Year of Global Cooling

[Xue Sheng]

I guess the point was missed... leaving me feeling like your little sign

Simply put, if you do not know the cause then you are just guessing at the solution...

Per your earlier example, if the cause is cows, then no amount of electric cars will make a difference.

We are all in this together, but how we all get out kinda depends on how we all got here in the first place. If we don't really know how we got here, we can't get out.

Actually the point was not missed but I do think you missed mine and I will ask this one last time

What does cause have to do with finger pointing and who to blame or whose fault it is. So what if it is the coal burning of the Chinese or the exhaust from US cars or the flatulence of a cow, it is all CO2.

OK RANT TIME

All this type of approach does is give someone the ability to say its not my fault, pat yourself on the back and say THEY should fix it and go on happily feeling you accomplished something when in fact you didn't it is still getting warmer and things are still not looking so good but it makes people happy to say it is not MY fault and then they feel all better.

Simply put, FINDING a solution has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with finding someone to blame. And if the cause is cows I will happily eat an entire cow all by myself, it is not cows, that was put forth because the amount of ridiculous suggestions I have read in this and many posts on the subject and in other places that have been put forth to take the blame of humanity is getting absolutely maddening.

AND if it was proven to be cows that would suggest that they are the ONLY ones on the planet that produce CO2, HIGHLY likely as well as already PROVEN to not be the case. And IF you did have more electric cars you would be putting LESS CO2 into the atmosphere thereby making room for COW FLATULANCE. And I am REALLY hoping you are seeing the ridiculousness of that WHOLE thing.

What I am trying to say and wasting my time trying to say as it has been proven time and time again is we need to find out WHAT is causing it, IF it is actually something we can do something about and STOP WASTING time saying its not my fault BLAME THE COWS.

There are a lot of reasons for global warming and cooling and I am really not going to waste much more time here because it is fairly apparent I am typing just to hear the sounds the keys make when struck with various pressures. But IF it is proven that it is CO2 the ONLY species on the planet that can reduce its production of it and still get along fairly well in the long run (possibly even better) are HUMANS.

If it is a function of the Earths orbit there is not thing one anyone can do. It changes and has changed over time; during the time of the dinosaurs it was circular now it is elliptical

And if it is CO2 emissions and this warming has introduced to much fresh water into the ocean via melting ice, again there is not thing one we can do to stop the change but that STILL does not mean we can go on with business as usual because it WILL make things worse.

But here is the kicker. Hotter means more water in the atmosphere, more water in the atmosphere means more heat from the sun reflected back and less getting to the surface of the earth which means cooling and likely ice age. But this does not mean the planet will fix itself quickly but potentially it can but so then people can blame the earth for messing things up for people. So I guess in the long run it is the earths fault so we should not have to do anything…except of course possibly go extinct which is very possible if in fact the earth is self correcting and manages to get rid of us in the process.

And all of this of course brings me full circle and back to :hb:

 

[Flying Crane]

To expand. If the source of the CO2 is cows, then electric cars won't reduce the CO2 going into the air. If the source of the CO2 is US cars than closing CHinese industry won't solve the problem. If the source is *all three* then only treating *one* will probably not be enough, but if any of those is not the source in a significant way, then focusing effort in t hat direction will probably be a waste of resources.

If you don't know how it got there... then you don't know how to stop more from getting there. That's the 'fault' I think is important.

We may not have identified every single contributor to the problem, but it is beyond question that our consumption of fossil fuels, including the burning of coal and petroleum products are huge contributors to the problem, no matter which citizens of which country are doing the consumption.

I posted a link in an earlier post in this thread, giving some perspective on the energy consumption rates of different parts of the world. The Industrialized nations, which includes the US, make up about 15% of the world population. This 15% is responsible for about 68% of the world's energy consumption. I'd say the industrialized nations are a good place to start, in looking for ways to reduce consumption. As developing nations such as China and India increase their consumption, as is inevitable, they need to do so in a way that is as environmentally responsible as possible. But right now, it is the industrialized nations that need to take leadership in this movement, since the industrialized nations are the biggest offenders. Developing nations should follow our lead, as they have followed our lead in becoming industrialized. But we need a new direction or else we won't go anywhere but down the same path of self-destruction we have been on.

As other contributors of the problem are identified, if they are human-caused and under our control, then they also need to be dealt with. Maybe cow farts are part of the problem. OK, maybe we need to take a look at the beef industry and some of their practices. Maybe the formation of huge corporate beef farms, with the concentration of tens of thousands of head of cattle into one small area is not the best way to farm beef. I've seen these kinds of operations in the Central Valley in California. They are pretty disgusting outfits. The operation is vast, but the herds are packed into small areas relative to the numbers of cattle, and they all stand around on barren land, with no shade. Maybe the smaller family farms, with smaller herds are a better way to pursue beef. Maybe industries like fast food, that puts a high demand on beef with the requirement that it be as cheap as possible, encourages this kind of beef mega-operation. Maybe we need to simply cut back on our beef consumption, so we can also cut down on the size of the cattle herds.

