The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[robo fart 0]

i read in a newspaper that the world has cooled down a bit in the past 10 years so I'm confused.

[site400 12]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Why would you "continue sucking in as much energy as possible" when you are one of many tools we need to reduce such actions?  I gather, from your post, that you really don't give a sh... hoot about environmentalism, so why post your personal stupidity?  It seems to me you could care less about how much energy you use and how it has an impact on those less fortunate.

quote>

I care about the environment; but refuse to change my habits when at the same time the individuals proposing i do so are such hypocrites.  I mean, jeez, you think people would roll up to a world summit on the environment in hybrid cars or on bicycles.  Tell me why they instead have to drive gas-guzzling limo's when the city itself made available carbon-neutral busses?  Heck, in the age of the wired world, why didn't they do a video teleconference.  

My entire neighborhood could let all their cars idle in their driveways for a full year and still not burn as much fossil fuel as all those "climate concerned world leaders" will during their "save the planet" conference; not to mention the fuel burned by all those private jets...these guys ever heard of commercial flights?

I'm a simple person .  If people way smarter than me tell me I need to reduce my energy in order to save the planet and then they go out and guzzle energy like a bum in a liquor store...guess what...I'm not taking them seriously.

[azeaglesfan78 0]

check out this link. Of course I know those who beleive the whole notion of man made Global waming will say its just some hack making things up and throw out some other artical that supposedly debunks this one. For those of you that say the doctored data is not a big deal and doesn't change anything. I would like to know what you would be saying if it was the other side and something came out that they were lying or misleading the public by skewing data. The honest truth is you would be all over it like those who do not belive all the hype are now. This is a polarizing issue as are many others out there these days. The fact that data has been deleted and emails came out about data deliberatly being skewed IS a very big deal, even if you want to deny that it is.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

So yes please lets all go to hydrogen 0 emissions cars and contribute the leading factor of the Earths greenhouse effect.

[fukuda 351]

Carbon dioxide, on the other hand is, relatively speaking, harmless. The air you exhale is 2-3% CO2 and it's still safe enough to be used for CPR. It's toxicity, while not zero, is nowhere near the point where a factory emitting too much of it poses a health threat to its neighborsquote>

CO₂ is a very poisonous gas, it's more dense than air ( 1.562 g/mL vs 1.2 g/mL ) and it tends to rest near the ground if it's not carried away by the wind. There's a reason why factories and power plants have tall stacks, if there is a stagnant air layer and CO₂ (other gasses count aswell, but they are in a way smaller concentration) is trapped near the ground it may be risky for the inhabitants and workers around, as the factories cannot stop their boilers at will, so it has to be spread at a relatively high altitude.

It's not because it directly hinders cell respiration that CO₂ is dangerous, it's because the circulation of it through vertebrate blood requires a fine tuned equilibrium of how much CO₂ is in and how much is out of the body (the lungs).

CO₂ migrates from tissue to red blood cells because there's more of it in the tissue than there is inside the blood. Why is that so? Because CO₂ gets converted into HCO₃ inside of red blood cells and dropped out of them into the blood plasma (chloride exchange). When the tissue around the blood vessels has less CO₂ than the blood itself, like inside your lungs, the chloride pump and the enzyme that converts CO₂ into HCO₃ get reverted and CO₂ starts leaving the bloodstream. It's ll a matter of concentration, if you increase the CO₂ levels into the lungs the system will stop working as intended and CO₂ will build up in your body, stopping cell respiration and killing you. The CO₂ levels required to stop cell respiration are high, the levels to severely hinder it's own transport are way lower.

And by the way, carbon monoxide is mostly dangerous because it binds to complex IV of mitochodrial respiration (same place and same effects than cyanide), adding that to hemoglobin binding, which can easily be reverted unlike complex IV binding. Looks like the hemoglobin part is still the only one taught at most schools though.

[Duke87 1,070]

Here's another intersting link. Mull over that a bit.

Well, looks like Mr. Gore fixed his problem there. Good for him.

Still, the more important part is about Mr. Bush's old house. Who says republicans don't care about being green?

