Global warming. Really?

[Pye]

You have to wonder what they thought they would do the following day.....

Aren't we doing the same thing?

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Firstly, does it really matter if global warming is actually occurring? Studies seem to be conflicting, so there may not be any concrete proof (either way) any time soon. Having said that, it's just common sense that pumping millions of tons of CO2 per year cannot be good for the environment.

Secondly, global dimming is just as alarming. Russia, for example, is 21% less bright than it was 100 years ago. This has been proven to be the result of pollution caused by humans. Unlike global warming, the research is conclusive; it is a man-made problem.

 

[D_Kissimmee Coldsore]

Yeah, I read something once that said -- "I wonder what the person was thinking when they cut down the last tree on Easter Island?"

You have to wonder what they thought they would do the following day.....

I recently saw a programme called "Haiti: The Island That Ate Itself". It was an episode of Ureported World on Channel 4 here, illustrating exactly that sort of thing. The people live off handouts because they cannot grow crops as the soil is being washed away, then they take the handouts home and cook the food over wood fires fueled by chopping down any nearby trees, leading to more soil loss. Then they chop down more trees to seel the wood for cash to buy more food that has been imported. It's a mess.

Anyway, kind of digressing but shows you what a state we can get into.

 

[StrictlyAvg]

I recently saw a programme called "Haiti: The Island That Ate Itself". It was an episode of Ureported World on Channel 4 here, illustrating exactly that sort of thing. The people live off handouts because they cannot grow crops as the soil is being washed away, then they take the handouts home and cook the food over wood fires fueled by chopping down any nearby trees, leading to more soil loss. Then they chop down more trees to seel the wood for cash to buy more food that has been imported. It's a mess.

Anyway, kind of digressing but shows you what a state we can get into.

Yep, the societies with the most enquiring minds are the ones that have tended to be the most successful, societies that discourage enquiry (disrespectful to elders/religion whatever) tend to get locked into behaviour that leads to their destruction as in the example above. And even with societies that encourage enquiring minds it can take years to change the prevailing weight of belief in the scientific and corporate world that hang onto their strategies and formulae that have proved successful.

Global warming has many conspiracy theories that say it's down to self serving interest or corporate interest to sell that theory, but in the absence of sufficiently detailed evidence to back up those who claim altruism for their modus operandi, staying one step ahead of the countries who cry foul on global warming as the West's way of keeping them in their place will continue as a political objective for the very richest countries.

Dead rivers, poisoned water, and foul air or land polluted by industry seem to be the only drivers for change that convince the conspiracy theorists to change their tune.

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

I recently saw a programme called "Haiti: The Island That Ate Itself". It was an episode of Ureported World on Channel 4 here, illustrating exactly that sort of thing. The people live off handouts because they cannot grow crops as the soil is being washed away, then they take the handouts home and cook the food over wood fires fueled by chopping down any nearby trees, leading to more soil loss. Then they chop down more trees to seel the wood for cash to buy more food that has been imported. It's a mess.

Have you seen the famous aerial photo of the island of Hispanola? It shows the border between Haiti which is bare soil and erosion and Dominican Republic which is heavily forested. Proof that mismanagement has its consequences.

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

...Studies seem to be conflicting, so there may not be any concrete proof (either way) any time soon.....

....Unlike global warming, the research is conclusive; it is a man-made problem.

Why are you saying there are conflicting studies, lack of proof, etc?? What are you basing that on? The evidence is overwhelming. I hate to repeat myself, but --

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#cnote_B including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1] Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. [Emphasis added]
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[B_Dustydo]

I recently saw a programme called "Haiti: The Island That Ate Itself". It was an episode of Ureported World on Channel 4 here, illustrating exactly that sort of thing. The people live off handouts because they cannot grow crops as the soil is being washed away, then they take the handouts home and cook the food over wood fires fueled by chopping down any nearby trees, leading to more soil loss. Then they chop down more trees to seel the wood for cash to buy more food that has been imported. It's a mess.

