Global warming (was: Cypriot Notes)

[doiknow]

Just think of it: Shipping all these notes forth and back through europe serves only to support the logistic business. However, if we would decide to abandon the pooling system an let all printers print the notes for their regions, we would surely save some thousand tons of CO2 per year, not to mention all the other gases causing global warming. Anybody thought of that effect before?

[googlejaps]

Just think of it: Shipping all these notes forth and back through europe serves only to support the logistic business. However, if we would decide to abandon the pooling system an let all printers print the notes for their regions, we would surely save some thousand tons of CO2 per year, not to mention all the other gases causing global warming. Anybody thought of that effect before?

Shipping notes from north to south is a problem that already existed before the euro. For example in France in average the notes travelled south, and (national) banks, have to transport the notes back north.
In the eurozone this only an enlarged problem.

[maarsy]

Just think of it: Shipping all these notes forth and back through europe serves only to support the logistic business. However, if we would decide to abandon the pooling system an let all printers print the notes for their regions, we would surely save some thousand tons of CO2 per year, not to mention all the other gases causing global warming. Anybody thought of that effect before?

SOMEONE THAT AGREES WITH ME

[Elmo]

Just think of it: Shipping all these notes forth and back through europe serves only to support the logistic business. However, if we would decide to abandon the pooling system an let all printers print the notes for their regions, we would surely save some thousand tons of CO2 per year, not to mention all the other gases causing global warming. Anybody thought of that effect before?

While I do agree that flying bills from the Netherlands via Cyprus to Finland and Spain is a waste of fossil fuel, I think the theory that CO2 causes global warming is nonsense. In the Middle Ages temperatures were much higher without us producing such a lot of CO2. Have you ever wondered why that huge island north-west of Iceland is called Greenland? Because when the Vikings discovered it, it had a taiga biome, just like most of Scandinavia nowadays, while it is now a frozen, barren landscape almost entirely covered under ice.

On-topic: It isn't very surprising to see the Cypriot bills being pooled to Finland, since Finland has minted the Cypriot euro coins.

[Dioniz]

While I do agree that flying bills from the Netherlands via Cyprus to Finland and Spain is a waste of fossil fuel, I think the theory that CO2 causes global warming is nonsense.

I agree!

[Phaseolus]

Furthermore, if you want to make a CO2 calculation of the bill production, I am not 100% sure that creating local bill printers would significantly decrease or increase CO2 production. You are considering transport of the finished products, whilst the transport of raw material would also be costly.

By the way, I fully support the statements made by Elmo. Temperatures have been fluctuating on earth since its creation, the average earth temperature has evoleved with more than 15°C over the millenia...

Please remember that there was wine production in Belgium in the Middle ages, that there were various ice ages in Europe, that the "Parisian Bassin" was a tropical wood,...

Today is different from yesterday and tomorrow will also be different.

Thinking that the earth temperature should be stable over the years is a scientific non-sense.

[doiknow]

Oh yeah just mention global warming and Co2 in one sentence and you will have audience
Mention it again and again to win elections.
Now, let's get serious: I know there are masses of other gases (just to mention some: H2O, NH4, N2O) increasing the artificial greenhouse effect. CO2 is just one of them, however the 'target' of our beloved politicans trying to save the world and their bank account. Unfortunatly nobody knows if the variance of Temperatur is increasing or if the variance is increasing and the median shifting at once. With all those press releases and false information in the media I really dislike to read any non scientific article on global warming. If you wish to comunicate on global warming send me a PM...

[Elmo]

@Moderators: Could you cut off the posts that mention CO2 and global warming, and start a new topic in the Off-topic forum? This topic is supposed to be about Cypriot , but has now become a discussion about whether humanity causes global warming or not. I have been thinking to discuss via PM only, but in my opinion this topic is so important that everybody should be able to take part in it.

I know there are masses of other gases (just to mention some: H2O, NH4, N2O) increasing the artificial greenhouse effect. CO2 is just one of them, however the 'target' of our beloved politicans trying to save the world and their bank account.

Fortunately you realize that many politicians and institutions act primarily out of political and financial gain, and not the well-being for the society. Politicians will get more power, and institutions (especially banks) will stand to make windfall profits with Cap and Trade.

Unfortunatly nobody knows if the variance of Temperatur is increasing or if the variance is increasing and the median shifting at once.

