[imitchellg5]

I'm not trying to start a flame war/point fingers/make people mad. I just don't understand what the big deal about global warming is. I've looked at some sites, but they don't really have any solid arguments/trends/data. My biggest problem with the issue is that I don't understand how us little people can control the weather. But anyway. What are the main arguments that say global warming is a huge issue that we need to focus on (rather than the economy/winning the war/Paris Hilton's failures)? And is there any SCIENTIFIC basis for global warming as in issue, and if so, resolving it?

Thanks, I'm just trying to understand this.

EDIT: I see all these weird threads about random problems attributed to global warming, but that confuse me.

[besson3c]

The argument is multi-faceted, imitchellg5...

A certain subset of the population genuinely cares about protecting the environment and the habitat of animals and such. These people are probably labeled as hippies, and those old enough to have a reaction towards the hippies that existed in the 70s probably have strong feelings about these modern day hippies.

A certain subset of the population supports science and is inclined to believe the subset of the scientific community that says that we can have an impact on the global warming that is going on the the possibility of flood, drought, and other forms of potential catastrophe.

The subset of the population that resonates with me most strongly is the population that believes that it is in our geo-political strategic interest to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels that are controlled by the Middle East, or that believes that even if you don't believe in global warming persay that there are other benefits to transitioning to alternative forms of energy and/or reducing pollution in general.

There are also people that support or are against this issue because it is a way to score political points with/against whatever party they are loyal to.

There is no one way of answering your question. Like I said, there are many aspects to this issue.

[imitchellg5]

Interesting, so it's not really an all-encompassing term, there's many facets to the issue. I'm guessing the third subset might be sort of be the United States' government's standpoint?

Personally I think that the environment should be respected and enjoyed, but I don't really understand how that fits in with global warming... It's not like I could just give up my car or buy a hybrid.

[besson3c]

I think the whole premise of whether global warming is going on and whether we can (or should) do something about it has dominated the whole debate, unfortunately. It has certainly dominated the debate here on MacNN.

The more productive debate is the third subset I've listed, I think. The only person who seems to stress this that I know of is Thomas Friedman. If we could wake up to a world of non-oil based fuels that were affordable, we had a new infrastructure in place, etc. this would be a *huge* geopolitical gain for us. If you disagree with the whole premise of GW, I don't see how anybody could disagree with the benefits of not having to rely on Middle East oil.

To me, focusing our attention here is a much better way to cut to the chase anyway. The solutions all point to the same direction - weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Thanks, I'm just trying to understand this.

All that you need to understand is that since leaving the gold standard, fiat money systems have been growing out of control. They're about to collapse sometime in the next 30 years. Carbon credits are the new "gold" standard and we're being weaned onto them. The milk at my local store has started carrying "800g carbon" written on the label - that's the new price tag, they're getting us used to it, slowly.

That's what it's all about. That's all you need to understand.

[imitchellg5]

I can see the benefit of moving away from fossil fuels; personally I like the idea of hydrogen-powered cars and nonsuch. Economically, I'd love to move away from oil.

[besson3c]

Although I do like olive oil...

[imitchellg5]

Olive oil and French bread is pretty awesome.

[auto_immune]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Although I do like olive oil...

What the h&ll does Popeye's girlfriend have to do with global warming??

[besson3c]

Well, i don't know about global, but she sure warms me... Man, I want to tap that ass!

However, I usually have to restrain myself once I remember that Popeye would pulverize my ass if I were to do so...

[auto_immune]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, i don't know about global, but she sure warms me... Man, I want to tap that ass!

However, I usually have to restrain myself once I remember that Popeye would pulverize my ass if I were to do so...

[ghporter]

If the overall temperature of the planet is rising, that will cause a lot of the ice at the poles to melt, which will raise sea levels. A large percentage of the world's largest cities are on ocean coasts, and are pretty close to current sea level, which means that a lot of cities would be flooded. Reducing the amount of fresh water in storage in ice caps has other fallout as well.

The problem with the science of the issue is that we do not have sufficiently accurate records from long enough back to determine whether or not we are seeing a man-made change in the global climate or simply an increase in the rate of a natural warming trend that human activity is merely aggravating. Or if there really is a change in the global climate at all. This is not at all simple to sort out. It seems that temperatures are on the upswing, but they aren't behaving as they "should" if that's the case; either something far more complex is going on, or the climate guys that have been saying bad things are happening have bad models, or both.

[mduell]

It makes a lot more sense if you think of it as a religion. They're pushing their belief system.

Half Sigma calls it the Gaia Cult, or post-Christian Mother Nature worship.

[design219]

Originally Posted by mduell 

It makes a lot more sense if you think of it as a religion. They're pushing their belief system.

i.e., you're a conservative.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by design219 

i.e., you're a conservative.

Or someone who sees the more extreme "new age" groups as being as flaky as they really are. There are Gaia groups that are not particularly flaky (all things considered), and there are groups that call themselves "fundamentalist Christian" that really need to work to pass the granola test (as in they're full of flakes and nuts).

