Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Global Warming

Rate this topic


Guest Guest_guest_

Recommended Posts

Forget about finding an answer to whether global warming exists, or whether it is caused by humans, on a forum. This issue is highly politicized, to such a high degree that even scientists can't make sense of.

What if humans aren't contributing to global warming, not even 1%? Does this mean that global warming (IF it is occurring) apart from human activity is nothing to concern ourselves about?

As for biodiversity, the question, do you value organisms for their economic or aesthetic benefit? For ecosystem function (after all, they evolved for a reason)? Or simply because you like seeing them there?

I am fairly confident that even if global warming is taking place, ecosystems will continue to function just fine, but I am not an expert in this arena. I think you would need to do a lot of primary literature searches and critical reading to determine which types of organisms are affected (if at all) by global warming.

Just to keep things in perspective, something like 99% of the species that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct. Presumably, that's because the organisms in question were "too feeble" - i.e. not able to adapt quickly enough - to survive the environmental conditions that caused them to go extinct.

I am not confident that current rates of extinction have much to do with global warming, although that would be a concern for migration of organisms IF it were occurring and assuming the rate of change in climate were too fast for the organisms to move or adapt (say, seed plants that relied on wind for seed dispersal).

I think larger concern in terms of extinction is loss of habitat and alien introduction. Consider any species with a large home range that has gone (or is reputed to have gone) extinct. The problem is one of loss of habitat - for example, the ivory-billed woodpecker (believed to be extinct for 50 years, just recently re-discovered, maybe.... see Science).

A lot of other problems have come with introductions of alien species. Consider New Zealand, for example. Tons of bird species have gone extinct because it's a group of islands that have had no predators for the past 60-80 million years. The only native mammal is a bat. Therefore, a lot of flightless birds or birds that have not needed to evolve (or maintain) defenses went extinct after humans introduced rats, stoats, cats, and possums. The situation for birds is comparable in Hawaii because of the introduction of a non-native mosquito. American chestnut and American elm are pretty much non-existent in the United States for the same reason: introduction of non-native organisms by human activity.

There will continue to be a lot of things out there going extinct for as long as humans keep changing the world, moving around the world, and moving other organisms with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this topic should have had a poll?

From what I can tell, there is no convincing evidence (yet) to conclude that global warming due to human activity is a significant problem, or even that humans contribute.

A potential "danger" of global warming is biome shift, or the tendency for the earth's ecosystems to shift away from the equator.

A serious one would be the potential shutting down of some ocean currents. But I tend to believe that if more energy (heat) is added to a system there will probably be other warm water currents picking up somewhere else... In effect, it might get colder in some places and warmer in others.

There is also a lot of talk about the polar ice caps melting. I remember reading about the study which showed caps were melting in an article. The article said that the study was done on the peninsula of Antarctica that is near South America. This peninsula is surrounded by more water, and thus would tend to melt more than the main body that isn't as exposed. Counter-intuitively, the article asserts that warm weather tends to make it snow more at the polls, thus actually increasing the ice.

How about the benefits? Plants thrive on CO2, so more in the atmosphere might mean more vegetation.

All in all, Liriodendron Tulipifera has the right idea. Check out some studies, and be skeptical about what what people on this forum have to say.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a question of whether humans contribute to the carbon cycle. We do contribute. Denying human contribution is denying human respiration, human decomposition, etc., without even getting into the industrial factors. Every pound of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere through unnatural means is a pound of carbon dioxide that wouldn't have been released otherwise, or would have been released at a different point in time. What is questionable is whether or not our contribution is significant or not. If it is significant, then it's a question of whether or not it's dangerous. I think a poll would be nice, but I'd like to see it with a few different options. For instance:

Do you think human industrialization has added unnatural amounts of carbon into the carbon cycle? (I say yes)

Do you think the amounts of unnatural carbon are significant? (I'm leaning towards yes - I'm speaking from a geological background)

Do you think this significant contribution has led to or acted as a catalyst for global warming? (Again I lean towards yes)

Do you think global warming is dangerous? (This is where I'm not so sure)

[Mod note - Removed quote of entire previous post - sNerd]

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think human industrialization has added unnatural amounts of carbon into the carbon cycle? (I say yes)

What do you mean by "amounts?" Obviously, we add "amounts" of CO2 to the carbon cycle.

