Reefkeepers Tackling Global Warming

[awestruck]

Ok, let's see if we can find some peace here. Undoubtedly, correlation is not the same as cause and effect. But, correlation is certainly a "heads up" to whatever is being studied. The variables in question certainly need to be explored to try to determine whether one or more are deemed causality or merely correlation. From all the reading I have done over the years, many experts seem to agree that global warming has a PLETHORA of contributing factors. Yes, overpopulation can be problematic for all sorts of reasons; and yes, lots and lots of roads and parking lots mean fewer and fewer green areas; and yes, the emissions of gunk into the air interferes with Mother Nature's oxygen and carbon dioxide exchanges. The issue of global warming is huge, frightening, and extremely difficult to understand. And, although my final statement is in no way scientific, please think about this: scientists may not know the exact affect that, let's say, cars/trucks/suv's have on our planet, but is it logical to say that emitting lots and lots of junk into our atmosphere IS NOT going to be, in some way, detrimental? I said this earlier, and I'll reiterate now--I'm glad that Leilani opened this thread--the effort is there and that effort is commedable.

 

[samtheman]

If you can't define the problem, you can't solve it. NO matter how hard you work. So is working on the wrong issues "commendable", or something else?

 

[awestruck]

Sam, I agree with you. Thus, are you making this statement: is global warming actually occurring or is the earth going through a natural cycle of warming?

 

[awestruck]

Sam, I had another thought and it's going to sound very mushy, but bear with me for a moment. I have a song on one of my CD's and one of the lines says that "no labor of love is ever in vain". So, if perhaps the understanding of global warming is incomplete or even incorrect, what I find commendable is "the labor of love"; the caring and the concern for our planet. To me, I guess that that in and of itself is to be commended.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8660444#post8660444 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman
If you can't define the problem, you can't solve it. NO matter how hard you work. So is working on the wrong issues "commendable", or something else?

Apparently you just have difficulty defining problems facing the planet. Believe me, there are plenty. Don't let the absence of black and white issues stop you from acting.

 

[awestruck]

Well said HippieSmell. :thumbsup: I guess it would be nice if everything was black n' white, but that's just not the way the world works. BTW, several months ago many, many scientists were speaking and concluded that YES, global warming is occurring and they are VERY concerned about its effects on planet earth.

 

[maddyfish]

Re: Reefkeepers Tackling Global Warming

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8400431#post8400431 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Leilani57
Hi All, Global warming is a serious threat to not only our every day living but to the marine environment we all love.

You state this as a fact, can you prove it? I thought it was still an theory.

 

[Shoestring Reefer]

Global warming is a myth, and cigarrettes don't really cause cancer, either. You're all just a bunch of paranoid hippies!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8591780#post8591780 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman
There is nothing but a correlation that suggests Global Warming has any manmade content. Consensus is not science.

You tell em, Sammy!

 

[HippieSmell]

Re: Re: Reefkeepers Tackling Global Warming

Re: Re: Reefkeepers Tackling Global Warming

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8676071#post8676071 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by maddyfish
You state this as a fact, can you prove it? I thought it was still an theory.

Even many "facts" that are regarded as being self evident never get a label past "theory". It doesn't make the theory incorrect. A simple google search will provide you with countless studies regarding the impact of GW on the oceans.

 

[Shoestring Reefer]

Maddyfish - Global warming has a mountain of supporting evidence. No credible scientist doubts that the earth is warming. The only real question is: are we making it worse?

One thing to point out is, the majority of solutions are either energy-conservation techniques that make long-term financial sense anyways, or also benefit the local environment. It's the short term financials that hurt.

I'd LOVE to install solar or wind power, and get off the grid. I'd help the environment, and over the course of 20 or 30 years I'd save money, I just can't afford it right now (and, I still rent, so...).

Raise your hand if you think people move to the city because they enjoy the smog. No? Then cutting auto emmisions 'aint such a bad thing. Cars are so much cleaner and run so much better than in 1969, they are just as fast, and get better fuel milage - and that's money in my pocket!

 

[samtheman]

"Maddyfish - Global warming has a mountain of supporting evidence. No credible scientist doubts that the earth is warming. The only real question is: are we making it worse?"

So if you don't join the Global Warming community, you are not credible. How is that? Global warming is not supported by evidence as is serious scientific theory. It is suported by a correlation that my not be the cause. Because "normal" science can't be utilized, a new type of arguement had to be invented to support it. It is called consensus. Not enough data to prove the point, so lets vote. How many votes and who gets to vote is not very well defined. If you don't agree you are not"credible". What a load!

 

[HippieSmell]

Ahhh, it's not "normal" science. What is normal science? Please, tell us. And again, you can't PROVE emissions are the cause of GW. You can only show that it's very, very likely a major contributor. It's the same process most decisions in life are based upon. It's not black and white, I'm sorry.

 

[HippieSmell]

Don't articles like this one (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1207-04.htm) make you wonder? Just a little?

 

[MCary]

Go get em Hippie! Back at it. I'm like you, after our little game of dueling data, I don't really have the heart to get back into this debate.

