Now I know what people say; "if you don't believe in global warming, then you're an idiot". But I can assure you, I am no idiot. I'm a history geek, so when I see the weather changing like it is, its not surprising to me. This planet we call home, Earth; it's alive. Not like you or I would think of alive however. I'm saying alive as in it changes; it moves, it breaths. The planet is not the same as it was when it was first created, and in 20 thousand years, it won't be the same as it is now. People need to quit trying to place blame on something that is a natural process.
Natural process. Humans have little to nothing to do with the climate changes. It's entirely natural, and this sort of behaviour has even been recorded in the past. /Before/ fossil fuels.
Forcefully emitting exponentially more carbon dioxide than the Earth is safely able to handle is not a natural process. Yes, greenhouse gases are a normal part of the cycle, and god knows volcanoes let out a crap ton of them when they erupt, but all the gases we emit ourselves is more than the Earth naturally deals with.
You have demonstrated that you don't believe in Global Warming, and cannot spell the word "breathes". Global warming is legitimate. It is real. Because once the industrial revolution happened, things warmed up. Mister "history buff" should have noticed that, right?
While increased greenhouse gasses certainly do not help anything, I believe it is not as heavily correlated compared to the fact that the Earth cycles glacial periods (Ice Ages) after 50,000 year warm periods; with each glacial period extending about 100,000-150,000 years on average. Meaning, for example, the last Ice Age started around 120,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. Since 15,000 years ago the earth began to gradually warm. It will continue to warm, though very slowly now until around 40,000 years into the future the temperatures will decrease and a new glacial period will begin. The point here is, we need to zoom out and see a bigger picture. Furthermore, we don't even know how earth's climate fully works. Maybe the ice caps have a sealed fate and will melt and always have melted in these cycles. We just don't know enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles <-- A different theory, but an interesting one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial I don't denounce the notion that we have raised the temperature ourselves a few degrees, but I personally don't think it's as substantial as it has appeared to become. Yay
The problem I have with 'Global Warming' is the name itself. It's a buzz word that got picked up by the media and then adopted by society. Some parts of the world are getting hotter, some are getting colder, maybe the average temperature is rising I don't know but it's beside the point really. The temperature, while it shouldn't be ignored is not the only factor here, it's 'Climate Change' as a whole that is the issue. And actually, imo, even that is not the best title as it ignores so many other areas of the environment that are being adversely affected by human action. However, going back to simply global warming for minute. There are countless naturally occurring cycles happening constantly regardless of human activity; species will become extinct, new species will emerge, environments will change for better or worse that simply comes with living on a dynamic planet. But the fact of the matter is our actions as a species (common examples are C02 and CFC emissions, methane from livestock, etc) do change the atmosphere in a way that causes more energy to be retained by the Earth and that extra energy will have an effect on the environment. To what degree is up for debate, it could be so minor it's irrelevant, but it is simply wrong to say that human actions are/will not make earth a warmer place. /rant Personally, I think the real issue is responsible use of finite resources. I would much rather see fossil fuels stopped being used as fuel not for the reduction of carbon emissions but because simply using it for energy production is such a waste of it's numerous other uses.
"Global Warming" is stupid and a scam. I can't believe they forced it down my throat in both Environmental Science and Marine Biology. What a waste of knowledge.
You have demonstrated that you have no respect for other opinions and cannot spell the word 'warmed'. I will direct you to Mike's post. Also: There are health risks involved with Fossil Fuels, but that isn't about global warming, that's about pollution, which, arguably, is a separate issue. I believe we have made a very minimal impact on the earth climate-wise; though I've no doubt we've artificially raised the temperature minutely.
I'm not saying we should continue the blind use of fossil fuels. I'm saying it's: A1. Impossible to force every single company to stop using them. That would mean using Nuclear Power as a means of energy as the majority. And I'm sure we all know what happened with Chernobyl. A2. Water is a limited resource to generate power from with the inward United States. Nuclear power is much, much more dangerous than fossil fuel powered vehicles if it melts down. B. We can down usage, but getting rid of it entirely would also screw over a large amount of country's economies. Most middle eastern nations rely on Oil exportation as their main source of income. In short, getting rid of fossil fuels entirely is only inviting disaster, both economically, and possibly in a nuclear fashion.