Anyway, kind of digressing but shows you what a state we can get into.

Reading this I couldn't help remembering the tribe of humans living on the Island in the latest King Kong movie.

They had used up all the resources on their side of the Island and were reduced to eating members of the tribe.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Why are you saying there are conflicting studies, lack of proof, etc?? What are you basing that on? The evidence is overwhelming.

There are studies that indicate that the Earth is warming, but there are also studies that indicate that the earth is cooling.

"In the meantime, we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that our cherished ideas about global warming may be, if not dead wrong, only partially correct. Intriguing recent evidence gathered from ice-rafted debris looks remarkably similar to a much older pattern that preceded an ice age. We may have to entertain the possibility that Earth’s natural climate development may be on a return to another such period, or at least to colder conditions than we now experience. If so, and ironically, the very greenhouse warming we fear may either mitigate the cooling or cancel it altogether." Source.

Personally, I believe in the Global Warming theory, but I try to keep a healthy skepticism.

The main point of my previous post was that regardless of whether the Earth is getting hotter or colder, pollution can't be a good thing and needs to be stopped.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Secondly, global dimming is just as alarming. Russia, for example, is 21% less bright than it was 100 years ago. This has been proven to be the result of pollution caused by humans. Unlike global warming, the research is conclusive; it is a man-made problem.

How would one establish a baseline for the Russia of a century ago?
And actually, the Wikipedia article suggests that it is not an exclusively man-made problem and the problem, moreover, is now lessening:

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.[1]
It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend in 1990 happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline.

 

[B_cigarbabe]

:lmao:
Stop, Scrufuss! Please! Can't breathe...!

Why not tell that to Scrufuss at your place?
C.B.:saevil:

 

[unique_exposure]

Firstly, does it really matter if global warming is actually occurring? Studies seem to be conflicting, so there may not be any concrete proof (either way) any time soon. Having said that, it's just common sense that pumping millions of tons of CO2 per year cannot be good for the environment.

"Scientists have detected mercury contamination in every one of hundreds of fish sampled from 291 freshwater streams, according to a U.S. government study released on Wednesday.

More than two-thirds exceeded the EPA-set level of concern for fish-eating mammals.

The main source of atmospheric mercury, according to the EPA, is coal-fired power plants."​

In any case, we are doing a very bad job of keeping the Earth sustainable. There is definitely a market opening for technologies which can rapidly detox our mess. Or maybe we should just go the simpler route and stop polluting it.

Source:
Mercury-tainted fish found widely in U.S. streams | U.S. | Reuters

 

[JustAsking]

...Personally, I believe in the Global Warming theory, but I try to keep a healthy skepticism.

The main point of my previous post was that regardless of whether the Earth is getting hotter or colder, pollution can't be a good thing and needs to be stopped.

Rex,
No, actually that is the most unhealthy skepticism of all. If you are unable to believe thousands of independent professional scientific organizations in every country, made up of people from all walks of life, all political persuasions, all economic strata, and often publishing against the politics of their country, all publishing their data, analysis, and conclusions in excruciating detail in journals reviewed by people who make their careers in climate study, then you have no skepticism at all. What you have is something else, but it is certainly not skepticism.

Consider that the remedies for fighting climate change are currently against the best interest of the most powerful governments and the most powerful corporations in the world. Yet every professional scientific organization in the world endorses the evidence and conclusions for AGW anyway. I mean who do you think gains from any kind of conspiracy? Big Wind? Big Solar? Al Gore and his worldwide Internet influence? What bogeyman is behind this massive global conspiracy of deceit?

No, this is not healthy skepticism, because you have just ruled out every possible objective measure of AGW, and left yourself with only the rantings of paranoid Internet web surfing wackaloons.

As for your other conclusion (that megatons of pollution poured into the atmostphere day after day is not good), I have to agree with you completely on that one.