Originally posted by: fukuda

It's ll a matter of concentration, if you increase the CO₂ levels into the lungs the system will stop working as intended and CO₂ will build up in your body, stopping cell respiration and killing you. The CO₂ levels required to stop cell respiration are high, the levels to severely hinder it's own transport are way lower.quote>

And that's nice and all, but the question remains: what concentration is necessary to hinder respiration and is that concentration achieved in practice any appreciable ammount?

And even if it is, d'ya think new standards sure as hell aren't going to be based on that level, whatever it is? Or are they going to be about "global warming"? I think we all know the answer to that.

And by the way, carbon monoxide is mostly dangerous because it binds to complex IV of mitochodrial respiration (same place and same effects than cyanide), adding that to hemoglobin binding, which can easily be reverted unlike complex IV binding. Looks like the hemoglobin part is still the only one taught at most schools though.

quote>

Probably because it's a lot easier to explain to someone who isn't majoring in biology. You can't teach everyone everything, unfortunately.

[fukuda 351]

And even if it is, d'ya think new standards sure as hell aren't going to be based on that level, whatever it is? Or are they going to be about "global warming"? I think we all know the answer to that.quote>

I do agree with you that them considering it dangerous now is an obvious political move.

And that's nice and all, but the question remains: what concentration is necessary to hinder respiration and is that concentration achieved in practice any appreciable ammount?quote>

That concentration is achieved way faster than it seems, the act of coughing or sometimes feeling dizzy near a truck exhaust, a fire or a barbecue is most usually caused as a reaction (a nervous reflex triggered by chemical receptors in your arterial sinus) to evacuate too much carbon dioxode from your lungs, even if it is popularly associated with particles entering in your lungs... Thousands of people die each year by carbon dioxide poisoning, usually in fires but industrial accidents and volcanic gas leaks are not unheard of. And death by carbon dioxide is extremely uncomfortable unlike carbon monoxide poisoning.

[Nick9099 2]

Originally posted by: Duke87

And that's nice and all, but the question remains: what concentration is necessary to hinder respiration and is that concentration achieved in practice any appreciable ammount?

And even if it is, d'ya think new standards sure as hell aren't going to be based on that level, whatever it is? Or are they going to be about "global warming"? I think we all know the answer to that.

quote>

Generally speaking, CO2 starts to hinder respiration at 5%, and is highly dangerous at 9% and over.

Is it acheived in practice?  Because CO2 is a trace gas, it only occurs at about 0.035% at most in nature.  A crowded gym with poor ventilation might hit 1%, but any concentration higher than that would be the result of an industrial accident, or the faliure of air cleaners on an aeroplane, etc, etc. 

Even if pollution continues unchecked, it would probably never reach toxic levels.  But don't forget the effect that rampant climate change could have on human health.

[Nick9099 2]

Originally posted by: site400

My entire neighborhood could let all their cars idle in their driveways for a full year and still not burn as much fossil fuel as all those "climate concerned world leaders" will during their "save the planet" conference; not to mention the fuel burned by all those private jets...these guys ever heard of commercial flights?

I'm a simple person .  If people way smarter than me tell me I need to reduce my energy in order to save the planet and then they go out and guzzle energy like a bum in a liquor store...guess what...I'm not taking them seriously.

quote>

Keep things in perspective here.  Even if the Copenhagen Confrence has a carbon footprint of 40 000 tons (about mid-range in the estimates), but cuts global pollution by millions of tons, wouldn't you say it's worth it?

I agree that the conference could have been more eco-friendly, but we shouldn't let that stand in the way of making real progress.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"The tumult and the shouting dies;

"The captains and the kings depart:" Recessional - R. Kipling

Now that all the flap over the Copenhagen conference is over, maybe we should be addressing more than man's usual failure to agree on anything.  Perhaps a short review is worthwhile:

1. I think that everyone who cares is convinced that global warming is a fact;
2. Far to many of us are concerned with the atmospheric greenhouse gas issue, although it is a concern;
3. No organism can long survive in an environment of its own waste;
4. The ice caps and glaciers are melting at an accelerating rate, raising sea levels;
5. All this fresh water being added to the sea is a big problem with respect to currents;
6. It is too late to do much about the trend, let alone stop it;
7. In addition to our pollution, we are in a warming cycle both geologically and cosmically;
8. Let's talk about what to do to survive, let alone play with carbon credits.