Do you think the amounts of unnatural carbon are significant? (I'm leaning towards yes - I'm speaking from a geological background)
No. The single volcanic event of Krakatoa caused more CO2 to be released than all human activity, period.

Do you think this significant contribution has led to or acted as a catalyst for global warming? (Again I lean towards yes)

No. This has yet to be proven and also yet to be asserted by any CREDIBLE source. Even the enviros say that if all human CO2 activity were to immediately cease, it would only make a difference of a degree or less in the next few hundred years. (that's if their claims AREN'T exaggerated)

Do you think global warming is dangerous? (This is where I'm not so sure)
Not in my lifetime, and not beyond it unless our economic growth is stangled by Environmentalists.

Do you think Environmentalists are dangerous? The economic harm they have wrought to our country is already massive. What's the price of gasoline? When was the last refinery built? When was the last nuclear power plant built? What's the price of land in California? How many have gone to jail for hurting some "endangered species" on their own property? How many hydroelectric dams have they blocked? How many SUV's have they burned? How many loggers have they maimed with tree spikes?

Etc, etc.

Check out some studies, and be skeptical about what what people on this forum have to say.

I'd be more skeptical of what the studies have to say. Environmentalists have said that they value propaganda over truth.

Read HERE for George Reisman's accurate take on it.

It would be a profound mistake to dismiss the repeatedly false claims of the environmentalists merely as a case of the little boy who cried wolf. They are a case of the wolf crying again and again about alleged dangers to the little boy. The only real danger is to listen to the wolf.

Direct evidence of the wilful dishonesty of the environmental movement comes from one of its leading representatives, Stephen Schneider, who is well-known for his predictions of global catastrophe. In the October 1989 issue of Discover magazine, he is quoted (with approval) as follows:

". . . To do this, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. This "double ethical bind" we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an ex-environmental activist (converted to Objectivism), global warming is a rather “hot" topic for me. In short, I think there is not sufficient data to support that human activities cause global climactic change theories. Yes, there is some evidence that MIGHT lean towards it. But based on my research, we would need many more years of solid research to be ABSOLUTELY sure. (Meanwhile, I won't buy all the hype.) Climactic changes happen over a long period of time, and we've only been measuring them first-hand for a relatively short period. I think most honest scientists would agree with that...and how we can measure INDISPUTABLY that it is all human's doings?

If it is occuring, would it be so horrific, or dismal as the textbooks would lead you to believe? I think not. Even if humans are causing global warming, It's not going to happen so fast that people are going to wake up and find their coastal dwellings suddenly flooded with melted snow caps. There will be plenty of time for people (and other species) to evacuate if need be (many years). As far as biodiversity, I don't know if we can ever conclude how much that would be altered. Which brings me to another point.

It seems that many environmentalists want to fight nature itself. Isn't it the very nature of nature to constantly evolve and change? In my experience, many environmentalists want the world to freeze the way it is (or was). They want to keep ecosystems permamently stable and pristinely constant in their idealistic view (should we revert to horse and carriages?). But that's not natural. Species come, species go -- some get better, some die off. It’s a fact of life...Extinctions will happen whether humans intervene or not (such as the dinosaurs). Nature is resilient. It will bounce back. Humans (when left to act freely) are resourceful and can adapt as well ...

The gloom and doom perspective of global warming part of political agenda in my view. So, yes, I agree that environmentalists are extremely dangerous. It seems ironic how environmentalist try to control nature, by controlling men. Isn't mankind a part of nature? I think so. As humans we must abide by the rules of nature, not the rules of men. That way nature will work itself out.

--Kari

"Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manmade Global Warming is, by it's very nature, a criticism leveled at man's existence and prosperity. It seeks to delegitimize man's existence on the planet by stating that our nature is incompatible with that of all things in nature. It is a contradiction in metaphysics, human beings are subsumed under the concept of nature, we sprang out of materials existing within the natural universe. (Even the staunchest of creationists accepts the fact that man is partially composed of otherwise non-living matter such as calcium).

The arguement is not merely that industrialization has caused a subjectivistic strawman known as man-made global warming, but that one of it's bi-products, increases in human population and life-span, is also contributing to it. It is the worst creed of man-hating on the planet, I fear them more than the Marxists, at least they can be reasoned with to a certain degree.