I wanted to stay out of it all together but I always have to jump in when people say things they really don't understand.

One thing to point out is, the majority of solutions are either energy-conservation techniques that make long-term financial sense anyways, or also benefit the local environment. It's the short term financials that hurt.

I'd LOVE to install solar or wind power, and get off the grid. I'd help the environment, and over the course of 20 or 30 years I'd save money, I just can't afford it right now (and, I still rent, so...).

Raise your hand if you think people move to the city because they enjoy the smog. No? Then cutting auto emmisions 'aint such a bad thing. Cars are so much cleaner and run so much better than in 1969, they are just as fast, and get better fuel milage - and that's money in my pocket!

Sorry Mike, I have to address what you said here. Maybe give you more to look up or think about.

The amount of energy that it takes to build a solar panel is more than the solar panel can produce in its lifetime. So if you get one you are only shifting the energy use from your house to the factory that builds them. Plus to have any significant impact on the countries energy need we'd need to cover an area about the size of Nevada.

One area I find interesting is wave and tide power. I still haven't educated myself enough to know whether is a good thing or a "feel good" thing yet.

Nothing makes financial long term sense. Oil is a cheap energy source. That's why its used. There are lots of alternative energy sources. Just none that we can afford. To give you an example of political priorities when it comes to money, if we take just 25% of the money that adherance to the Kyoto would cost us, we could feed and vaccinate every single person in Africa. We could end world hunger.

As far as cutting auto emmissions. We are pretty much at the point of diminishing returns. That is a point where the cost of doing something is way to high for the benefit recieved. Lets take some made up figures. Suppose a car put out 1000 ppm of pollutant X. The Govmint says to reduce emmissions of X by 50%. Now the car puts out 500 ppm of X and costs $1000 more. Now thats a significant improvement and can be argued that its a good thing. So the Gov says 50% more and the car maker puts out a car that only emmits 250ppm of X and costs $1000 more. You can see the progression, 125, 62, 31, 15, 7.5, 3.7..... at some point the benfits of reducing X is not going to be worth $1000.

Oh and Hippie, Normal or Hard science is one that can reproduced in a controlled environment.

Mike

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8726871#post8726871 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Oh and Hippie, Normal or Hard science is one that can reproduced in a controlled environment.

Mike

Lol, hi Mike, I was wondering if you would pipe in.

I guess you could call that "normal" science, but I might not. It's normal Western scientific method, but "science" is pretty vague and encompasses much, much more than that which can be reproduced in a lab.

As far as solar panels needing more energy to produce than they create is concerned, I would need to see where you got that data before I believe it. Sorry, you know how I am .

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8726871#post8726871 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
As far as cutting auto emmissions. We are pretty much at the point of diminishing returns. That is a point where the cost of doing something is way to high for the benefit recieved. Lets take some made up figures. Suppose a car put out 1000 ppm of pollutant X. The Govmint says to reduce emmissions of X by 50%. Now the car puts out 500 ppm of X and costs $1000 more. Now thats a significant improvement and can be argued that its a good thing. So the Gov says 50% more and the car maker puts out a car that only emmits 250ppm of X and costs $1000 more. You can see the progression, 125, 62, 31, 15, 7.5, 3.7..... at some point the benfits of reducing X is not going to be worth $1000.

Mike

I guess we should just get rid of cars that need gasoline, huh? We should go electric. Oh, wait, we tried that. It's odd that the oil companies didn't like it and dropped the hammer.

 

[MCary]

Your welcome to look up all the data you wish about solar panels. I did not bring them up to start a debate about there merits. Only to express the hurdles that need to be cleared to solve our energy needs. It isn't just as simple as switching to wind, solar, etc.

When you can get an electric car that goes 300 miles on a single charge, can recharge in 10 minutes, has recharging stations with convenience stores, goes 75 miles an hour, and costs less that $20,000 then you may have something.

Mike

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8733782#post8733782 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
When you can get an electric car that goes 300 miles on a single charge, can recharge in 10 minutes, has recharging stations with convenience stores, goes 75 miles an hour, and costs less that $20,000 then you may have something.

Mike

We are really, really close. It's like any "new" technology, it isn't quite for the masses yet, but it should have been there 10 years ago. The Volvo 3CC looks pretty nice, and just like most innovative cars, it isn't American (why is that?).

 

[MCary]

Yeah, I think it'll be great when they get those cars into mass production. Trouble is, for now they're like plasma TV's. When they came out they were 42 inches and cost $20,000. Now I see a 50 inch for $2000. When the new cars are finally produced at a decent cost and performance is improved, consumers may actually buy them. Fingers crossed.

I'm not a big environmentalist. My motivation is more into the greed and safety side of the argument. If we can reduce demand the price of oil will go down. I'll save money. And since terrorism is funded by oil, the explosions will be smaller. Win win.

Now if they could just develop a more economical airplane engine.

Mike

 

[JER-Z]

is global warming real? yes

did we cause it? I don't think so.

The earth is still coming out of an Ice Age...The glaciers started melting long before us humans were around.