It doesn't make much sense to worry about the ozone layer and additional insolation if we don't have a plan to save people who live along the coast lines.  Only the Netherlands has taken any really active measures and it is likely that even they will be inundated when the polar ice finally goes.  The sea level will rise by several meters, inundating many coastal cities and altering many estuarine situations.

What is man doing about this?

[AngelOne 0]

For those of us who think nothing can be done, change now!

Recycle, walk insdead of driving (not all the time, just sometimes), turn a light off, turn down the thermostat if it's cold outside, turn up the thermostat if it's hot outside, VOTE, use a reusable grocery bag, seek mass transit, care for this planet, care for your children's children, talk to your parents, their world is not our world, discuss this with your peers, just be aware and don't let it get you down.

[sneakeypete 16]

And once we all start doing that but only limit emissions by 1-2% in the process, then what?

Just living creates a bucket load more CO2 than using a recyclable bag does. One of the best ways to stop climate change would be to limit (or even cut back) human population. and besides, it'd mean cities would be less crowded!

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There is no question that overpopulation is a major environmental problem but considering that much of the crowd lives in undeveloped areas it is impossible to stop then from making babies.  This is a positive feedback loop, since it increases starvation, disease, and hand-wringing.

Modern medicine, especially with the presence of the UN agencies, is contributing to all this.  Who is going to be the first to say defund the WHO?  Hmmmmm?

In the past we have had major pandemics and plagues to thin out the population.  These were quite democratic when there was such wide-spread ignorance.  Now such things are impossible.  We are doing ourselves to death with our own thirst for knowledge.  Somehow, I don't think there is any way to slow that down.  Maybe such enlightenment produces interesting times as in the ancient curse.

You can't fool mother nature for long.  The ecosystem will take care of us if we don't take care of it.  It is automatic, you see.

I have reduced my carbon footprint as much as I can.  I use CFL's, and not many;  I got rid of my car and use a call up taxi service only at need;  I live in a forest, which makes the air quite fresh;  I don't eat much meat, but I am not a vegetarian.  Nothing in excess is an old Greek motto, and we should all live by it.

[fukuda 351]

We are doing ourselves to death with our own thirst for knowledge. Somehow, I don't think there is any way to slow that down. Maybe such enlightenment produces interesting times as in the ancient curse.quote>

Too bad we don't have a Prometheus to use as a scapegoat today.. Or for another version of the same aesop see the snake in Eden (and there are way more)

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: AngelOne

For those of us who think nothing can be done, change now!quote>

This could have been said a litle less demandingly, but, that aside... let's address your points individually:

Recycle: a good idea, global warning or no global warming. It's wasteful to just throw away what can reasonably be reused. Should be common sense...

Walk insdead of driving: where I live, you can't walk much anywhere. There's basically nothing of interest for a few miles around except other people's houses. That said, if you do live in a place where it is convenient to walk to the store instead of driving, it would be advisable. Not for environmental reasons, but for economics and personal health. Miles not driven equal gas not burned equal money saved on gas. And miles walked equal exercise, which is good for you. When I do find myself in an urban area, I walk around rather than going and moving the car every time I want to travel five blocks. It's a waste of time unparking, finding a new place to park, and reparking.

Turn a light off: ugh, yes, I hate it when people leave lights on when they're not in the room. But again, this is not really a matter of wasting energy, it is a matter of wasting money. Control your use of lights, and the electic bill will thank you. Also, ditch the classic incandescent bulbs and get those fancy efficient spiral ones.

Turn down the thermostat if it's cold outside, turn up the thermostat if it's hot outside: excessive use of heating and air conditioning hasn't, in my experience, been a huge issue... but yes, do what's necessary for comfort, not more.

Vote: I have no idea what that has to do with being environmentally conscious, but it is certainly something every responsible adult should do!

Use a reusable grocery bag: my big issue with the reusable bags has always been that you can never find blank onese anywher. They always have the name of the store you buy them at branded on them. Which is why I haven't bought any - I'm not paying someone so I can walk around with their advertisement, and I'm not about to go shopping at the A&P with bags that say "Stop and Shop", either. That said, the ordinary disposable paper and plastic bags are all recyclable where I live, and we do recycle them, so they aren't all that unfriendly, anyway.

