California sues car companies over global warming

[Diamond]

(my .02)

 

Current fuel technology is cost-efficient,

that's why consumers keep buying them,

and hence car manufacturers keep manufacture them.

 

Pollution isn't going anywhere until a cheap alternative fuel technology is found and put into mass production.

[Volourn]

"Britain has been taking records of the weather patterns since 1659. Studies of it have shown that the increase in the temperature has less than a one percent chance of occuring naturally. The temperature in central Britain has risen by a degree in the last forty years alone.

 

350 years of continuous records are hard to argue convincingly against."

 

I never said global warming didn't exist. I said people exaggerate it's danger to the world. Think of it, you are going mad because the temperature, on average, has increased by 1% over the last 40 years alone. OMG! The horror of it all!

 

And, knowing how the world was 350 years ago, I'll take a 350 year old study with a grain of salt. Not that the study shows anything remotely OMG! We're all gonna die! stuff.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Volourn

[Diamond]

I never said global warming didn't exist. I said people exaggerate it's danger to the world.  Think of it, you are going mad because the temperature, on average, has increased by 1% over the last 40 years alone. OMG! The horror of it all!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, form a layman's perspective it doesn't sound like a big deal, but even a small increase in average temperature has a substantial effect on ecosystem as a whole (and hence agriculture, fresh water supply, etc).

 

From what I read, climate scientists (who do understand the topic) agree that the effects of global warming are in fact underestimated. I don't take either point as an absolute truth, but it is something to think about.

[Judge Hades]

Just to brag about it, here in Iowa gas is under $2 USD a gallon.

[Arkan]

Pollution isn't going anywhere until a cheap alternative fuel technology is found and put into mass production.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Or until we run out of black gold.

[Atreides]

The polluters who are causing the problems are big business industries and the governments who refuse to restrict their rates of pollution. The biggest polluter on the planet by far is the US. Let's head tax them instead, since they're the worst offenders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Industries are in business in the first place because they're satisfying the needs of consumers. Consumers drive the behaviours of business industries.

[deganawida]

Well maybe this'll make people take global warming more seriously? 

 

I mean, global warming is serious business.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hardly. This is the coldest August/September Iowa has ever had.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I live in South Georgia, and we've been having 50 degree nights here for the last week or two. Unusual in the extreme.

[Judge Hades]

It rained here like it was April.

[Kroney]

"Britain has been taking records of the weather patterns since 1659. Studies of it have shown that the increase in the temperature has less than a one percent chance of occuring naturally. The temperature in central Britain has risen by a degree in the last forty years alone.

 

350 years of continuous records are hard to argue convincingly against."

 

I never said global warming didn't exist. I said people exaggerate it's danger to the world.  Think of it, you are going mad because the temperature, on average, has increased by 1% over the last 40 years alone. OMG! The horror of it all!

 

And, knowing how the world was 350 years ago, I'll take a 350 year old study with a grain of salt. Not that the study shows anything remotely  OMG! We're all gonna die! stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

350 years of *continuous* records. Every month or year or whatever from 1659 to 2006. That's a lot of raw data.

 

You may not think that a temperature increase of 1 degree is particularly alarming and that shows, not to put too fine a point on it, your ignorance of the topic. One degree of climate change on average, over the course of a year, has melted the huge amount of permanent ice in the Poles as said earlier.

 

That's a big difference. To an ecosystem, it's an enormous difference.

[Kroney]

The polluters who are causing the problems are big business industries and the governments who refuse to restrict their rates of pollution. The biggest polluter on the planet by far is the US. Let's head tax them instead, since they're the worst offenders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Industries are in business in the first place because they're satisfying the needs of consumers. Consumers drive the behaviours of business industries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do quite agree that we need to change the habits and attitudes of the consumers to effect meaningful change, don't get me wrong.

 

The only way that's going to happen in the period of time we have to halt (not reverse, halt) the damage already done is by governments forcing businesses to comply.

[Kroney]

Well maybe this'll make people take global warming more seriously? 

 

I mean, global warming is serious business.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hardly. This is the coldest August/September Iowa has ever had.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I live in South Georgia, and we've been having 50 degree nights here for the last week or two. Unusual in the extreme.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Global warming is a somewhat fallacious term. Climate change is more accurate. We're not looking at the world simply heating up until everything's a desert. We're looking at extreme weather systems.

 

Iowa has had the coldest winter on record, it'll probably keep getting colder. Or alternatively start oscillating between frigid and warm and damp winters.

 

Georgia and Britain are both baking. Britain has had a string of summers that have been far, far hotter than anything we've had before. A couple of summers ago, we had the hottest summer on record. You'll remember that "on record" here means since 1659. This year we've had the longest summer that I can remember. From April to late September it has been 16 degrees or over.

 

To put it in context, by now it should really be more like 13 or 14.

 

We've had more storms and freak weather systems in the last ten years than we've had in the last fifty.

 

The British have a reputation for moaning about the weather, but never have I heard people calling it "unnatural" before and that's happening with more regularity.

 

Climate change isn't simply a scare story anymore, it's happening all around us if only people would care to look.