This is an example of the kind of things we need to scrutinize in the habits of our culture. There are no quick and easy solutions, and some of the answers may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it's far better than the catastrophe that global warming promises us if we just go along our merry way without even trying to change some things.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Actually the point was not missed but I do think you missed mine and I will ask this one last time


Possibly..

What does cause have to do with finger pointing and who to blame or whose fault it is.

Actually, none at all and I think you making that point again means that we are talking at cross purposes, or perhaps different meanings of the term.

You seem to be meaning 'fault' in terms of... well ... finger pointing as a way of placing blame, preferably elsewhere in order to avoid any personal responsibility.

I took the meaning of 'fault' to be 'root cause' for the sake of eliminating that root cause in order to fix the situation ..

So to that point I agree with you because in a sense we are all at fault because whether the 'fault' is our lifestyle of cheeseburgers or the 'fault' is our fleet of automobiles or the 'fault' is buying cheaper products from China... well not only are we all in this together, we all *got* here together, so finger pointing for the sake of placing blame on 'them' and not on 'us' for any definition of 'them' and 'us' ... is pointless...counterproductive.

However, the way I was using 'fault' was meant not as a moral judgement of blame or absolution or responsibility, just as saying that we need to know what actions are causing the situation so we can correctly address those actions; and that if we don't know the root causes (in terms of actions. not people) we may not be able to properly address them

My apologies for the confusion

 

[FearlessFreep]

I posted a link in an earlier post in this thread, giving some perspective on the energy consumption rates of different parts of the world.

Yes, and I think part of my point was that while we know energy consumption rates today, we do not yet have a model that can accurately predict that rates of consumption yields rates in temperature change and therefore be projected forward to indicate that changes in rates of consumption will yield changes in rates in change of temperature and therefore we don't know how much we need to change. Possibilities could be a) we don't need that much to make significant change in consumption patterns, and thus we can cushion the rate of change of those patterns for minimal negative impact on lives b) we can change the rate of temperature changes, but it will require doing a *lot more* then we are currently even thinking of doing c) we have already done enough but it will take decades to see the effect or d) we cannot stop the process already started no matter what we do and our efforts need to be focused on survival and adaption. Those are kinda 4 extremes but we don't have a tight enough predictive model yet to plot it out. As stated, my fear is that by the time we have a strong enough predictive model for setting policy we will already have gone too far in some direction to actually use the model. As I said, not enough data to make the right decisions, not enough time to collect the data...

 

[Flying Crane]

I posted a link in an earlier post in this thread, giving some perspective on the energy consumption rates of different parts of the world.

Yes, and I think part of my point was that while we know energy consumption rates today, we do not yet have a model that can accurately predict that rates of consumption yields rates in temperature change and therefore be projected forward to indicate that changes in rates of consumption will yield changes in rates in change of temperature and therefore we don't know how much we need to change. Possibilities could be a) we don't need that much to make significant change in consumption patterns, and thus we can cushion the rate of change of those patterns for minimal negative impact on lives b) we can change the rate of temperature changes, but it will require doing a *lot more* then we are currently even thinking of doing c) we have already done enough but it will take decades to see the effect or d) we cannot stop the process already started no matter what we do and our efforts need to be focused on survival and adaption. Those are kinda 4 extremes but we don't have a tight enough predictive model yet to plot it out. As stated, my fear is that by the time we have a strong enough predictive model for setting policy we will already have gone too far in some direction to actually use the model. As I said, not enough data to make the right decisions, not enough time to collect the data...

well then, this is where we disagree. I believe the vast majority of scientists are in agreement about the effects of our polluting activities. To NOT do something about it is to welcome disaster. By the time we gather more data to fully satisfy every single holdout who refuses to recognize what is happening, it will definitely be too late. The trick is that things need to be done before it reaches that crisis level.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I believe the vast majority of scientists are in agreement about the effects of our polluting activities.

I do not think the vast majority of scientist have a *predictive* model, not a model with numbers.. As I said before, F=ma. What or where is the model that says that for every X tons of oil consumed per 1000 people per year, the temperature will rise Y degrees per decade" and from there "if the rate of consumption per 1000 per year is reduced from X to X-a, then the temperature will rise Y-b degrees per decade". And therefore at what value of a, do you reach a point where Y-b is 0, which is the goal..

I'm not saying there is not circumstantial evidence to say what is happening, I'm saying we don't have the numbers and equations enough to predict what does happen and what will happen, particularly if we change the input per our own actions.

To NOT do something about it is to welcome disaster.