I concur with Inspector's assertion regarding the CO2 emissions of volcanoes, and would also like to add that Earth's orbit is not a perfect circle around the sun, but a varying oval that can shift depending upon any irregularities in solar activity. Furthermore, the sun does not burn at a constant, uniform rate, it has eruptions, sunspots, solar flairs, and other awesome phenomena of pyro-technics that can cause shifts in seasonal conditions.

When you consider the immensity of the universe, and all of the things going on in it that are 100% beyond our control at this time in our existence, that alone is enough to make the doomsday followers of Gaia worship appear as raving lunatics, but when you actually put some scientific scrutiny to it, (and I mean rational science, not voodoo science) you find that you need to create new words such as "moonbat" because "raving lunatic" just doesn't cover the insanity on full display.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had quite a large amount of classes about the use of bio-ethanol and other renewable fuels. Those things have become interesting to a lot of people because the carbon cycle is much shorter, about 10-100 years or so instead of something like 100 million years (for fossil fuels). For a long time, however, it was just not economically viable to use them; it was way too expensive to produce ethanol this way unless someone gave you the feedstock for free. It's been improving as gasoline prices rise, but some time ago we had to do a project on it, and the conclusion was that without some major subsidies it was just not competitive with gasoline or natural gas (which would harm the economy greatly)

One other thing is that to supply 10% of the US energy needs, that are currently provided for by oil (and various derivatives) you would need to use 40% of the available land as feedstock for your ethanol reactors! In other words, it is impossible to fully replace fossil fuels with renewable ones (and this doesn't even address the question of whether you would want to invest in that). It is possible to use waste material from other industries for this, but the processes are a lot more complicated, and expensive.

As the gasoline prices continue to rise there might come to be a time when it's cheaper to use bio-ethanol, but the fact of the matter is that it can't replace gasoline completely, even if they wanted to. Unless, that is, someone decides that humans should live in the sea, and we should use all the land we have for plants and make ethanol out of that :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read quite a few alarmist articles, too. I think it's kind of funny actually. Shortly after the new year, information was released that 2005 was the warmest year on record. Within days MSNBC kept running daily stories about how big industry is responsible. The fact is there is no evidence whatsoever that humans are responsible and, in fact, evidence suggests otherwise. Over the years every single claim made has been shot down by real science. Global cooling, the hole in the ozone, etc. Plus there is the fact that major climate changes, even if humans were responsible, would take hundreds of years to feel the effects.

As a sidenote, does anyone here listen to Rush? He has an interesting take on the whole environmentalist movement. He basically says that environmentalism is really just a disguised way of attacking Capitalism. This makes sense considering that most environmentalists are Socialists and rabidly anti-Capitalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We use ethanol as car fuel extesively in Brazil. With current oil prices, it's economically viable. Sometimes the international market for sugar pushes the price above gasoline (ethanol is derived from sugar cane here), sometimes not. The solution found was the "flex fuel" car - the electronic injection senses the mixture and adjusts the engine. These cars can run on ethanol mixed with gasoline in any proportion, you just buy whatever is cheaper.

The interesting thing is that flex fuel cars are a market solution. The governmental program that instituted ethanol powered cars after the oil chrisis of 1979 failed as soon as the market readjusted - despite subsidies, despite forbidding sugar cane growers' exportation of sugar (which had dbecome more profitable). This time around the industry acted first, and the solution actually works (wonder of wonders).

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it is done in Brazil, but for example here in Europe the raw materials needed to produce ethanol are much more expensive. I should have clarified that, however. It is probably a good idea to mix the two, if the engines can handle it, because you are more resistant to price fluctuations that way.

On another note, I think it's disgusting how the legislators over here decided that by 2020 20% (I think) of the fuel consumption should be bio-ethanol or other renewable fuels. One more example of government interference into the economy. And it's stupid, because the market will pretty much automatically adjust itself if gasoline gets far more expensive, you don't need some legislator to decide that for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a sidenote, does anyone here listen to Rush? He has an interesting take on the whole environmentalist movement. He basically says that environmentalism is really just a disguised way of attacking Capitalism. This makes sense considering that most environmentalists are Socialists and rabidly anti-Capitalist.
Rush is correct on that point, although he certainly isn't the first one to make it (Return of the Primitive - The Anti-Industrial Revolution).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the benefits? Plants thrive on CO2, so more in the atmosphere might mean more vegetation.

