Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Okay, FINE! I 'believe' in Global Warming! Now what?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:11:42 PM

Posted 29 March 2017 - 01:56 PM

Hello,

As I'm living in a country still very much intact by global warming, with 4 distinct seasons, it was hard for me for a while to recognize it as a serious issue. As time passed and both I became more mature and the weather conditions around numerous places on Earth worsened, I decided to watch 'An Inconvenient Truth' yesterday. This event officially marked the spot of time where I started 'believing' in global warming. Or to be more precise, believing that global warming is a problem.

However, I have a couple of questions on my mind right now.

1. Which are the primary man-made causes of global warming?
I've heard the top 3 are: farmers (cow farts, etc.), transportational vehicles & large-scale factories. Is this information true or not?

2. What can I do personally with my lifestyle to lessen my contribution to the problem?
I already pay only about $5 per month for electricity (I use very little amount), so I don't think that if electricity is a main contributor to the problem, I'd be able to cut my usage any more than the current amount. Maybe one day, when I settle down in my own place, I will buy a solar panel, big enough to satisfy my needs.
I obviously can't do research on every company I buy my daily products from, so I can't really discriminate between green-friendly producers and manufacturers who polute the air. This means that in terms of fighting big corporations I can't really do much else besides not voting for politicians who represent their views.
In terms of cars, I drive a diesel-engined one, but it's a pretty small 1.7 litres, so I don't think I'll be changing that any time soon. I won't be using public transportation either, because I... I just don't want to, even if Earth's health was at stake. :lmao: In the future, I could buy an electric-powered car though. I've heard rummors that their batteries polute the environment more so in their production than if you had just used a regular car with an internal combustion engine. Is this true?

Well, I guess that's it. I thank anybody who took time from their day to help me lead a more environmentally-healthy lifestyle!
:)

Edited by Just_One_Question, 29 March 2017 - 02:02 PM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:11:42 PM

Posted 31 March 2017 - 04:16 PM

bump

#3 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,829 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:42 PM

Posted 09 April 2017 - 09:33 AM

I agree that the plastic that is floating in the Pacific is having some measurable effects on the water temps and salinity but not enough to affect any changes in weather, either severity of patterns.  I feel there is nothing that any event on this planet can result in any change in an ever changing environment.  Mother Nature is all powerful and ever changing.  The events in the past have brought us to this point and it will continue for millennia.  Whether man can adapt to the changes and NOT think that our actions amount to any planet changing events.  Citing "recorded" history is foolish when the accuracy to even measure the tiny changes needed  haven't been available until the last thirty years.  Is that enough time to make any "predictions" about this planet and our continued existence there upon??  "Man" is more likely to become extinct  before the planet becomes inhabitable.



#4 Angoid

Angoid

  • Security Colleague
  • 299 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East Midlands UK
  • Local time:09:42 PM

Posted 11 April 2017 - 03:10 AM

Around here, they refer to it as "climate change" now rather than "global warming" which I prefer because I think the climate here is getting worse - summers are nowhere near as nice as I remember them as a kid and winters seem less cold on the whole (with the occasional really bad one thrown in for 'good' measure).

 

Cow farts?  Cows have been around for longer than industrialised society so I can't see how this is contributing to the problem.  Unless they fart now more than ever before...

 

The Earth's ecosystem is a very complex and delicately balanced, yet it copes.  Only a few decades ago it was aerosol cans being blamed for causing ozone holes above the poles (an an increase in UV radiation reaching us from the sun), and thinking is changing all the while.

 

For example, only a few years ago it was strongly encouraged to buy a diesel-fuelled car:  more miles per gallon, more environmentally friendly, and generally better all round.

Now, some cities are banning them because of the particulates in the exhaust fumes.

 

Electric vehicles may not pollute when being used, but the batteries have to be charged up from somewhere, and this inevitably means coming from a power station somewhere.  Unless that power source is solar, wave or wind then it'll be another source of pollution.  That raises the question of whether we're simply deceiving ourselves and shifting the source of pollution from one place to another rather than solving it.

 

Plastic bags break up into tiny fragments and get into the oceans to pollute them.

 

Environmental issues are HUGE - there are lots of opposing thoughts going round, I wonder if we'll ever truly understand them all.

 

And don't forget natural cycles from space - for example the 11 year sunspot cycle (22 if you include the solar polarity reversing every 11 years).  The Sun is experiencing a low sunspot count right now which is equated by a lower solar output.  That would have an effect on our climate as well.  I've been reading about the possibility of a new Maunder minimum, which would certainly reverse the effects of any global warming that man could create!

 

Edit: On the ozone hole and UV one, as a kid I don't remember ever being slathered with factor 50,000 sunscreen before being allowed outside to play.  I also never got sunburned as a kid either, and I used to play outside a lot - either with other kids or flying a kite on my own.  Now, letting your kids out without putting copious amounts of SPF 50,000 on is unthinkable.  Only 3 or 4 years ago, the advice was slip, slop, slap .... it still is, but now the very people who were telling you to avoid the sun at all costs are now telling you to get 20 minutes of midday sun on your arms twice a week to maintain vitamin D levels.

 

The point being, advice and thinking are changing all the while and we really don't always know what's best.


Edited by Angoid, 11 April 2017 - 03:23 AM.