Fun fact: A great majority of the time the white "smoke" you see coming out of refineries and other large industrial places is actually just steam. It's the other stacks that you can't see what's coming out of that is actually harmful. Also Global Warming is a natural thing, but humanity really isn't helping any. I tend to sit in the middle of such discussions even though I live near Corpus Christi where driving to College I see a whole ton of refineries and also a giant wind farm not far away.
That would be fantastic as long as it's nuclear fusion not fission. The name escapes me but there is a large scale experiment being undertaken in France this very moment to make nuclear fusion plants a reality. The technology is there it just needs to be refined for a sustained fusion reaction to first offset the enormous energy required to start the reaction and then continue energy production for commercial use. If and when the experiment is successful (current prediction is 20yrs IIRC) in producing usable energy the production of proper commercial fusion plants will begin. EDIT: Here's the website, http://www.iter.org/ Ugh, I cringe every time footage of nuclear cooling towers are used.
@SR20: They are still struggling trying to find a way to harness said energy. Personally, from what I've read, Fusion is much much /much/ more powerful and destructive (Which means: Unstable) than Fission is. I'd prefer we just find a different power source from anything OTHER than nuclear sources. Solar powered, people.
I wasn't being completely serious, it would be silly to use one power source anyway. Interesting you mention it's instability, from what I know about it I was under the impression it's much safer than fission, with the only two real dangers being the reaction itself and the radioactive material which both seem relatively safe. Out of interest, what are the safety issues you've read about? Every energy source is going to have it pros and cons. Solar power is fantastic but it nor any other source can produce the amount of energy fusion can, not by a long shot, and even sunlight itself isn't as abundant as hydrogen is, it just seems to make a lot of sense. But really we should using every 'green' power source. Assess the environment around where power is needed and harness what is already naturally occurring there. Fusion would only really be needed for large cities and industry. THIS is where our advancement in technology is really lagging behind. It's ludicrous to think we're still using ancient Lead-Acid batteries these days.
A minor tangent into alternative energy So I'm no climate scientist, but I will be graduating with an engineering degree in about 12 hours from now, so I do have some relevant knowledge to add to this discussion. I have been studying energy sources and specifically renewable energy as part of my master's degree so it's something I'm very passionate about and work with on basically a daily basis. First thing's first, so Nuclear Fusion. As far as I'm concerned this is a great technology... for the 22nd century, at the earliest ... so that's not really gonna help us solve anything right now - ITER won't come online until the 2030s and it's only an experimental reactor designed to study fusion power, it wont actually generate any. Nuclear fission is plenty useful and ready to go right now... except every government on earth is scrambling to outlaw it (for good reason, based on the damage Fukashima did to japan recently) so that's a nonstarter as well. The big players in the next few years, and already, are Wind and Solar. Geothermal and Hyrdo are great and they are free to move along, but they are relatively new tech that will take a while to even scratch the mountain of demand for energy we humans have. Solar power is just now reaching the same cost as coal across european countries and will soon hit that point in the US. Wind is already below the cost of coal and at least in the United states is competing only with natural gas. Wind power is cheap, simple, and easy to install quickly and so I have high hopes for it. Solar is not as cheap and a little more high tech, but the costs are coming down really fast and it's a super useful way of generating power with no moving parts. you just set it up and it basically delivers free energy for 20 or 30 years with basically no maintenance other than cleaning. Wind Energy Capacity installed per year: Cost of Solar vs Coal/NG - - Auto Merge - - These are all excellent points. Unfortunately there will be losers in the new economy of tomorrow. People that have been investing more and more in fossil energy are making bad investments and will suffer the consequences of these bad investments. The best these companies and nations can do is start investing now in renewables and things that will actually help them if and potentially when action is taken to dump these bad sources of energy. In the United States, this shift is already happening. The Wind industry is employing thousands of people, many oh which can take their skills right from turbine manufacturing for gas power and use them to build turbines for catching wind. As for nations that are failing to change, yes there will be political problems - but there have always been political changes in history this is nothing new and honestly kind of inevitable. As for water usage - the way thermal power plants work like coal and gas and nuclear, they need more and more water to run the hotter the water gets. So in effect, global warming is ironically already impacting these types of plants regardless of government policies. I agree that Nuclear is a bad option because of the obvious risks, but I think (see my last post) that we can easily meet demand with Wind and Solar alone, let alone with the whole range of other options available to use.