Doubtful. Carbon is not a limiting factor for plant growth. Nitrogen is. If plants (or plant-like protists such as algae) were responding to carbon because it was a limiting factor in their growth, we would not see an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide each year, all other factors being equal. We would either see the level of carbon dioxide remaining constant or decreasing.

See the attached graph post-1767-1143228660_thumb.gifof carbon dioxide levels since they began to be measured at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, starting in 1959. I found this on NOAA's website.

From what I can find on the internet (this is not a primary source and I don't know how the data were collected), the level of atmospheric CO2 does not seem to have gone above 300 ppm in the past 400,000 years. See this site:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Even so, the picture is complicated by the fact that other "greenhouse gases" are out there, such as methane and water vapor, and each would have a different contribution, depending on their concentration and "heat trapping capacity" - for lack of a better term, to global warming.

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Lirio.

Reading this thread has prompted me to peruse a chapter of The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg. I recommend the book to anyone who is looking for a rational approach to many environmental/health issues. It is written for laymen like myself, but has all manner of fancy references and charts, including a 70 page bibliography, for the more learned.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lirio:

Do they make these determinations regarding atmospheric levels of CO2 by measuring it in air bubbles trapped within ice flows or are there other methods? Is that a reliable way to measure CO2 levels?

Yes, that is the way it is done, and recent evidence from Science appears to indicate it is an accurate method. Apparently, the data from Antarctic and Arctic ice cores are surprisingly comparable. See this site, which gives a summary of two Science articles and links to the original ones:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221

Now, as for estimates of CO2 PRE-600,000 years ago, I really have no idea how this is done. I've read things like "the early atmosphere was 80% carbon dioxide." I have no idea how those levels are arrived at, but I would like to know!

Just to keep perspective, I remember reading somewhere that CO2 levels inside that biosphere thing they constructed with the humans living inside for several years sometimes reached 3800ppm. I believe that is the figure. Obviously, CO2 levels must reach much, much higher levels before they are actually directly harmful to human health. I don't even know what that level is, but I believe there are some articles dealing with it.

Also, y'all can just call me Monica in future threads. :thumbsup: Liriodendron tulipifera's a bit of a handful. It's kind of a joke. A good friend of mine calls himself Aesculus after his favorite tree, the buckeye. The yellow poplar, or tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera) is my favorite, because of its strange leaves and flowers. Hence the name.

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that is the way it is done, and recent evidence from Science appears to indicate it is an accurate method.

Then Science is wrong. I have heard all over the place that the ice-core methods used are fundamentally flawed. Here's just one example: http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

Here's another, by Michael Crichton: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/...es_quote08.html

And here's a summary of Crichton and others: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...17/154853.shtml

I can't believe that anyone here is taking these cranks seriously. Shame on anyone who does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Science is wrong. I have heard all over the place that the ice-core methods used are fundamentally flawed. Here's just one example: http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

Here's another, by Michael Crichton: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/...es_quote08.html

And here's a summary of Crichton and others: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...17/154853.shtml

I can't believe that anyone here is taking these cranks seriously. Shame on anyone who does.

You sound like you've already made up your mind... You've heard all over the place? Then where? You can't send two websites that lack bibliographical references, one that's based on a website that looks worse than one I made in high school and expect me to take THAT seriously. And can you reference your statement regarding Krakatoa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sound like you've already made up your mind... You've heard all over the place? Then where? You can't send two websites that lack bibliographical references, one that's based on a website that looks worse than one I made in high school and expect me to take THAT seriously. And can you reference your statement regarding Krakatoa?

Yes, I've made up my mind: Environmentalists are bloody liars and are not to be trusted. All data submitted by Environmentalists is rejected as invalid in the same way and for the same reason as the "scientific" conclusions of Islamic clerics. Did you read Reisman's article? How about every statement ever made about Environmentalism in Objectivist literature? :P

No, I am sorry I cannot reference my source for Krakatoa; I only remember enough to know it was a credible source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Science is wrong. I have heard all over the place that the ice-core methods used are fundamentally flawed. Here's just one example: http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

Here's another, by Michael Crichton: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/...es_quote08.html

And here's a summary of Crichton and others: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...17/154853.shtml

Science is one of the two biggest scientific journals out there (the other being Nature). While it is very much possible that the paper in Science is flawed and wrong (after all, the stem cell research by the Korean Scientist Hwang was flawed too), you can't refute an international publication by citing pop-sci books or a few websites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All data submitted by Environmentalists is rejected as invalid...