Helping a loved one through a mental health issue?  Remember ALGEE...

Assess the risk | Listen nonjudgementally | Give reassurance and info | Encourage professional help | Encourage self-help and support network

#5 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:11:42 PM

Posted 11 April 2017 - 04:32 AM

Thank you for your reply!
I actually thought exactly like you up until I researched the basics of this topic. I was really pleasently surprised that both in the documentary movie by Al Gore and the website of the EPA of the USA they addressed all those issues in a matter that isn't 'disrespectful' towards non-believers as myself. For example, the movie talked about pretty much all the issues you pointed out - that back in the day people were advised to get a diesel-powered vehicle for economical purposes, that we carelessly were conttibuting to the destruction of the ozone layer, that if you are planning to get an electric car, you should first try to check out whether the environmental cost of the electricity it uses is lower than had you just bought a regular one, etc. That is what really surprised me - that it was all explained in a polite, well-paced matter, not scolding disbelievers like me. :)

P.S. As for 'cow farts': There are on this planet right now - wait for it over 1.5 billion cows! Each cow, on average, burbs out around ~100kg of methane into the atmosphere per year. This amounts to 150 million tons of methane, lol. :lmao:

Edited by Just_One_Question, 11 April 2017 - 04:36 AM.


#6 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 8,655 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:04:42 PM

Posted 11 April 2017 - 09:48 AM

I really don't understand why anyone would doubt that the activities of humans over the past hundred plus years or so will contribute to global climate change (a term I prefer, too, since what is seen in weather in certain spots won't be warming though it is for the planet as a whole).

 

When you look at how humankind operated for many generations prior to the industrial revolution we were pretty much on a par with any other animal on the planet as far as what we "took out and put in" to the environment.   With the rise of the industrial age and afterward we have been mining and drilling our way into using untold hundreds of millions of years of trapped hydrocarbons in a very short (geological time speaking) period of time.  To call what we've been doing "upsetting the natural balance" is understatement of the highest order.

 

I'm not one to fall prey to the demand that we all go back to caves and subsist on nuts and berries, but there are clearly things that we can do both to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and products directly derived from same.  Since fossil fuels are a finite resource, and there are certain applications where they are and will remain far preferable to renewables, it makes abundant sense to ramp up the use of renewables wherever we can so that what we have left of our fossil fuels can be reserved for "far preferable" needs.

 

In the end, whether you believe in anthropogenic global climate change or not, the things being proposed to minimize the impact of humankind make long term economic sense.  There is a resistance in certain nations, and the United States being one of the worst, toward taking the long view when short term financial gain is negatively affected.  It takes both political will and the ability to project into the distant future to avoid falling into the trap of thinking only in the immediate and short term.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#7 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:11:42 PM

Posted 11 April 2017 - 11:19 AM

In the end, whether you believe in anthropogenic global climate change or not, the things being proposed to minimize the impact of humankind make long term economic sense.  There is a resistance in certain nations, and the United States being one of the worst, toward taking the long view when short term financial gain is negatively affected.  It takes both political will and the ability to project into the distant future to avoid falling into the trap of thinking only in the immediate and short term.

Yeah, I actually thought that by officially switching my views towards looking at climate change as a serious issue, I was coming from the minority to the majority, but, judging by the responses I got in this topic, it seems that it was the other way around. This topic quickly turned from 'What can I personally do to reverse global warming?' to 'Meh, I'm not all that sure about that whole climate-y thingy', lol. :lmao:

BTW, isn't the United States of America with that whole Paris climate treaty & meeting in fact a pioneer in the fight against climate change? Or does this no longer count since now the majority of Congress is controlled by the GOP? Even so, I really liked this particular line by Al Gore: 'We have everything that we need to reduce carbon emissions, everything but political will. But in America, the will to act is a renewable resource'.
So worry not! :)

Edited by Just_One_Question, 11 April 2017 - 11:21 AM.


#8 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 8,655 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:04:42 PM

Posted 11 April 2017 - 11:25 AM

JOQ,

 

         Watch the news on a regular basis and you'll see just how much respect the "powers that be" have for anything negotiated before their tenure.   They have also participated in a long-term and focused cultivation of an active antipathy toward science, factual data that has been reliable and valid over multiple studies, and expert opinion where there still exists some "slosh factor" but an educated conjecture is necessary.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#9 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:11:42 PM

Posted 11 April 2017 - 11:36 AM

Yes, I suppose you are right. In my mind I was focusing more so on the fact that the USA leads in climate change research at the Universities and also de facto doing something about it with companies such as Tesla Inc.
Tesla, slightly off-topic, just passed The Ford Motor Company and is expected in the next year to become the biggest automotive company in America, as measured by market capitalisation. Terribly overpriced, by the way, even though they have a 'good mission' mainly with their electric cars.

#10 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 8,655 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:04:42 PM

Posted 11 April 2017 - 01:07 PM

Tesla’s ‘crazy’ climb to America’s most valuable car company   in the Washington Post.  (This should be click-through but it doesn't appear to be.  I'm seeing a hyperlink when I click on that control.  
 


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#11 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:11:42 PM

Posted 11 April 2017 - 01:24 PM

I agree with everything said in this article - Tesla seems like a great company, but a terrible investment to me. Atleast at this point.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users