Arctic Ice Lowest in Recorded History

[Pani]

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/070810194355.ivrq9kyg.html

This, and glacier loss is VERY scary. This is what should be splashed all over the headlines. No chance with corporate owned media. What was the top story in the Chicago Sun Times this weekend? Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitts visit to Chicago. Obscene that should be headlines when we are on the verge of so many crises. I am very glad I never had children because I would be SO scared for their future.

p.s. I don't just cry about global warming, I actually gave up my car out of concern for future generations. Yes world, there are Americans who are not so effete we can't make sacrifices!

[CortexRock]

The key phrase here being "in recorded history"... which in terms of the existence of planet Earth is comparable to the volume of a gnat's fart in a hot air balloon.

Nobody knows with any degree of certainty whether global warming/climate change is a side-effect of human action, or merely what was going to happen anyway.

[pdpfilms]

Nobody knows with any degree of certainty whether global warming/climate change is a side-effect of human action, or merely what was going to happen anyway.

It is SO sad that people can tell themselves this.

Have you attended a single environmental studies class?

EDIT: And Pani, way to go. I haven't yet been able to separate myself from my car (it's a bit tough when you live in a place like Vermont and Montana), but I drive a vegetable-oil powered VW. It's a good feeling to know you're carbon neutral and using a product that would otherwise go straight into the dump as a fuel.

[CortexRock]

For the record, I walk or cycle to work every day, and I recycle about 50% of my household rubbish. I could probably do more, but what I do is more than some.

It will take a lot more than environmental studies lectures (which are based on opinion and research paid for 99% of the time by the corporate responsibility budget of multinational companies, or by political pressure groups like Greenpeace with an axe to grind) to convince me that climate change is solely the responsibility of human beings.

Anyone else notice how 'global warming' has mutated into 'climate change' over the past couple of years? Could this be to account for the research which shows temperatures dropping in some areas?

[crackpip]

For the record, I walk or cycle to work every day, and I recycle about 50% of my household rubbish. I could probably do more, but what I do is more than some.

That is cool. The world would be a much better place if more people did the same. I'm living in a place with little in the way of recycling. It's hard to get anyone to care about such issues when the desert makes an easy, cheap dumping ground. Also everything here is very spread out. It's more than 30 miles over a mountain pass to where I work. Fortunately this is all just temporary.

It will take a lot more than environmental studies lectures (which are based on opinion and research paid for 99% of the time by the corporate responsibility budget of multinational companies, or by political pressure groups like Greenpeace with an axe to grind) to convince me that climate change is solely the responsibility of human beings.

As opposed to what? Where else are you getting your information? From scientists willing to take money from Exxon-Mobile if they can find a way to refute the IPCC? How would you even be able to tell if a source is unbiased? Also what kind of level of certainty would "convince" you? 70%? 80%? I find that people often form their opinion first and look for data to support their opinion. It is this very fact that has proven so easy to exploit by the corporations which would like to keep the status quo. Taking a page from the cigarette companies, they sow doubt in the public media and try to pay off scientists willing to provide a nice quote (like 3 in 4 doctors prefer Camel cigarettes).

Anyone else notice how 'global warming' has mutated into 'climate change' over the past couple of years? Could this be to account for the research which shows temperatures dropping in some areas?

Yes, this was a deliberate name change because the propaganda machine of the "doubters" would latch onto any piece of data that showed cooling in some locality and put out a sound-bite that it was proof that global warming didn't exist. Global warming was always about climate change, the global average is getting warmer, but that doesn't mean that every square inch on the planet is getting warmer. For example, the poles are warming faster than near the equator, but again this is an average over each line of latitude. There are also other characteristics to account for: topography, ocean currents, moisture currents. It is all a very complex problem, which why most of the details are in terms of statistical results. These statistical figures usually vary less rapidly (i.e. more predictable), but are harder to express in simple, direct quotes suitable for public consumption.

crackpip

[xUKHCx]

I've recently done lots of research into climate change/global warming, i read through a lot of documents over at sciencedirect.com et al. So this article just adds to the long list.