Seek mass transit: when practical. The nearest bus stop is over a mile from my house. And even when accessible, mass transit isn't always particularly conveinient or cost-effective to use. But, agencies responsible for it should look to make it more convenient and cost-effective, and one should not be averse to using it when it is. I know people who refuse to get on a bus or train because "they're dirty" or "they're for the people who can't afford a car", and think I'm crazy for willingly using such services when I own a car. I respectfully disagree. Okay, so maybe my disagreement has some ridicule mixed in with the respect.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Use a reusable grocery bag: my big issue with the reusable bags has always been that you can never find blank onese anywher. They always have the name of the store you buy them at branded on them.

quote>

Aren't there any chartiy or fair trade shops or the like in the city? My grandparents bought their non-branded bags their (and keep in the car). I always try to remember mine when shopping, though that is more to avoid the NOK 0,5 - 1 (6 to 12 cents) fee they impose on you in supermarkets—in other shops it's not that important.

The main problem with plastic bags is not whether or not people recycle them, it's all those idiots throwing them along the roads though.

Seek mass transit: when practical. The nearest bus stop is over a mile from my house. And even when accessible, mass transit isn't always particularly conveinient or cost-effective to use. But, agencies responsible for it should look to make it more convenient and cost-effective [...]quote>

Absolutely. When living in Copenhagen getting around was not a problem - with buses, metro, suburban trains, regional trains and inter-city trains all over the place. Not to mention taking the car to the city would be a bit of a hassle with all the cyclists and then trying to find a parking spot.

Dublin, on the other hand… The tram system was great; the buses went everywhere, but I never used them, due to a number of factors: Routes, timetables, maps, lack of a journey planner, no shared ticket system with the trams and buses. So while making a mass transit system work, it's even more important to let the different systems work with each other.

On another note, I recently saw a hearing note from an environmental organisation on the centralised transport plan for my town (incorporating both local and inter-city transport). The gist of it was that the town should stop pressuring the airport operator to upgrade and expand the facilities, because the bike should be the transport mode of the future here…

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: krbe

Aren't there any chartiy or fair trade shops or the like in the city?quote>

Probably. I haven't been actively seeking such things.

The other problem is that it's just too entrenched as a habit that you pick bags up at the cash register when you check out. Walking into the store with them and carrying them around while I shopped would be quite awkward.

When I'm only buying a couple little things, I decline a bag if asked... although, it always feels a bit weird to walk out of the store with something in my hand or pocket rather than in a bag... because the bag functions as "proof of purchase". When my stuff isn't in one, I always worry that somebody's going to see it and think I'm shoplifiting. I'm also wary of walking into stores in posession of something they sell there for the same reason. Perhaps I'm just a bit paranoid.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

An interesting discussion so far, but what can be done in a macro sense to cope with such things as rising sea levels?  I am sure we can all personally address small issues, but what about the big ones?

[Nick9099 2]

Well... there's the problem. Even if we move beyond the small, individual actions now and make big changes, cutting our carbon emissions 70-80% (anything less will only prolong the inevitable), we are still going to face the consequences of rising sea levels. we've gone too far to avoid that.

I think that if history is any guide, we'll put temporary solutions in place, and avoid the problem until something really big happens, like all of south florida disappearing into the carribean sea. What ought to be done is to fortify costal defenses around populated areas, and pull out of those areas we can't justify spending the billions to save.

On the subject of those plastic bags though, in my area most grocery stores sell the bags (often unbranded) and offer customers a rebate if they bring their own bags. Even so, plastic bags remain widely used and nothing short of a law is going to stop that.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Re: Plastic Bags.

I have a full set of cloth bags that I take on shopping trips.  Two of them are even unbranded, but most have advertising on them from Garfield Weston Ltd. (Loblaws, Zehrs, Food Value, etc.).  Doesn't bother me, because I only have them with me either bundled up, or in a cart full of stuff, and the advertising is only ephemerally visible.  The Weston companies charge for plastic bags, these days, and don't even offer paper bags.

The next problem with packaging is that there is too much of it.  I recently bought some toilet tissue that was not only bound in plastic, but individual tubes of plastic held the rolls as well.  This kind of engineering should be rethought, since it is clear that the inner sleeves have something to do with easing the production of the package.  The inner sleeves seem to be stronger than the outer package!?

[sneakeypete 16]

Remind me again what shopping bags has to do with global warming?