Consider ethanol. Not long ago I head it being pushed as environment friendly, now we know that the net impact on the environment is actually worse then normal gas; the only one benefitting from ethanol are the Big Ag companies at the expense of the Big Oil companies. Or consider that if I switch from a gas powered car to an electric car; this does no real good if my electric source if one that burns oil to generate power anyway. (of course if the power plant os using hydro, then my switch is a great benefit).

The problem is, if we don't know the X, the Y and the a; then we may not be knowing if we are doing enough, in which case doing anything is, rather brutally a waste of time. Maybe we need to do a lot more than we think is enough; maybe Y approaches b asymptotically and we can get them close enough to be worthwhile, without them approaching zero. But if we cannot quantize our inputs into the equation, then we cannot know affect we are having, and if we cannot really come to a good grasp of all the activities by humans, the sun, etc.. that feed into temperature rate change, then we risk actually causing harm rather than good as we try to tinker with long term temperature changes.

The risk we will cause harm is probably pretty small, but if we don't know the part we play.. who knows?

The risk we will do too little in time and not realize it it time is probably a lot higher.

The risk that everything we try will have much less affect that we hope, is a possibility.

The risk that we will totally mess up a lot of people's lives going in the wrong direction is also possible.

By the time we gather more data to fully satisfy every single holdout who refuses to recognize what is happening, it will definitely be too late.

There is a difference between trying to convince those that do not want to be convinced and having enough data to make rationale decisions.

I mean, you don't budget by saying "well last year I got a raise so now I can go to dinner more often" If you don't know the relationship between your income and your spending then changes on either side are just guess and hopeful thinking.

Of course, waiting to do a budget next year until you see all your pay stubs and receipts for this year is probably too late

The trick is that things need to be done before it reaches that crisis level.

This assumes we did not reach 'crisis level' in our consumption thirty years ago and just haven't seen the impact until now (the point of no return in "To Build A Fire"). Just per example, there are assumptions in your statement about reaching the crisis level, our rate of approach, and our ability to change that rate significantly enough to avoid it. I think you are slamming on the brakes hoping to avoid the wall, without knowing the distance to the wall or the rate of deceleration. Maybe you will stop in time... maybe you will stop way early but burn out your brakes, maybe you won't be able to stop in time and you need to either swerve or brace for impact.

I hope we can stop in time... but it appears little more than wishful thinking and guesswork at this point. We need to accept the wall is there and face it, but with eyes open

 

[michaeledward]

I am reminded of a lyric by Neil Peart

~~ If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice ~~

Freewill - Rush

 

[FearlessFreep]

I am reminded of a lyric by Neil Peart

~~ If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice ~~

Freewill - Rush

And that is my biggest fear. That we don't know enough to take an intelligent and effective course of action, but we don't have time to wait for the knowledge.'

We will risk that if we start today then we can make enough difference to change the outcome, but without enough data we risk a course of action that will condemn us.


"The stars aren't aligned, or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give then receive

I will chose a path that's clear..."

 

[michaeledward]

We know that we are increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

We know that carbon stores energy from the sun.

Methods of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, large and small will have an impact on facts of which we are certain. In the end, any actions we take may, in fact, be insufficent, but they are necessary. I was raised to believe, "There is never a wrong time to do the right thing."

The right thing to do is to be cognizant of our impacts on our environment.

 

[Flying Crane]

I honestly have a sneaking suspicion that we may have already passed the critical point of no return. I don't know that with certainty, but I suspect it may be true.

That being said, choosing a route of less pollution is a wise choice regardless. It might not be enough, and maybe we are already doomed anyway. But I am willing to try at least because we do not know for sure we are doomed.

Developing other energy sources to move us away from fossil fuels is a wise choice, no matter what. Ethanol may be trading one bad thing for another, so that may not be the answer. But working to develop renewable resources such as wind and solar power is probably a good bet. These are just suggestions. i am sure they all have their own hurdles to cross before they are viable on a large scale. But these are the kinds of things that need to be pursued.

It is clear that our pollution is contributing greatly to the problem. Just because we may not be able to plug it into a definite formula to predict exactly how X amount of pollution will affect temperature over Y period of time, is absolutely no excuse to stall and wring our hands and refuse to do anything. It's a stalling tactic, while the flood waters continue to rise.

 

[michaeledward]

I think it is important to note that "pollution" and global climate change are not synonyms. While pollution ~ exhaust from internal combustion engines, and the exhaust from power plats ~ are contributors to the effects we are witnessing, they are not the complete picture, by any means.

I heard an interesting report on the last 1100 years on the island of Iceland. Apparently, when the Europeans first arrived on the island, the land was wooded, with a rich topsoil. The trees and soil held carbon. As the trees were cleared, the soil eroded, and the carbon that once was held in the sink of the environment was released into the atmosphere.