The end result of the research, well it is all still open to massive debate. My favourite quote "requiring knowledge in several fields such as astronomy and astrophysics, atmospheric dynamics and microphysics, isotope geochemistry and geochronology, as well as geophysics, paleoceanography and glaciology." (Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun?” Bard, Edouard, Bard, Frank Martin, 09/06/2006 page 1). And those are needed just for this small area of interest. It really highlights the problems associated with understanding climate change. The interdependencies between all the sciences and small environmental impacts are so intricate it simply not possible to understand the causes at this time. Also the sheer number of scientists involved become overwhelming. For example in one specific case some scientists show that the sun is behind 30% approx of global warming whereas others show that it has no affect. It is a sum of a lot of causes. Also another point up for massive debate is the actual level of human produce Carbon dioxide compared to decaying vegetation, cattle, volcanoes etc. It is far too complex for someone on the outside to be able to judge the correct response and probably even harder for someone on the inside.

There is some good even if the end result is that global warming is cyclic/natural as some propose. The more efficient use of resources.

[Airforce]

p.s. I don't just cry about global warming, I actually gave up my car out of concern for future generations. Yes world, there are Americans who are not so effete we can't make sacrifices!

I'm about a mile and a half from where I work. I thought about selling my car when I got here, but then thought to myself..."The jets I'm going to work for burn more fuel in a day than I will in a lifetime." Gave up on that idea pretty damn fast ;)

[CortexRock]

As xUKHCx says, unless you've got multi-disciplinary science degrees, the chances are you won't understand what the issues are anyway.

I'll admit I haven't done a lot (if any) research about the reality (or not) of climate change. But I reckon I probably fit into a fairly large category of people who feel the same way as I do.

I consider myself 'concerned' about the environment, but confused about what I can do (other than the recycling of household waste and not using the car to get to work).

Any promotion of an issue this complicated is going to polarise opinions and rely on a certain level of 'willing belief' in a theory for that promotion to be successful.

I'm not looking for absolutely irrefutable proof, just some evidence that doesn't have more holes in it than the plot of a Michael Bay movie. ;)

[Dagless]

I haven't even bothered taking driving lessons as I can't see myself buying a car for a long time, I don't even cycle. It takes me 35 minutes to walk the 2 mile journey to work, there's a Co-op and plenty of other shops near my house. I take the bus to town and that's about it! I don't do this through ¨climate change¨ but more for my own health, which I suppose is a little selfish but has a benefit on the environment too.

Oh, and low power computers/laptops. TV on my computer rather than on a large TV. Use headphones over speakers and I use my handheld consoles more than my regular consoles.

[Counterfit]

I don't drive my car to work.





I'm also unemployed, but hey. :D

[bigandy]

Until we run out of resources such as oil and gas (which may take a while now there's this race for ownership of the North Pole), we're not going to see any big changes. In my view.

I wish I could take public transport to work, but I've just landed a job 45 miles from my house. I live 2min walk to the train station, but via train the morning commute would take 3hrs instead of just over 30min. :eek:

It's a sad truth, I think, but it's going to take some big disasters - hitting corporations and such, before anyone really takes note. :(

[cantthinkofone]

The key phrase here being "in recorded history"... which in terms of the existence of planet Earth is comparable to the volume of a gnat's fart in a hot air balloon.

Nobody knows with any degree of certainty whether global warming/climate change is a side-effect of human action, or merely what was going to happen anyway.

Well put. How many years have we been recording temperatures? or how long have we even be able too? 500 years maybe? So that is a "nats fart in a balloon". When was the last ice age? About 10K years ago? I watched a show on ancient earth and what i found interesting that i didn't know was they said the climate on earth back in the pre-historic age didn't change much. temperatures were probably around 80 degrees F, and winter was almost non existent.

Maybe this is how the earth works. We are warming up from a severe cool down. Hell, in 10k or more years they might be saying "OH MY GOD!!! ALL THESE LOW EMISSION VEHICLES ARE REEKING HAVOC ON THE ATMOSPHERE!!! ITS COOLING THE EARTH DOWN TO MUCH!!".