OK. Now, how do you decide whether someone is an environmentalist? On an ad hoc basis, simply because you don't like the data they've presented? :P

Gotta love this cartoon: http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/db/2006/03/05/index.html

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are my answers to some of your questions, NewYorkRoark.

Do you think human industrialization has added unnatural amounts of carbon into the carbon cycle? It depends. What do you mean by "unnatural?" If man is considered part of nature, no. If by unnatural, you mean pumping carbon out of the ground and releasing it at a very fast rate compared to what has happened in the past 400,000 years, yes. For a good explanation of how we know that the recent rise in CO2 levels is anthropogenic, see this link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Do you think the amounts of unnatural carbon are significant? Well, sure, I would guess it is statistically significant, if all you mean by that is there's been a 30% or so rise since last century. As for significance to global warming or whether the two are related, I don't think anyone has that answer.

Do you think this significant contribution has led to or acted as a catalyst for global warming? Maybe. A year ago I would have said, "Definitely, yes!" But now that I've done more reading on the issue I'm not so sure. Scientists can't seem to agree on it, from what I can see.

Science is a human enterprise, and as such, one's ideology pr religion or the desire for money, fame, recognition, etc. can get in the way of figuring out what the facts are. However, you can't just dismiss any scientific article as garbage simply because you don't like what it says. Primary literature is peer-reviewed by fellow scientists and editors, which means that other people in the field (often people who are rivals of sorts) have to approve of the paper before it can be published in a scientific journal. Primary literature is really the best that we have in terms of determining what the truth is. TommyEdison is right. Some junk gets through, but guess where the papers proving that it's junk are published? You guessed it - another primary source, usually the same journal so it can be read by everyone who read the junk paper.

The journal Science is a primary source. The journal of the Sierra Club is not. Neither is Scientific American. You don't have to have a PhD to publish scientific papers. As long as your data and reasoning are good, as deemed by others in the field, you can publish something. There are a lot of brilliant scientists who only have a bachelor's or master's degree.

Likewise, having a PhD (Michael Crichton does have a PhD) doesn't make what you say authoritative, just because you say so. As for Michael Crichton, I don't know what his credentials are other than he is associated with Hollywood and is a novelist. I'm not saying this to be a smart-ass. He is obviously a very clever person. I'm just pointing out that none of what has been presented in this thread as being written or spoken by him is primary literature.

Now, having said all of this, the website that I am citing in this post is not primary literature. I happened across it by googling. However, the authors rely heavily on primary literature for their postings, most of them have written many peer-reviewed articles in this field, many posts are contributed by many scientists in the field (not just one person), and the group does not appear to have an ideology that is creating a bias in their work or their interpretation of the scientific literature. They also appear to be quite open to debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read quite a few alarmist articles, too. I think it's kind of funny actually. Shortly after the new year, information was released that 2005 was the warmest year on record. Within days MSNBC kept running daily stories about how big industry is responsible. The fact is there is no evidence whatsoever that humans are responsible and, in fact, evidence suggests otherwise. Over the years every single claim made has been shot down by real science. Global cooling, the hole in the ozone, etc. Plus there is the fact that major climate changes, even if humans were responsible, would take hundreds of years to feel the effects.

As a sidenote, does anyone here listen to Rush? He has an interesting take on the whole environmentalist movement. He basically says that environmentalism is really just a disguised way of attacking Capitalism. This makes sense considering that most environmentalists are Socialists and rabidly anti-Capitalist.

I listen to him from time to time, he is preferrable to the boring crap I see on the television news networks. (Even Fox News is starting to get on my nerves) His arguement that the environmentalists are actually just anti-capitalists is an accurate observation. Unlike the original Greens that spawned from Europe, America's entire left movement has been in a state of evolution and malformation based on the power of their opposition. Essentially the environmentalist movement in America is a mutant offspring of the failure of American socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His arguement that the environmentalists are actually just anti-capitalists is an accurate observation. Unlike the original Greens that spawned from Europe, America's entire left movement has been in a state of evolution and malformation based on the power of their opposition. Essentially the environmentalist movement in America is a mutant offspring of the failure of American socialism.

I've heard Walter Block (Austrian economist) call them watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...