwing away another person’s trash= 1 point
Helping another person to perform any one of the above actions=5 points
Wearing already worn underwear a second time=1 point
Wearing already worn underwear a third time=5 point

[C-Fan]

Wearing already worn underwear a third time=5 point

I'm soooooooooooo going to win this contest.

I saw Al Gore's movie two nights ago, and I really enjoyed it. He's very careful not to point fingers or get too political, while at the same time explaining very convincingly that Global Warming is happening. Most importantly, the movie ends with a list of things you can do to help. While a lot of the things on Grom's list are great, I also highly recommend you contact your local government representatives and let them know that this is an issue that matters to you. Call your senator, call your rep, etc.

Interesting article in the NYTimes this morning on the subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/scien ... r=homepage

[Scott]

Jonathan, you don't need to apologise. I appreciate your criticism, it helps me to evaluate my own perspective on things.

After considering my statement and at the risk of looking really really dumb I'm going to attempt to defend it.

Sure donating money to medical treatment, medical research and education are worthy causes. Any donation has got to be better than no donation and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett should be commended for their generosity.

I'm not saying that Bill Gates shouldn't continue to tackle the "little" problems as you said, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the idea that we put long term environmental issues at least on the same level as trying to find cures for HIV, cancer and other problems. The cures for these problems certainly won't be found this year either.

Since it's inception the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has donated approximately $7.8b to global health issues, $600m to global development and $4.5b to education in the United States. The total assets of the foundation have been estimated at approximately $29b.
In addition Warren Buffett recently made a pledge that would contribute in excess of $1.5b annually.

That is a lot of money and all I'm saying is it would be nice to see at least some of that money going towards environmental issues. General Motors recently spent about $1b to develop a hybrid car which could halve emissions, that seems to me a much better return on investment than another $1b spent on an HIV cure that might not even eventuate.

Maybe I'm just a heartless bastard who cares more about the quality of air I breathe than the suffering of some kids in Africa.

Sources:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MellodyHobson ... 501&page=1

[Jeremy]

It's also a shame that some of the worlds wealthiest individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have donated most of their fortune towards medical research when they probably would save more lives (not to mention the earth) by making contributions to environmental causes.

I'm sorry, but after considering this one for a couple days I just couldn't let it pass: Thats a really really dumb thing to say.

In point of fact, almost nobody today or this year is going to drop dead due to global warming. Malaria, malnutrition, starvation, and other plagues and scourges will afflict millions of people this year. Global warming may be a larger problem in the long run, it may be THE looming problem of the century, but it is not so immediate that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet should pull the plug on all the various other problems that are in fact much more immediately threatening so many millions. If all the worst-case climate predictions come true it will still take decades or even a century for the death toll to equal that of just a few of the problems that Gates and Buffet are now trying to take on. You might as well say that they should put all their money into nuclear disarmament because a nuclear war could result in many more deaths than Malaria and other "little" problems that the Gates Foundation is addressing. The problem is the same - global warming or nuclear war MAY kill lots of people: hunger and disease are already killling lots of people, have been, and will continue to. So, I think that money is probably being perfectly well spent as is.

The World Health Organisation states that over 150,000 people die every year because of global warming.

http://environment.about.com/b/a/220382.htm

[jrstubs]

Nascars get 4 miles per gallon averaging, I saw it on tv once, unless im wrong...but I could care less about global warming because I dont plan on living forever.

[dp]

Do you plan on living for another 50 years?

[HighDemonslayer]

Interesting how the about.com data page (always the most reliable source), mentions infectious disease transmission, with dengue fever, in addition to malaria.


Malaria is beatable, and has been done so, in nearly all advanced nations through the controlled use of DDT.

Now that the U.S. and Europe had solved their problem, selfish liberals (and U.N. mandates, perhaps) have banned DDT use worldwide, dooming millions of blacks to death and disability every year.

The white nations of the Earth can eradicate malaria for themselves, but due to false hysteria about a few poisoned songbirds, a continent of Africans are told to use bed-nets, which are uncomfortable, and questionably effective.


Dengue fever was nearly unheard of in the U.S. in the past.

I'll leave it to you guys to suggest a reason for our "surge" of that disease now. It doesnt take a dummy to figure it out.





China media downplays UN climate change report
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/0 ... nsumv.html

excerpt:
(...)
No Chinese language report was seen on China's growing impact on global warming due to its world-leading coal use and its booming automobile industry.

(...)



China, a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, is not committed to cut greenhouse gases due to its status as a developing country.

Despite being the world's second-largest greenhouse gas emitter after the United States, China's per-capita emissions remain only a fraction of those in developed countries, the government has said.