Unfortunately, mduell is very correct in pointing out that the subject is no longer about facts, but about beliefs. It is more unfortunate that the entire concept of science, as an unbiased and completely altruistic pursuit, has suffered immensely because of this debate.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If the overall temperature of the planet is rising, that will cause a lot of the ice at the poles to melt, which will raise sea levels. A large percentage of the world's largest cities are on ocean coasts, and are pretty close to current sea level, which means that a lot of cities would be flooded.

Therefore, buy real estate away from the coast and profit!

[Wiskedjak]

here's my take. I don't give a rats a$$ about respecting the environment. but, if the global climate is changing it would have a significant impact on our ways of life. coastal populations would be impacted (consider for a moment where most people live), crops would be much more difficult to grow, we'd probably see many more instances of extreme weather and our home climate control costs (A/C in some places and heating in others) would increase dramatically.

I think we should do anything we can to avoid even the possibility of the above, whether the climate is changing or not and whether it's caused by humans or not. if we can spend billions invading a country on the possibility that it might have illegal weapons of mass destruction, we can certainly spend a bit on the possibility that our climate might be changing in ways that would affect our ways of life.

[chabig]

All of what you just said presumes man's ability to shape Earth's climate.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by chabig 

All of what you just said presumes man's ability to shape Earth's climate.

give me a couple of nuclear bombs and I'll show you how much man can shape the Earths climate. i'm not saying it would be a good shape, but we can most certainly affect our planets climate right now with existing technologies. I have not doubt that, with motivation, time and sacrifice, we could affect our climate in almost any way we want. we've spent a lot of money coming up with many ingenious ways of destroying things. we can probably be just as creative at fixing things.

[chabig]

We already dropped a couple of nuclear bombs about 60 years ago and the planet seems no worse.

[Chuckit]

You seem to be conflating different issues. You can't ask why it matters if you don't accept that it exists. That's like somebody in 2005 asking "Why does the upcoming economic crash matter? And is it real?" If it's real, it matters, doesn't it?

[besson3c]

How does any of this matter, really? We need to be weaning ourselves off of Middle East oil anyway, as it is in finite supply and puts our entire economy at risk when it is controlled by the flow of oil.

[chabig]

There are even some who question whether oil really is finite.

Amazon.com: The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels eBook: Thomas Gold, Freeman Dyson: Kindle Store

[besson3c]

How does that matter either, so long as we don't have enough oil for ourselves within our own borders?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Half Sigma calls it the Gaia Cult, or post-Christian Mother Nature worship.

lpkmckenna calls Half Sigma an ultraconservative nutbar.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by chabig 

We already dropped a couple of nuclear bombs about 60 years ago and the planet seems no worse.

Because 2 nuclear bombs don't impact the environment like 200 years of industry, regardless of what Jak said.

All of what you just said presumes man's ability to shape Earth's climate.

Why do you presume otherwise?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You seem to be conflating different issues. You can't ask why it matters if you don't accept that it exists. That's like somebody in 2005 asking "Why does the upcoming economic crash matter? And is it real?" If it's real, it matters, doesn't it?

I never said that it didn't exist... although I'm skeptical because it's been damn cold around here all year.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by chabig 

We already dropped a couple of nuclear bombs about 60 years ago and the planet seems no worse.

You're not thinking very creatively. All you need to do is get a whole bunch of dust or ash into the upper atmosphere. We've seen a couple of events in our planet's history that have achieved this.

Large volcanic eruptions have impacted the Earth's climate by sending large amounts of ash into the upper atmosphere. I wonder what would happen if you simultaneously nuked a bunch of volcanoes around the planet?

The prevailing theory about the extinction of the dinosaurs is that a large asteroid hit the Earth and sent large amounts of dust into the atmosphere, causing the global temperature to drop, killing off the dinos. I wonder what would happen if we blew off chunks of the moon? Or, given our accuracy with sending probes to planets around our solar system, I wonder if we could redirect an asteroid from the Main Asteroid Belt to collide with Earth? I'll betcha we could get *alot* of dust into the upper atmosphere.

Now, these methods would result in a lot of deaths, but I hope they show that we have the capability *right now* to, at least crudely, affect our planet's climate. Again, I have no doubt that with some time and sacrifice we could come up with much more elegant ways of affecting the climate.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How does any of this matter, really? We need to be weaning ourselves off of Middle East oil anyway, as it is in finite supply and puts our entire economy at risk when it is controlled by the flow of oil.

In all honesty, this may be the single most insightful, profound, and interesting thing you have ever posted here. It is also an understatement. And I agree with you 100%.

We need to be weaning ourselves from any fossil fuels, starting with imported oil. It's not a good way to get energy, it's not terribly efficient and has some major issues in how it's obtained, processed and stored. But we also can't simply say "it's over today." Weaning is the only way we can do this, the only way that will work, and the only way that anyone will accept a transition to something else. It can be anything else, or even a bunch of anythings, but we need to have started this already.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I never said that it didn't exist... although I'm skeptical because it's been damn cold around here all year.

Here's the thing about "global warming": as some areas get warmer, it would likely cause other areas to get colder.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by chabig 

There are even some who question whether oil really is finite.