And i love how everybody is using "global warming" as the explanation to the problems in the world. Every storm, every heat wave, every ice storm. The stock market plunges, you're boss is an ******* to you once in a while, you're kid gets sick, etc etc.

Its part of life people, if you feel the need to break down and cry because the guy on the street corner told you you were going to die, well they have places and people to help you.

[Nuc]

While I'm a very strong believer is saving the environment. Isn't it true that one (rather large) eruption from a volcano causes more release than all the gas we have burned since the gas engine was first used? It think the emissions are pretty close but I'm not sure. Anyways just food for thought.

Nuc

[pdpfilms]

It's a sad truth, I think, but it's going to take some big disasters - hitting corporations and such, before anyone really takes note. :(
Unfortunately, you're 100% correct.

In so many fields, the world does not operate on a "pre-event" program, but rather a "post-event" one. Until corporations actually start losing money, they won't change their practices. It's unfortunately often the same way for governments, though some world organizations have been at least making efforts in anticipation of things to come. I just hope the "event" isn't too world-breaking.

Just as Pearl Harbor initiated a response in even the most liberal Americans, and Katrina brought our attention to lacking disaster response programs. Unfortunately, the time scale of climate change isn't as instant and not nearly as shocking. When something so shockingdoes end up occurring, we'll already be neck-deep.

------------

On a side note, why do people so strongly oppose the concept of becoming a little more environmentally friendly? If it's not climate change, it's waterway pollution, species eradication, overdevelopment. There are so many things that we've been doing wrong for a long time, and this is a great opportunity to clean up our act. How can one sincerely oppose that?

EDIT: Nuc, I'd love to see some data on this, if you can find it. That would be a great thing to discuss.

[crackpip]

Well put. How many years have we been recording temperatures? or how long have we even be able too? 500 years maybe? So that is a "nats fart in a balloon". When was the last ice age? About 10K years ago? I watched a show on ancient earth and what i found interesting that i didn't know was they said the climate on earth back in the pre-historic age didn't change much. temperatures were probably around 80 degrees F, and winter was almost non existent.

Well what periods of prehistory? Obviously there was an ice-age around 10k years ago. That's a pretty big climate change from say early Egypt. But, yes since then things have been relatively stable.

There is a lot more data than just written temperature records spanning the last couple hundred years. There are tree rings, isotope concentrations in ice cores and sea sediments, fossile records, magnetic signatures. There are quite a few things that are used as proxies. They calibrate them based on data from the present or recent history.

The thing about this climate change stuff is that it isn't so much about absolutes like how warm it is compared to how warm it's been in the past (even though the media often portrays it this way), it's more about rates. We're pumping large amounts of CO2 into the air, the amount of CO2 is still a lot less than during the hothouse climate of the early Eocene. But the rate of increase appears to be unprecedented. What's more is that there is more evidence about rapid shifts in climate as several effects combine to form a feedback loop i.e. temps warm, more highly reflective sea ice melts, the oceans absorb more solar radiation, temps warm... There is a scientific consensus that this is a problem and we're playing a major part in it.

And i love how everybody is using "global warming" as the explanation to the problems in the world. Every storm, every heat wave, every ice storm. The stock market plunges, you're boss is an ******* to you once in a while, you're kid gets sick, etc etc.

Your hyperbole aside, this issue has permeated popular media. Now everyone has a strong opinion pumped into them by some news media outlet. The journalists are looking for sensationalist quotes, which of course drastically oversimplify the issues. Then the opposite side begins a rebuttal based on the oversimplified quotes, and soon we have a vicious cycle of dumber and dumber discourse. This even catches the scientists in it as well. There are scientists who have made great contributions, yet even they may cherry pick evidence and resist the tide of change like some old guy sitting on his porch complaining that a bottle of coke is no longer a nickel.