[Balthamael]

I never said global warming didn't exist. I said people exaggerate it's danger to the world.  Think of it, you are going mad because the temperature, on average, has increased by 1% over the last 40 years alone. OMG! The horror of it all!

 

And, knowing how the world was 350 years ago, I'll take a 350 year old study with a grain of salt. Not that the study shows anything remotely  OMG! We're all gonna die! stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ice caps on Antarctica and Greenland are melting. That alone is a bad thing, given that it means we will eventually lose all our coastal cities. If it happens over decades or centuries there will be plenty of time to accommodate, though. Bigger problem is if, once those glaciers have lost enough of their mass, they will break free and slide into the sea. That would be bad, like end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it bad. It also may well happen within our lifetime.

 

I don't fret over it, though. I don't think the meltdown is possible to stop at this point, so if it happens, it happens.

[Blank]

Just to brag about it, here in Iowa gas is under $2 USD a gallon. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*Shoves a pitchfork down Hades' throat*

 

Heh, that was the right pocket.

[Judge Hades]

Just to brag about it, here in Iowa gas is under $2 USD a gallon. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*Shoves a pitchfork down Hades' throat*

 

Heh, that was the right pocket.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The funny thing is that I don't drive a car so the high gas prices never directly affected me. HA!

Edited September 22, 2006 by Judge Hades

[alanschu]

No, no it isn't. People exaggerate it.

 

And, this lawsuit is retarded and another reason to not take environmental nuts seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Britain has been taking records of the weather patterns since 1659. Studies of it have shown that the increase in the temperature has less than a one percent chance of occuring naturally. The temperature in central Britain has risen by a degree in the last forty years alone.

 

350 years of continuous records are hard to argue convincingly against.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Could I get a citation please.

[alanschu]

From what I read, climate scientists (who do understand the topic)  agree that the effects of global warming are in fact underestimated. I don't take either point as an absolute truth, but it is something to think about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Were these climate scientists the same ones predicting an impending ice age a couple of decades ago?

 

 

 

 

Here's my 2 cents:

 

 

Humanity is narcissistic, and overstates its influence on the planet. Our studies of ice ages show that they are cyclical. And we believe our most recent ice age was 10,000 years ago. Given the large lengths of time between ice ages, this is actually pretty recent.

 

To be honest, given the gigantic length of time the planet has been around, I think that 350 years of British readings is too small of a sample size. At best you can conclude that the planet has warmed up a bit. Causation is a trickier matter, but I think that the human ego would like to think that it is because of humanity, as it means that we are capable of significantly affecting our world. And as a result, we should (hopefully) be capable of significantly affecting our world in a positive way.

[Kroney]

Could I get a citation please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sure I can dig some things up.

 

I dont' have a lot of time right now, so I'm just going to throw some links at you in the hopes you'll find them interesting. I'm assuming you want evidence of climate change being not attributable to nature, rather than evidence of the UK's weather records.

 

I will try to find something more detailed tomorrow.

 

Greenhouse gas emissions

 

climate change more serious than previously thought

 

sun dimming

 

troposphere warming

 

The consensus seems to be that scientists are worried. Granted, these links are all from the BBC and I'm well aware of the inherent untrustworthiness of relying on one source. As I said, I'll expand when I have more time.

 

From everything I've read on the subject, and I have read a fair bit being interested in it, the most positive thing we can now look forward to is maybe avoiding the most catastrophic effects. It seems we're already too late to actually reverse anything.

[Kroney]

Were these climate scientists the same ones predicting an impending ice age a couple of decades ago?

 

 

 

 

Here's my 2 cents:

 

 

Humanity is narcissistic, and overstates its influence on the planet.  Our studies of ice ages show that they are cyclical.  And we believe our most recent ice age was 10,000 years ago.  Given the large lengths of time between ice ages, this is actually pretty recent.

 

To be honest, given the gigantic length of time the planet has been around, I think that 350 years of British readings is too small of a sample size.  At best you can conclude that the planet has warmed up a bit.  Causation is a trickier matter, but I think that the human ego would like to think that it is because of humanity, as it means that we are capable of significantly affecting our world.  And as a result, we should (hopefully) be capable of significantly affecting our world in a positive way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, an impending ice age may not be that inaccurate. With rising temperatures comes melting of the polar ice caps, with that comes huge amounts of cold, fresh water being dumped into the oceans. Net result, the oceans cool, the Gulf Stream cools, and the surface area of ocean increases. Water reflects heat, land absorbs it. So more heat is reflected away from Earth, whilst the warming influence of the Gulf Stream is removed and the overall temperature of two thirds of the Earth's surface drops.

 

Net result, a new ice age.

 

Given the gigantic length of time the Earth has been around, we can see that small, rapid changes and fluctuations over a handful of centuries doesn't happen in Earth's history. The gap between any significant change in climate is huge and the causes easily discernible.

 

This is new.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Kroney

[Rosbjerg]

Kroney try searching for weather patterns spanning 100.000 years back and you will se that rapid changes (both from warmth to cold) have occured several times in Earths history .. especially just before and after Ice Ages.. the further upwards you span your search you'll see pretty large fluxations in temperatures happening in less than 300 years..