(.....)

note: per-capita emissions is a moot point (for spin purposes) for a country with more than a billion people.

It will not be moot, however, when the standard of living increases.

Also, the date at which Chinese emissions surpass U.S. emissions is sooner than you think.



For all of you Kyoto supporters, its time to take a good look at who cheated the treaty, and what other polluting , growing economic-powerhouses are exempt from any reductions.








I would , however ,support the U.S. signing the treaty, just to shut everybody up, then turning around and ignoring it's mandates.

Sign the piece of paper, make everybody feel good , and then go about our business like before.





-n

[jrstubs]

Do you plan on living for another 50 years?

No.

[hackeysnacker]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/ ... index.html

According to this article the US government manipulated the downplay of global warming. Not much of a surprise.

[Slowsis]

Nascars get 4 miles per gallon averaging, I saw it on tv once, unless im wrong...but I could care less about global warming because I dont plan on living forever.

Congratulations....you have made the worst post so far of 2007.

This is the kind of ignorance which will destroy the human race.

[dp]

jrstubs, you are either an idiot, or a self-conceited jerk.

[dp]

Damn lack of edit button.

I meant self-absorbed.

[Jeremy]

China is the 80th largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions per person. The USA is 5th and Australia is 8th. In terms of total emissions, China is 2nd with about 3.5 billion tonnes per year, compared with the USA, which is first with 5.8 billion tonnes per year. Fairly significant difference when you consider the populations of the two countries. The average American produces 19.5 thousands tonnes of CO2 every year. The Average Chinese person produces 2.7 thousand tonnes of CO2 every year.

source

US cars cannot be sold in China because they do not meet the environmental standards for CO2 emissions set by China.
source

Lead in fuel plays no part in contributing to greenhouse gas emissions by the way.

At this stage China is one of the leading countries in addressing global warming and environmental problems. It is obviously a country with a long way to go, but at least it's making a genuine effort.

source
source2

China's government plans for renewable energy generation to meet 15% of the country's growing energy needs by 2020.

The target is in line with a new renewable energy law requiring grid operators to purchase resources from renewable energy producers. The law, which came into effect in January, also offers financial incentives to foster renewable energy development, including discounted lending and a range of tax breaks.

[/quote]

[Jeremy]

So I've now studied large parts of the IPCC report and wanted to quickly address the question Tom raised of "Global Cooling" as well as the optimism we can have for the future.

Tom is right, there are a number of factors that are independently leading to global cooling.

The most significant factor is "anthropogenic contributions to aerosols" - which is just another way of saying the smoke and very small solid and liquid particles that we release into the air. This has both a direct effect (the particles stop light getting all the way down to the Earth) and an indirect effect (the particles cause more clouds).

Changes to "surface albedo" also has a small but noticeable change. Albedo is essentially the ratio of how much light gets absorbed and how much gets reflected.

These changes are measured as "Radiative Forcing" - which is essentially how much energy is absorbed by the Earth (including the atmosphere). The units for that measurement is W m^-2: or Watts per square meter. A watt is a measure of energy over time - joules per second. A joule is the amount of energy it takes to exert a force of 1 newton for 1 meter. I could continue to explain the terms, but I don't think that's necessary. To give you a sense of perspective, a can of redbull contains about 460 joules of energy.

The IPCC report states that the total effect of "anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on the environment" is +1.6 W/m^2 [+0.6 - +2.4] and that they have "very high confidence" that this is correct. "Very high confidence" is defined as being greater than 90% sure of the results. The bracketed numbers are the most likely possible deviation range. People who have studied statistics will be able to confirm that the likelihood of the actual figure being near either extreme is very small, and beyond that is extremely unlikely.

Essentially what this is saying, is that the total human influence on the environment is one such that every square meter of the Earth now receives an extra 1.6 joules of energy per second. This is not a prediction, but rather an observation. (Or calculations based on observations).

The effect of human released greenhouse gas emissions is stated as being +2.30 W/m^-2 [+2.07 - +2.53).

It's important to note that this is a figure based only on calculating the influence that humanity has had. The report goes into large details of what the expected natural effects would be. In regards to "radiative forcing" it states that the increase in radiative forcing since the beginning of the industrial era is greater than 90% likely to have been unprecedented for at least the last 10,000 years.

There are many reasons why the temperatures increase, but essentially what that's saying is that for at least the last 10,000 years, the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth has never increased at such rate.

There are other more frighting facts, of course, like CO2 levels "by far exceed the natural range for at least the last 650,000 years) - the scientists are greater than 99% sure of this. However the question was global cooling.