While I'm a very strong believer is saving the environment. Isn't it true that one (rather large) eruption from a volcano causes more release than all the gas we have burned since the gas engine was first used? It think the emissions are pretty close but I'm not sure. Anyways just food for thought.

I did some checking on this a few years ago when I was a graduate student. Mostly what we are worried about in the anthropogenic climate change argument is CO2. While volcanoes may put out more gases in general, and I'm sure more aerosols, it appears that the CO2 produced by all volcanic processes is actually less than the man-made CO2. I don't have the article anymore, and I don't have access to the geosciences library like I did as a student. But, this budget calculation included the Pinatubo eruption, which was a large one.

Oh man, I'm rambling, hopefully I'll be more coherent in the future.

crackpip

[cantthinkofone]

Well what periods of prehistory? Obviously there was an ice-age around 10k years ago. That's a pretty big climate change from say early Egypt. But, yes since then things have been relatively stable.

There is a lot more data than just written temperature records spanning the last couple hundred years. There are tree rings, isotope concentrations in ice cores and sea sediments, fossile records, magnetic signatures. There are quite a few things that are used as proxies. They calibrate them based on data from the present or recent history.

The thing about this climate change stuff is that it isn't so much about absolutes like how warm it is compared to how warm it's been in the past (even though the media often portrays it this way), it's more about rates. We're pumping large amounts of CO2 into the air, the amount of CO2 is still a lot less than during the hothouse climate of the early Eocene. But the rate of increase appears to be unprecedented. What's more is that there is more evidence about rapid shifts in climate as several effects combine to form a feedback loop i.e. temps warm, more highly reflective sea ice melts, the oceans absorb more solar radiation, temps warm... There is a scientific consensus that this is a problem and we're playing a major part in it.



Your hyperbole aside, this issue has permeated popular media. Now everyone has a strong opinion pumped into them by some news media outlet. The journalists are looking for sensationalist quotes, which of course drastically oversimplify the issues. Then the opposite side begins a rebuttal based on the oversimplified quotes, and soon we have a vicious cycle of dumber and dumber discourse. This even catches the scientists in it as well. There are scientists who have made great contributions, yet even they may cherry pick evidence and resist the tide of change like some old guy sitting on his porch complaining that a bottle of coke is no longer a nickel.



crackpip

i'm not sure of the time period. one of the ages in which dinosaurs lived. i can't find a list of the prehistoric ages, know where i can find one? The years of dinosaurs are so veg, i mean what is a few million years? :p

I don't really understand you're second part fully. Are you saying its kind of like how somebody would say "this person said this about you" and then the go to the other side and say the same thing and start a feud between two people who had nothing against each other?

And to the old guy on the porch, i would ask how much he makes now compared to how much he made when coke was a nickel. i hear it every time i go into the grocery store, "i remember when bread was 10 cents a loaf!" yea and they told you smoking was good for you too. Times change...

[crackpip]

I don't really understand you're second part fully. Are you saying its kind of like how somebody would say "this person said this about you" and then the go to the other side and say the same thing and start a feud between two people who had nothing against each other?

I guess I'm saying that much of the debate is happening in the public forum. In the public forum debate isn't so much about who has the best evidence, it's about who can provide the best quote, the best sound-bite. The issue is debated in terms isolated details, which are supposed to refute the entire theory. It's more about PR firms battling rather scientists really considering all aspects of the issue.

And to the old guy on the porch, i would ask how much he makes now compared to how much he made when coke was a nickel. i hear it every time i go into the grocery store, "i remember when bread was 10 cents a loaf!" yea and they told you smoking was good for you too. Times change...

The most famous example of what I was trying to express is Einstein's dislike of quantum mechanics. A brilliant scientist, he really opposed the statistical nature of QM from a fundamental bias, "God does not play dice with the Universe." Despite his objections QM has become the most successful scientific theory ever in terms of observations matching predictions. In other words, even great scientists can fall prey to their own biases.

crackpip

[cantthinkofone]

The most famous example of what I was trying to express is Einstein's dislike of quantum mechanics. A brilliant scientist, he really opposed the statistical nature of QM from a fundamental bias, "God does not play dice with the Universe." Despite his objections QM has become the most successful scientific theory ever in terms of observations matching predictions. In other words, even great scientists can fall prey to their own biases.

crackpip

:D so true. i love what that guy said before the first nuclear test..."we're not real sure if this won't destroy the atmosphere or not".