Amazon.com: The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels eBook: Thomas Gold, Freeman Dyson: Kindle Store

That guy is a real assh*le. He took the hard work of a Russian geochemist, didn't credit him anywhere in his book, then all-but claims he invented the theory.

The original concept of modern abiotic oil production came from Kudryavtsev. This wasn't an explanation of where all the oil came from, it simply established that under certain conditions, oil could be produced without the need of biomass. However, there is no debate except by nutjobs. 99% of oil on this planet comes from biomass, and it is a finite amount. This is supported by mountains of evidence.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Here's the thing about "global warming": as some areas get warmer, it would likely cause other areas to get colder.

So the more accurate tag to use would be "climate change."

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

So the more accurate tag to use would be "climate change."

Yep. Which is why people have been increasingly using the term "climate change". The term "global warming" seems to be mostly used now by those who don't want us to believe that the climate is changing.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by chabig 

There are even some who question whether oil really is finite.

There are some who question whether Bill Gates is in league with the government to steal their penis. These people are called whackjobs.

The earth itself is finite, so of course its resources are as well.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by chabig 

There are even some who question whether oil really is finite.

Do you understand how long it takes to make petroleum? Fossil fuel or not?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Do you understand how long it takes to make petroleum? Fossil fuel or not?

Yeah. A Texan researcher made it in about a day from a few rocks under pressure. Go look it up.

[imitchellg5]

Top Gear grew their own in a year.

[Wiskedjak]

Well, then the price of oil should be plummeting any day now?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yeah. A Texan researcher made it in about a day from a few rocks under pressure. Go look it up.

That's great, but did it require more energy to create than it will provide?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's great, but did it require more energy to create than it will provide?

Yes, but only because it was artificial. Those same processes happen under the earth free of charge.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Well, then the price of oil should be plummeting any day now?

Not if you carry on believing the oil-industry created fable that we're running out of the stuff.

[BadKosh]

Confusing weather with climate seems to be the biggest problem.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I'm not trying to start a flame war/point fingers/make people mad. I just don't understand what the big deal about global warming is. I've looked at some sites, but they don't really have any solid arguments/trends/data. My biggest problem with the issue is that I don't understand how us little people can control the weather. But anyway. What are the main arguments that say global warming is a huge issue that we need to focus on (rather than the economy/winning the war/Paris Hilton's failures)? And is there any SCIENTIFIC basis for global warming as in issue, and if so, resolving it?

Thanks, I'm just trying to understand this.

EDIT: I see all these weird threads about random problems attributed to global warming, but that confuse me.

I'm sort of in the same boat, although there are a few things that need to be considered (IMHO) :

There basically aren't any accurate temperature readings before 1850.
There are reputations/funding/jobs/re-election/anti-whatever/pro-whatever at stake.
Everyone, from any side of any global warming / climate change debate can show some data that supports their argument.
There is no Google to just crunch all the available data together. It seems that although people share their data, nobody slaps it into something like Google's BigTable to see what correlations there are.

From what I have read, there is always another culprit that 'puts out' or 'burps' far more of really bad substance X than humans, their cars, their houses etc. And has been doing it for far longer than humans.

In the past when warming occured there were times of prosperity. Is this a bad thing?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes, but only because it was artificial. Those same processes happen under the earth free of charge.

Guess I better get started now with my oil production - may have to go somewhere at the end of this next few million years.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes, but only because it was artificial. Those same processes happen under the earth free of charge.

Of course they do. But, under *much* longer periods of time?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Of course they do. But, under *much* longer periods of time?

No. The guy mimicked the same environmental conditions found under the surface. If he can make it in a day, the earth can make it in a day. Same conditions, so why would the earth take longer?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. The guy mimicked the same environmental conditions found under the surface. If he can make it in a day, the earth can make it in a day. Same conditions, so why would the earth take longer?

Then why aren't we finding tons of new oil?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Then why aren't we finding tons of new oil?

You are. But you can't use it because your economy depends on you buying it from the ME. You start using that 200 year (minimum) supply on the North Shore, then the ME won't denominate in US$ (meaning $ status as world reserve goes bump) and neither will they buy your national debt off you. Double whammy.

I find it amusing that some people would accuse the oil companies of employing people to tell the world that there's no problem with oil supply. Surely if you have a product to sell it's in your best interests to convince everyone that it's becoming rarer so you can max your profits out.

"Loads of apples, $0.50 each!" or
"Last few apples on earth, $150 each!"

Which makes more sense from the seller's perspective?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You are. But you can't use it because your economy depends on you buying it from the ME. You start using that 200 year (minimum) supply on the North Shore, then the ME won't denominate in US$ (meaning $ status as world reserve goes bump) and neither will they buy your national debt off you. Double whammy.

No, I mean new oil in previously-tapped regions like the American southwest. Not oil that we've always known was there but just never pursued.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

No, I mean new oil in previously-tapped regions like the American southwest. Not oil that we've always known was there but just never pursued.

And how do you know you're not? The only people who can tell you either way are the people who're trying to sell you the stuff.