Stopping rubbish pollution is a very imporant thing (In my opinion, it is more important than global warming), however it doesn't contribute to global warming in any way.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Remind me again what shopping bags has to do with global warming?

Stopping rubbish pollution is a very imporant thing (In my opinion, it is more important than global warming), however it doesn't contribute to global warming in any way.quote>

Well think how much energy it takes to mine all the petroleum products needed to produce the raw materials, ship those products to the bag making factories, produce all those little plastic bags (including the electricity to run the machines), transport the bags, wrap them around the food (if shrink wrapped or pre packaged) etc etc. Also think about the carbon gasses released when they are thrown into landfill to degrade or are incinerated after a single use. Then think about how many millions of plastic bags are treated like this every month.

Not to mention all the water that's used.

Then compare that to what is needed to produce and keep a few reusable green bags around the place which can take the place of hundreds of plastic bags over their lifetimes. I keep two in my handbag, as they are very handy for unexpected shopping trips.

[Nick9099 2]

Not to mention that despite what we say about recycling, most plastic bags end up in the garbage, and landfills and incinerators produce massive amounts of greenhouse gases.

N_O_Body : couldn't agree more with your comments on packaging. What confuses me though, is why the manufacturers don't show some initiative and cut down on packaging themselves. I suppose once oil prices start to rise again we'll have no choice but to reduce all the plastic we use.

[Fluffyvito 40]

While I do not necessarily agree that we humans are contributing to climate change to the extent that some claim we do. I do, however, like how this concern for the environment has opened our eyes as to how wasteful our modern industrialized society is. The biggest positive effect, at least in my opinion, is the rediscovery of long abandoned technologies such as: solar power or electric cars. I find it such waste that perfectly good plastic in say a milk jug is simply thrown away to just sit in a landfill forever when it could be melted down into something useful again. On the other hand I am profoundly disturbed by the abuse of the environmental cause simply to make a profit. All in all I feel that the recent concern with our environment to be mostly a benefit to us humans. For now we only have one planet, and one home if we ruin it now we only hurt ourselves. No matter what we do, short of thermonuclear affiliation, the planet will recover just not in anytime span we can easily relate to.

~Cheers

Kabuto23

Edit: Concerning plastic bags what I do not understand is the inability to at some degree adopt bio-degradeable plastics. Its not like the technology dosen't exist as it does; biodegradeable plastic BB's are fairly common.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Kabuto23

Concerning plastic bags what I do not understand is the inability to at some degree adopt bio-degradeable plastics. Its not like the technology dosen't exist as it does; biodegradeable plastic BB's are fairly common.

quote>

Quite simply if something costs more to use then industry won't use it.

[Nick9099 2]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Originally posted by: Kabuto23

Concerning plastic bags what I do not understand is the inability to at some degree adopt bio-degradeable plastics. Its not like the technology dosen't exist as it does; biodegradeable plastic BB's are fairly common.

quote>

Quite simply if something costs more to use then industry won't use it.quote>

Unless there is enough demand to justify the extra cost- but unfortunately there isn't.  We're going to need governments to moke industry move- honestly i'm surprised we haven't banned plastic bags a long time ago.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The scientific community has concluded that we are into a climate change and may be rapidly approaching the tipping point beyond which we can do nothing to slow it down. While greenhouse gas emissions on our part seem to be a component, the biggest factor is said to be the increased insolation the earth is receiving due to changes in the orbit around the sun.

The most serious symptom that is causing serious alarm is the increased and accellerating melt rate of the various ice fields around the world. Several things are resulting:

1. Decreased salinity of the sea;
2. Loss of freshwater sources in some countries (e.g. India);
3. Decrease in earth's albedo, speeding up insolation effects;
4. Warming of the oceans due to increased surface;
5. Coastal population dislocation due to increased sea levels; and
6. More severe weather due to warmer oceans;

Among the more serious that come to mind.

Comments?

[Muck308 55]

I've certainly noticed a difference over the last 20 years or so. Even a couple days ago I heard thunder for the second time this winter.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Nick9099 2]

And the weather here is ridiculous too. We had snow on (canadian) thanksgiving, wich is unheard of, and then it didn't snow again until nearly christmas, also unheard of. Now we're suffering through -35c windchill, but up until yesterday it was one of the warmest winters on record. Could things get any crazier?