And then there is string theory and how they want to learn how twist and mold the universe. some people can't be pleased. if you ask me, these will be the people to destroy us.

[OutThere]

The ignorance of some people in this thread makes me sick.

Yes there are natural cycles in global average temperature, no they do not explain the extreme rate of change that we have observed in the last century.

You don't have to have an advanced degree in multiple specialties to understand the basics, though if you did, you'd know that no reputable climate scientist would argue that what we're witnessing is not a grave situation, or that we don't have enough evidence to make strong conclusions and take immediate action.

[pdpfilms]

degree in multiple specialties to understand the basics, though if you did, you'd know that no reputable climate scientist would argue that what we're witnessing is not a grave situation, or that we don't have enough evidence to make strong conclusions and take immediate action.

can you say run on sentence with triple negatives? :)

don't mean to weaken your argument, it was just hard to understand. continue, sir.

EDIT: And I'm sorry, but Cortex- university courses are not in ANY WAY politically motivated, based in opinion, or paid for by corporations. You're totally incorrect on that note.

[Mr. Anderson]

The ignorance of some people ....

Yes there are natural cycles in global average temperature, no they do not explain the extreme rate of change that we have observed in the last century.


Aside from all of that, the paleoclimate record goes back 10s of thousands of years. Ice cores at GISP2 in Greenland go all the way back 110,000 years. Temperature records are all there well before humans had any impact on the planet.


Its better to dig around for the truth and not just listen to what's easiest or what you want to hear. Humans have made impacts on the planet well before the 20th century and we're going to continue to until something breaks. We can put a stop on it, but I don't think people will really start making a difference until it gets worse.

I just feel for my kids and the planet we're leaving to them.

D

[A Pittarelli]

i agree mr anderson, the effects of humans have been effecting the earth for thousands of years - but right now its the worse and when something breaks something will have to be done. unfortunately nothing real will get done until someone stands to make a lot of money doing ti

[ghall]

Hey all! I just wanted to thank the previous generations for such a well kept planet. I'm so glad that nothing bad could possibly be happening to the environment. :rolleyes:

[OutThere]

can you say run on sentence with triple negatives? :)

don't mean to weaken your argument, it was just hard to understand. continue, sir.

EDIT: And I'm sorry, but Cortex- university courses are not in ANY WAY politically motivated, based in opinion, or paid for by corporations. You're totally incorrect on that note.

Haha I was watching the Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Company_%28TV_miniseries%29) on TV. The limits of my multitasking skill are rather obvious.

Aside from all of that, the paleoclimate record goes back 10s of thousands of years. Ice cores at GISP2 in Greenland go all the way back 110,000 years. Temperature records are all there well before humans had any impact on the planet.

The wealth of data stored in layers around the globe is absolutely fascinating. I wrote a hefty lab last year just on the Younger Dryas period, a 1300 year cooling that happened ~12,000 years ago. The way it and other such periods are recorded in the geological record tells us so much about the way the earth's climate system changes. There's some amazing stuff available online: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html

For the less raw-data inclined, I find http://realclimate.org/ to be an excellent blog.

They posted a bit on the arctic sea ice the other day, with an especially telling graphic of the sea ice coverage (in purple):
http://realclimate.org/images/19790905.pnghttp://realclimate.org/images/arctic_aug907.jpg

[megfilmworks]

It is changing fast but I think we should all remember:
Man is not destroying the environment.
The environment will be just fine.
Man is just destroying his ability to survive in this environment.
The ultimate payback.

[nplima]

Anyone else notice how 'global warming' has mutated into 'climate change' over the past couple of years? Could this be to account for the research which shows temperatures dropping in some areas?

