Is Global Warming real?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Will the legislation help, you believe that it does, and maybe it will, but I don't really buy into that.

Not only do I believe it, there is proof. Right now, average MPG for cars is on an upwards slope, in large part because of regulations mandating automakers improve their fleet's MPG. In the 1970s, we actually had declining fleet MPG averages. The less fuel we use for the same task, the better off we are.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...y_has_made_stunning_progress_in_the_past.html

The same goes for industrial pollutants: regulations in the USA have reduced emissions and improved air & water quality. See Los Angeles...because now that its smog has been reduced, you can. Europe has seen improvements as well- acid rain, for instance, is no longer eroding the architecture of Eastern Europe like it did in the 1980s.

Besides we're liable to be destroyed in any number of ways (over population, meteor strike, pandemic) before Earth becomes another Venus - we're doomed anyway, but as long as that isn't during my lifetime, I'll keep it out of my thoughts.

Earth becoming Venus isn't immanent, no. But why continue taking steps in that direction?

 

[Umbran]

especially when you consider that the amount of pollution caused by volcanic eruptions are greater than the amount caused by human action each year

That isn't true.

"According to a summary of evidence by the U.S. Geological Survey, the entire collection of volcanoes around the world emits an average of 0.26 gigatons of CO2 per year. (A gigaton is equal to one billion metric tons.) Humans today, on the other hand, emit over 30 gigatons every year, from power plants and factories, cars and airplanes, agriculture, and other activities."

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/huckabees-hot-air-on-volcanoes/

 

[gamerprinter]

I'm not advocating to continue the practices that will doom us. That said, US legislation does nothing for the pollution in Asia, Middle East, or other up-in-coming industrial powers. I'll agree that the US is the largest consumer, thus the largest polluter historically, so its good that we are trying to curb that here. I just have very little faith that it will or can be controlled globally. If we all lived like the Amish, maybe we could actually stop it all, but who really wants to be Amish...?

 

[gamerprinter]

That isn't true.

"According to a summary of evidence by the U.S. Geological Survey, the entire collection of volcanoes around the world emits an average of 0.26 gigatons of CO2 per year. (A gigaton is equal to one billion metric tons.) Humans today, on the other hand, emit over 30 gigatons every year, from power plants and factories, cars and airplanes, agriculture, and other activities."

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/huckabees-hot-air-on-volcanoes/

That was already pointed out, a couple posts ago. Again, I'm not a scientist, so I'm not looking at either the promoters nor naysayers. Its not that I don't care, but since I can't do anything about it personally (I already minimize my automobile driving to practically 2 miles per day on most days), I don't really worry about it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not advocating to continue the practices that will doom us. That said, US legislation does nothing for the pollution in Asia, Middle East, or other up-in-coming industrial powers. I'll agree that the US is the largest consumer, thus the largest polluter historically, so its good that we are trying to curb that here. I just have very little faith that it will or can be controlled globally. If we all lived like the Amish, maybe we could actually stop it all, but who really wants to be Amish...?

We aren't alone in our regulatory attempts. Even China has stepped up its anti-pollution game in the last decade.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...o-unveil-180-billion-anti-pollution-plan.html

And developing nations benefit from our efforts, too. They're able to buy into anti-pollution technologies demanded by our regulations after we've spent the money adopting and perfecting them. This lets them skip tech generations and avoid problems we had to wrestle with at the same stages if development as they are now.

 

[Ryujin]

I've seen this a few times in this thread some people say that volcanoes release more CO2 in the air than us. It ain't true.

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/volcanoes-still-not-source-increasing-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere/

And even if it was (which it isn't), the question of balance comes into play. If the Earth was in balance, between CO2 emissions and plant life, we've royally screwed that balance. What we don't know is if we've screwed it up past the tipping point yet.

 

[Ryujin]

I don't know, I'm not a scientist, and one can easily find 2 scientists that don't agree with each other on any matter. Will the legislation help, you believe that it does, and maybe it will, but I don't really buy into that. Besides we're liable to be destroyed in any number of ways (over population, meteor strike, pandemic) before Earth becomes another Venus - we're doomed anyway, but as long as that isn't during my lifetime, I'll keep it out of my thoughts.

Well you certainly can find two scientists who don't agree on climate change. The thing is that you might have to go through 53 scientists who agree with the first, before you could find that one who actually disagrees. Scientists who disagree with global warming and who also don't have an axe to grind are scarce as hen's teeth.

 

[gamerprinter]

Well I'm not looking at any scientists for any reasons about any subject, so what they agree or disagree about is beyond my concern. I will quietly drop out of this thread now...

 

[Janx]

But that's not quite how it works. While the organism as a whole may live some number of years, no individual cell lives that long - so no individual molecule of DNA has to exist for that long. Each time the cell divides, there's a maintenance on the DNA, where errors or degradation can be corrected.

This, on top of how the living cell environment actively eliminates things that damage DNA, when a dead cell does not. It'd be reasonable to say that half-life number does not apply to DNA in cells that are still actively maintaining homeostasis.

It is like... typically, an abandoned house will crumble after so many years. But it won't crumble at all if someone is living in it and maintaining it.

and that's why I asked the question...

 

[Umbran]

Well I'm not looking at any scientists for any reasons about any subject...

And that's a problem. You see, "I'm not a scientist" is not an excuse. If you are not a scientist, then you can learn to listen to scientists, and not pundits! We live in a technological society. Science literacy is necessary to make appropriate decisions. Those decisions can and will impact each of us, in our lifetimes.

I mean, if you want to give up, turn off, and tune out, that's your choice. But the rest of us are probably going to shove you out of the way rudely, because there's some urgency involved.

As for "nothing we can do" - How about "have the entire planet powered by sustainable sources in 20 to 40 years" strike you as, "something"?

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html