And the process of photosynthesis, which takes carbon from the atmosphere and produces oxygen, is diminished.

Much of what we do to impact our atmosphere should not be described as pollution.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Actually the point was not missed but I do think you missed mine and I will ask this one last time


Possibly..

What does cause have to do with finger pointing and who to blame or whose fault it is.

Actually, none at all and I think you making that point again means that we are talking at cross purposes, or perhaps different meanings of the term.

You seem to be meaning 'fault' in terms of... well ... finger pointing as a way of placing blame, preferably elsewhere in order to avoid any personal responsibility.

I took the meaning of 'fault' to be 'root cause' for the sake of eliminating that root cause in order to fix the situation ..

So to that point I agree with you because in a sense we are all at fault because whether the 'fault' is our lifestyle of cheeseburgers or the 'fault' is our fleet of automobiles or the 'fault' is buying cheaper products from China... well not only are we all in this together, we all *got* here together, so finger pointing for the sake of placing blame on 'them' and not on 'us' for any definition of 'them' and 'us' ... is pointless...counterproductive.

However, the way I was using 'fault' was meant not as a moral judgement of blame or absolution or responsibility, just as saying that we need to know what actions are causing the situation so we can correctly address those actions; and that if we don't know the root causes (in terms of actions. not people) we may not be able to properly address them

My apologies for the confusion

In that case for this no picture of a generic person banging his head is necessary

 

[Xue Sheng]

I honestly have a sneaking suspicion that we may have already passed the critical point of no return. I don't know that with certainty, but I suspect it may be true..

This is possibly true, it takes more time to make a glacier than melt it. And as I have been saying; introduce enough fresh H2O into the oceans and you shut down the oceanic conveyor belt system (and that will change temperatures and weather patterns drastically and globally) and that could have happened last Tuesday and we would not know about it for a hundred years (give or take) and to be honest I do not remember how long it would take to start again or what it takes to restart it other than an ice age.

But this is only one system in the ocean that can effect the planet on a global scale. There are others and if you introduce to much fresh water into the system it can cause greater levels of CO2. And before anyone jumps on teh "OH that's the reason, it's the oceans fault" train. NO it isn't, something caused temperatures to rise to melt the ice to introduce the fresh water into teh ocean LONG before the greater amounts of CO2 were released. And the ocean is DAMN sensitive and VERY interconnected

 

[Big Don]

I think it is important to note that "pollution" and global climate change are not synonyms. While pollution ~ exhaust from internal combustion engines, and the exhaust from power plats ~ are contributors to the effects we are witnessing, they are not the complete picture, by any means.

I heard an interesting report on the last 1100 years on the island of Iceland. Apparently, when the Europeans first arrived on the island, the land was wooded, with a rich topsoil. The trees and soil held carbon. As the trees were cleared, the soil eroded, and the carbon that once was held in the sink of the environment was released into the atmosphere.

And the process of photosynthesis, which takes carbon from the atmosphere and produces oxygen, is diminished.

Much of what we do to impact our atmosphere should not be described as pollution.

A passel of active volcanoes might contribute to that too...

 

[michaeledward]

A passel of active volcanoes might contribute to that too...

Indeed they might.

And a man who applies reason would probably conclude the variability of numbers of active volcanoes throughout the history of the planet has, quite probably remained within one or two standard deviations over time, and probably has not experienced a dramatic increase in the last century. If this is true, it would be erroneous, without additional evidence to the contrary, to bring this fact into a conversation concerning the rapid change in the amount of atmospheric carbon. For instead of bringing clarity, it just distracts from the facts known to impact that atmosphere that have experienced a dramatic increase in the last century.

 

[Xue Sheng]

A passel of active volcanoes might contribute to that too...

Volcanoes do a lot more than that and depending on the size of the eruption the effect is different. Small eruption not so bad, Yellowstone super Volcano very very bad. The Volume of ash has a BIG effect on the climate not to mention an immediate effect on the people on the ground

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Potential effects of volcanic gases
The volcanic gases that pose the greatest potential hazard to people, animals, agriculture, and property are sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen fluoride. Locally, sulfur dioxide gas can lead to acid rain and air pollution downwind from a volcano. Globally, large explosive eruptions that inject a tremendous volume of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere can lead to lower surface temperatures and promote depletion of the Earth's ozone layer. Because carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air, the gas may flow into in low-lying areas and collect in the soil. The concentration of carbon dioxide gas in these areas can be lethal to people, animals, and vegetation. A few historic eruptions have released sufficient fluorine-compounds to deform or kill animals that grazed on vegetation coated with volcanic ash; fluorine compounds tend to become concentrated on fine-grained ash particles, which can be ingested by animals.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Speaking of doing something, take a look at this
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=444375&topart=passenger