Yes, this was a deliberate name change because the propaganda machine of the "doubters" would latch onto any piece of data that showed cooling in some locality and put out a sound-bite that it was proof that global warming didn't exist.

yes and no. the way I understand this whole issue (and Al Gore's presentation) is that regardless of the specifics of how the biosphere will cope with the extra CO and CO2, there will be more energy from the Sun trapped inside the atmosphere. So it's not only a matter of average temperatures inside the atmosphere, but there are also important concerns about the variance associated with such average. Since severe weather conditions which occur when big masses of hot air meet big masses of cold air, having greater temperature oscillations can only mean trouble.

Another important point is that there are sea currents that may be affected, thus causing regional climates to change in unpredictable ways. one example is that Lisbon (Portugal) is at the same latitude than New York but the climates of the two regions are completely different. This happens because of the warmer currents of the Atlantic going past western Europe and the colder side of that same current flowing past the USA. If the ice in Greenland and North Pole were to melt and mix with this Golf Stream, Western Europe could face much harsher winters and lower average temperatures all year round. That and a rise in sea level.

in the best scenario, this is all wrong and there will be nothing special going on. still there isn't much to lose by replacing dirty technologies with cleaner ones. I'd hope that energy production and transportation would lead the way instead of all this media noise about individual efforts like replacing lightbulbs...

[xUKHCx]

For a start Al Gore's presentation is extremely sensationalist.

Also there are such a lot of homes all with multiple light fittings that replacing lightbulbs will have a massive effect. For example my current house has 21 light fittings. If they all had normal 60 watt bulbs that is 60*2 which is 1,260 watts. Now if i replaced them all with energy saving that is 11*21 = 231 watts, so a saving of over a 1,000 watts (of course i'm not going to have all my lights on at once). that is for one house, multiply that up for a medium sized town (80,000 homes with average 3 people per home = 27000 homes) The saving can be as much as 27,000 kW. This is huge over a whole nation it can easily take 2 or 3 power stations off the grid, that is without taking into account the road lighting.

[whooleytoo]

It is changing fast but I think we should all remember:
Man is not destroying the environment.
The environment will be just fine.
Man is just destroying his ability to survive in this environment.
The ultimate payback.

Heh, you're not wrong there!

There's probably very little we can do that the environment wouldn't recover from in time. But you can't help but feel we're reaching tipping point (in terms of population, and the amount of polution per person) and there has to be a correction at some point.

[nplima]

[...]The saving can be as much as 27,000 kW. This is huge over a whole nation it can easily take 2 or 3 power stations off the grid, that is without taking into account the road lighting.

What I mean is that focussing on individual decisions by millions of consumers will take a long time to achieve visible results. Using the light bulb example, if you upgrade all your bulbs, it's one individual's decision that will affect 20 bulbs (example). On the other hand, if companies were persuaded to switch off the lights at night and weekends, one decision maker per company would affect hundreds of light bulbs.

Sometimes I travel by train in London at night and the waste is incredible... rows of offices with lights on so you can see there's nobody there...

[xUKHCx]

What I mean is that focussing on individual decisions by millions of consumers will take a long time to achieve visible results. Using the light bulb example, if you upgrade all your bulbs, it's one individual's decision that will affect 20 bulbs (example). On the other hand, if companies were persuaded to switch off the lights at night and weekends, one decision maker per company would affect hundreds of light bulbs.

Sometimes I travel by train in London at night and the waste is incredible... rows of offices with lights on so you can see there's nobody there...

I agree, my university recently changed policy of leaving computer on all the time to them turning off 20 minutes after someone has logged off, that has got to be a massive saving right there. You never know there could be a be policy change where the government bans the sale of old tech light bulbs. I feel it is up to the governments to lead the way.

[Iscariot]

Whether or not human activity is having any impact on climate change is, as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant.

Simply put, environmentalism makes good, clean sense. Ensuring that future generations will have access to clean drinking water, air, food, and limitless (renewable) resources just seems downright responsible to me. I don't understand why so many people are so threatened by the idea of taking steps to ensure sustainability.