 

(the following is from a former topic of mine)

 

(I found a few websites which I agree on, so I will loosely quote them and copy parts of their text into my own), but to avoid being called a copycat I will link to their sites:

 

[alanschu]

Given the gigantic length of time the Earth has been around, we can see that small, rapid changes and fluctuations over a handful of centuries doesn't happen in Earth's history. The gap between any significant change in climate is huge and the causes easily discernible.

 

This is new.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that our ability to asses microscale temperature changes over an insignificant period of time such as 300 years was pretty poor for a bulk of the 4.5 billion years the Earth has been around.

[alanschu]

 

Could I get a citation please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sure I can dig some things up.

 

I dont' have a lot of time right now, so I'm just going to throw some links at you in the hopes you'll find them interesting. I'm assuming you want evidence of climate change being not attributable to nature, rather than evidence of the UK's weather records.

 

I will try to find something more detailed tomorrow.

 

Greenhouse gas emissions

 

climate change more serious than previously thought

 

sun dimming

 

troposphere warming

 

The consensus seems to be that scientists are worried. Granted, these links are all from the BBC and I'm well aware of the inherent untrustworthiness of relying on one source. As I said, I'll expand when I have more time.

 

From everything I've read on the subject, and I have read a fair bit being interested in it, the most positive thing we can now look forward to is maybe avoiding the most catastrophic effects. It seems we're already too late to actually reverse anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was not interested in the rather repetitive talks about climate change, but your claims about:

 

"Britain has been taking records of the weather patterns since 1659. Studies of it have shown that the increase in the temperature has less than a one percent chance of occuring naturally. The temperature in central Britain has risen by a degree in the last forty years alone.

 

350 years of continuous records are hard to argue convincingly against."

 

Only the last link really made any comments about long term temperature change, but it was only talking about data that was readily available because of satellite information.

 

 

As an aside, the global dimming one is rather interesting. If we were receiving less solar radiation, that would have a negative impact on "global warming." Unless we assume that the air pollution is a significantly large block for the natural radiation of the Earth, that it makes up for the decrease in solar radiation.

Edited September 22, 2006 by alanschu

[metadigital]

There's evidence that the sun has an active cycle lasting many centuries; this caused the mini Ice age (1600s) when the Thames froze regularly, for example. Further, the sun appears to be entering a low activity phase ...

[taks]

There's evidence that the sun has an active cycle lasting many centuries; this caused the mini Ice age (1600s) when the Thames froze regularly, for example. Further, the sun appears to be entering a low activity phase ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i believe we are on cycle 22, which has been a rather intense one. cycle 23 or 24 is supposed to be very weak. could be 20 years or more before the true drop occurs.

 

oh, and any stastical claims such as "1% chance the climate change is due to natural phenomena" are bogus. it is impossible to determine without fully understanding all of the drivers over the course of history. we have 400 years of records in england, but not all of the world, and that is only one 10 millionth of the earth's history.

 

taks

[alanschu]

I believe that the human arrogance also helps us feel we have a complete understanding of our Biosphere to claim that there is only a 1% chance of the phenomenon being natural.

[WITHTEETH]

Just skimming through and read part of Alanchu's post:

 

Alanchu wrote: To be honest, given the gigantic length of time the planet has been around, I think that 350 years of British readings is too small of a sample size. At best you can conclude that the planet has warmed up a bit. Causation is a trickier matter, but I think that the human ego would like to think that it is because of humanity, as it means that we are capable of significantly affecting our world. And as a result, we should (hopefully) be capable of significantly affecting our world in a positive way.

I thought that was interesting... The effects on volcanic activity on global warming, pretty extreme.

INFLUENCE ON THE OZONE EFFECT:

 

The halide acid HCl has been shown to be effective in destroying ozone; however, the latest studies show that most volcanic HCl is confined to the troposphere (below the stratosphere), where it is washed out by rain. Thus, it never has the opportunity to react with ozone. On the other hand, satellite data after the 1991 eruptions of Mt.Pinatubo (the Philippines) and Mt. Hudson (Chile) showed a 15-20% ozone loss at high latitudes, and a greater than 50% loss over the Antarctic! Thus, it appears that volcanic eruptions can play a significant role in reducing ozone levels. However, it is an indirect role, which cannot be directly attributed to volcanic HCl. Eruption-generated particles, or aerosols, appear to provide surfaces upon which chemical reactions take place. The particles themselves do not contribute to ozone destruction, but they interact with chlorine- and bromine-bearing compounds from human-made CFCs. Fortunately, volcanic particles will settle out of the stratosphere in two or three years, so that the effects of volcanic eruptions on ozone depletion are short lived. Although volcanic aerosols provide a catalyst for ozone depletion, the real culprits in destroying ozone are human-generated CFCs. Scientists expect the ozone layer to recover due to restrictions on CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals by the United Nations Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. However, future volcanic eruptions will cause fluctuations in the recovery process.