The observations show that global cooling is not happening, but it is having a small effect on climate change. The report goes on to make predictions about the future, which I haven't studied in such detail yet, but essentially it predicts that even if we were to stop all anthropogenic influences to climate change (if humanity stopped all activities that have an effect on the global climate) - temperatures would still rise by at least 0.1 degrees C per decade. In fact, the trends show that we are increasing our global emissions every year, so that seems unlikely. We're currently experiencing a warming rate of 0.2 degrees C per year. However the report states that were that rate to continue, the warming temperatures will contribute to warming - creating a feedback loop and resulting in faster warming temperatures. At this stage over 80% of the added heat is absorbed by the oceans. However as they warm, it will have greater and greater effect on the rest of the planet (not to mention the rising sea levels).

Essentially the planet is going to warm up, that warming is caused by humanity and it will be very hard to stop it.

However it's not all bad news. If you are to look at the situation from a paleoclimatic sense (looking at the climate over the history of the Earth), it is clear that things will eventually revert back to a natural balance, and that the added energy and carbon in the air will result in life thriving. Of course, due to the fact that most life evolves at a slower rate that the environment is changing, we're going to see a dramatic loss of biodiversity over the next few thousands years (1 in 5 species of life will be extinct on current trends by the end of the century). Essentially what I'm saying is that things in our lifetime, and the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren will be fairly tough. However if humanity survives the next few thousand years, we'll start to see a return to life, and in a million years, it will be hard to know that anything happened at all.

So essentially what we're fighting for, is not the life of the planet, but just the level of experience that humanity, for the next hundred generations or so, has. Do we want our children to be living in poverty and economic depression?

While we can't stop climate change, we can definitely slow it down, and the report states this.

For example, the report states that if we were to make every effort to slow climate change, we'll see a 1.8 (1.1 - 2.9) degrees C rise in temperatures over the next 100 years. However if we continue on at current rates, we'll see a 4.0 (2.4 - 6.4) degree C rise. Such a difference is dramatic. Nature and humanity will cope with 1.8 degrees. We will face serious struggle if the temperatures rise by more than 3 degrees.

So if you want to live to be 80 and live a life with the same level of comfort as your parents, and as your life as been so far, it is imperative that we make a genuine effort to slow climate change. For too long we've debate about if it's actually happening or not. Now we've left it too late to save the worlds coral reefs (60% will be dead within the next 30 years), but we can still make an enormous difference.

[cammel]

Just wanted to add a little bit.

A lot of people seem really doomsdayish about this, saying that there is nothing that can be done, but there really is a lot to be done, and the world has come together before to benefit the environment. The best example is probably the Montreal Protocol from '89 which was the international treaty banning most ozone depleting substances like CFCs.

Of course greenhouse gasses are much harder to reduce than CFCs but the stakes are obviously greater. If the greenland ice shelf melts the sea level will rise around 7 meters displacing millions. The most important thing is to demand changes from your elected leaders, there is a lot you can ask for. One idea is to greatly raise the excise taxes on gasoline. the price of around $3 does not reflect the COST of so much gas being used. there can be reductions in other taxes like income to make up the difference so you dont pay more taxes than before, its just shifted in a way that helps the environment. Another means of government to control polution is to set a certain total level of emission for all combined businesses and then auction off the rights to those emissions to the highest bidder. If you want to make a change, demand a reduction in the amount of polution alowed to businesses, making it more cost-effective to look to other energy sources, and demand higher excise taxes. This has to be done in all nations for anything to change...

Thoughts? i think higher price of gas and lower polution quotas are definitely acceptable because the market needs to reflect the cost of these emissions on our future.

[HighDemonslayer]

Definitely, it should be more painful for the common poor person to fill their gas tank.

The poor should also pay more for everything they buy at the store (which probably came by truck).

The politicos and crooks, who burn up gas on the taxpayers dime, should feel almost no pain.


Drivers who are stuck driving old, in-efficient gas guzzlers they can barely afford, should feel very guilty, according to the private jet -riding, SUV convoy-using, environmental celebrities.



-n

[cammel]

you're right. lets make it easy for everyone to buy gas and ignore climate change.

i didnt say it would be easy, or fun. lots of people who drive to work could bike. those people might be deterred by higher prices. for those that have to commute longer distances it would be the responsibility of states set up cheap, energy efficient public transport. more people would take buses if gas cost more. and once people biked, or saved money by taking cheaper public transport they would make up the difference they would have to pay to get things at the store for a little higher price because of increased shipping prices.

And yea, people who drive gas guzzlers should feel guilty when they could bike, carpool, or take public transport, but dont because of apathy.