[Pani]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070818/wl_nm/switzerland_tunick_dc;_ylt=AmmtowSE9EVtUqUb3WM_8Eq9IxIF

And then there is this approach! Hundreds of people appeared naked on a Swiss glacier to make a point about glacier melt. My browser won't let me see the pic, but I trust the Yahoo censors it is o.k. to share.

[budpam]

I don't drive my car to work.





I'm also unemployed, but hey. :D

:D
LOL. Now that was funny!

[Pani]

They were not doing it to be funny, they were doing it to make a point. On the other hand, it seems the Russians think global warming will benefit them. They are even thinking of pulling out of Kyoto. Sad!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/weather/chi-0815russia_fillaug15,0,6266415.story

[imac/cheese]

I agree, my university recently changed policy of leaving computer on all the time to them turning off 20 minutes after someone has logged off, that has got to be a massive saving right there. You never know there could be a be policy change where the government bans the sale of old tech light bulbs. I feel it is up to the governments to lead the way.

I really think that we should be concerned for our environment but the way that a lot of people want to do that just doesn't make a lot of sense. Currently the Comapct Fluorescent lightbulbs all contain mercury. How many people are going to recycle those bulbs instead of throwing them into the garbage. the mercury will then leach into our ground water and cause other problems. Millions of lightbulbs with mercury is not helping our environment. We might be using less electricity but we are still polluting the earth.

Also all those light bulbs are made in China right now. They have to be shipped to the US for us to use them. China does not have the same regulations on manufacturing that we have in the US so they end up polluting quite a bit when they produce these lightbulbs.

This is kind of like using corn to make ethanol. You end up using more gasoline to produce and ship the fuel than you actually produce. It is not good policy for the government to start banning products without actually looking into what it will cost to ban that product.

[floriflee]

Whether or not human activity is having any impact on climate change is, as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant.

Simply put, environmentalism makes good, clean sense. Ensuring that future generations will have access to clean drinking water, air, food, and limitless (renewable) resources just seems downright responsible to me. I don't understand why so many people are so threatened by the idea of taking steps to ensure sustainability.


I think for some people it comes down to the ease of recycling and being environmentally sound. We can be a lazy lot, and if we have to walk an additional 10 feet to the recycling bin or spend an extra 10 seconds cleaning plastic bottles before putting them into a recycle pile then we just won't be bothered.... unfortunately. To others, namely corporations, it's most likely about the bottom line. If it's going to greatly dip into their profits to become more energy-efficient then they're going to raise a stink about it.

[bennyboi]

BATTLEFIELD 2142 is a PROPHESY!!!

[Iscariot]

I think for some people it comes down to the ease of recycling and being environmentally sound. We can be a lazy lot, and if we have to walk an additional 10 feet to the recycling bin or spend an extra 10 seconds cleaning plastic bottles before putting them into a recycle pile then we just won't be bothered.... unfortunately. To others, namely corporations, it's most likely about the bottom line. If it's going to greatly dip into their profits to become more energy-efficient then they're going to raise a stink about it.

The Canadiand division of the company I work for won the 2007 pollution prevention award by making only a few small changes. It cost us very little up front, and it's greatly reduced our overhead, reducing operating costs in the long run.

I agree that you've stated some of the primary factors, I just don't understand why we accept those as satisfactory answers. It seems that environmental issues are widely accepted as one area of life where you can be massively irresponsible for the sake of minor conveniences.

[floriflee]

The Canadiand division of the company I work for won the 2007 pollution prevention award by making only a few small changes. It cost us very little up front, and it's greatly reduced our overhead, reducing operating costs in the long run.

I agree that you've stated some of the primary factors, I just don't understand why we accept those as satisfactory answers. It seems that environmental issues are widely accepted as one area of life where you can be massively irresponsible for the sake of minor conveniences.

Good on ya for making the change! :)

I don't necessarily agree that they are satisfactory answers, but I do think that a lot of it just comes down to sheer laziness and money. I know I've been guilty of not doing my best with it, but if there's something that I really will think will help improve things I tend to be really good about following through. I'm all for the use of craigslist and freecycle.org to get and give stuffs so as to keep them out of landfills, and have used both often. We walk when things are close by and consolidate trips when they're not. I've also started making more use of the recycle bins in our area to recycle cardboard and plastics. Some day I'd love to have a garden and grow some of my own herbs and veggies. They're small things, but it's a start. Still, perhaps people would be better if they did start by focusing on improving small things and then building up. That way the task of doing better wouldn't come off as being so arduous and overwhelming.

[ErikCLDR]

I am concerned for our environment, don't get me wrong, but I think Global Warming is exists, but whether or not we are causing it is the question.

In such a money oriented society, what do you think will get more attention for politicians, media, publishers, and scientists. Taking about how we are causing global warming and it's the end of the world, or saying how we might not be causing it.

My dad works in the power plant industry (mainly coal and natural gas). His company's main focus right now is emissions reduction equipment and even though the global warming theory is good for his business, he's researched it a lot and isn't sold on the idea. There are many overlooked factors that could show how naturally the earth could be getting warmer, not just the humans polluting.

I think the best thing we can do right now is come up with alternative energy sources. Our current engines produce a lot of emissions and why not work hard finding a better energy source, our oil will be gone soon. Too bad companies don't want to invest that much in R&D. Hybrid and flexfuel cars are not going to save us. Flexfuel cars get worse fuel economy and produce more emissions, we're just slowly saving a little bit of oil each time we fill up our cars.

[LizKat]

It is changing fast but I think we should all remember:
Man is not destroying the environment.
The environment will be just fine.
Man is just destroying his ability to survive in this environment.
The ultimate payback.

Actually we're destroying the ability of our grandchildren to survive. In the short term, we're fine. --> "I've got mine, Jack." I don't know where that expression came from, but it has long stood for a selfish, short-term world view.

Long term planning nowadays means looking at next week's calendar while reviewing some emails about what happened overnight. How excited am I supposed to get if the meteorologists proclaim my local area's flood last year a hundred year event? It's over and I survived, right? I have two lunch dates on the same day next week, so something's gotta go there, and why did I get this email about my phone bill, I paid that online three days ago.

By the way, this same local area's flood of three years ago was also called a hundred year event.

[jczubach]

I think that if any one reads history on a geological time scale, we are in betwixt ice ages. ice ages are the norm. and frankly, that is something i could personally do without. Canada has more coastline than almost, if not any other country in the world, but hardly any useable beaches. There used to be dinosaurs on baffin island for heaven's sake. Now i'm not for runaway global warming, by any means, but if the natural order of things tends towards the icy side then i wonder if we aren't doing ourselves a big unintended favour by pumping some CO2 into the atmosphere. Just a thought, and, for a change, i am not trying to be a smart alec.

[CmdrLaForge]

It will take a lot more than environmental studies lectures (which are based on opinion and research paid for 99% of the time by the corporate responsibility budget of multinational companies, or by political pressure groups like Greenpeace with an axe to grind) to convince me that climate change is solely the responsibility of human beings.


Btw - there are some excellent courses in iTunes. It is called iTunesU. You can find it in the iTunes Store. The ones about climate change are from the New Jersey Institute of Technology.

Cheers
LaForge

[SodaPopMonster]

I wonder if the penguins went rabid like us when the ice age was ending.

[hmmfe]

By the way, this same local area's flood of three years ago was also called a hundred year event.

This happens more often than you think. A 100 year flood event means that there is a 1% probability of it happening in a given year (a 10 year flood event has a 10% probability, a 20 year flood event = 5% probability, etc.).

What has happened though is that the mathematician egg-heads have to go back and discuss things with the hydrographers and other scientists. I've the feeling that we really don't know what the probabilities are - but it is human instinct to put things in such simple numeric terms - not unlike climate modeling.