That's so true. But if we act to avert a disaster of which we don't know whether it exists, or whether we can influence it or not, then we may as well never leave our houses again because we *might* get involved in a traffic accident, or go and read the Bible, because one day Jesus *might* return...

With all those press releases and false information in the media I really dislike to read any non scientific article on global warming. If you wish to comunicate on global warming send me a PM...

You are absolutely right when you say that the media are full of lies (especially the main-stream media). But that is in my opinion because most media report that humanity causes global warming with CO2. If you want an article written by a scientist, here you have one about ten facts and ten myths about global warming. This article is written by Robert M. Carter, who is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience. And there are many more scientists opposing the global warming consensus.

@doiknow, I have two questions for you: when did you first start to believe in the man-made global warming theory? On what scientific article do you base your opinion? I am open to scientific articles that support the man-made global warming theory, or refute the sceptical articles.

I don't want you (all forum readers) to take everything for granted, both supporting and opposing the man-made global warming theory. I want you to think for yourself, and reach your own conclusions.

N.B. I have posted two articles from Wikipedia. I don't like to post just any article from Wikipedia, but these two articles are supported by so many dozens of sources and references that I consider it to be safe to use them in this discussion.

[doiknow]

Elmo, you asked me when I got to believe in man made global warming. Today I want to clarify my point of view. Let's deal with scientific articles the next decade

Actually I don't really believe in man made global warming but in climate change. As we take the average temperature of the last years (well tenthousands of last years), we realise climate has always been changing and climate always will change. However, climate has been interestingly stable over the last thousand years with only small exceptions (small ice age etc). I have been told by some Meteorologists that roman sources don't speak of glaciers. Their conclusion was there have been no glaciers in the alps. However we could also conclude that glaciers have been their daily life...well this is not cooping with the fact that the globe got warm some 2000years before...so let's take this for granted and remember Hannibal who led his army through the alps just to be beaten before the gats of Rome. It would have been surely diffcult to manage it if all the passes had been blocked by glaciers. (Remember the tunnels did not exist at that time...) Ok back up to date. When Pinatubo exploded in the 90s the global average temperature decreased at about 1.4C. Got it? This single f***in* volcano get us some really bad summers...
If you observe the climate diagrams* you will realise, that temperature increased slightly in the years 71-00 compared to the 30 intervall 61-90. So obviously: Climate is changing and has always been changing.
Furthermore we can conclude, the average temperature in Germany from 91-00 was warmer than the temperature in the years 61-70.
However, we could not distinguish wehter the source for the warming has been artificial, natural or both. Doing this will be hard as the following game: I think of to integers and tell you the sum. Task: Tell me the integers I thought of. Surly there is only a definite number of possibilities. Hence you could guess and be lucky. But unfortunatly climate won't tell you if you are right.

So why 'believing' in man made global warming?
I personally do neither believe in man made global warming nor do I refuse this theory. We are living in a time with a highly controversial debate on this topic and both sides having their arguments. However, I think saving the enviroment isn't that bad...we just cant pollute everything just to find out global warming is manmade. On the other hand we cannot inves billions of Euros just to find out 'Sorry guys it wasn't us who changed the climate'...


*see http://www.klimadiagrame.de" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BaliBennie]

I have to agree with Elmo.

This post is far offtopic and should go to the offtopic discussions. It is interesting though.

But this thread is meant for discussion about Cypriot Notes and not global warming.

EDIT: Thanks for splitting the topic into this new topic.

[Dakkus]

The thing about global warming is, that if it takes place very quickly, there will be a huge amount of trouble. Hundreds of millions will die, economies will collapse, demographics change.

My first (indirect) memories of having heard about the greenhouse effect are from year 1994±1 I was 7 or 8-year-old, and saw the northern lights for the first time in my life. (As south as Kouvola you practically never see them that strong) Being quite very scared of the huge green, violet and yellow flames filling the sky, I asked some adult about what was going on. His answer was: "It is probably the greenhouse effect". I already knew it was something dangerous, although hadn't completely understood, what was so dangerous about it. (and went climbing on top of the hill north of where I was playing, because that's where the greenhouse effect was coming from and I really wanted to see The Greenhouse. I wanted to be courageous. Didn't find a greenhouse, just some 300 grams of moldy edamer cheese without a package.)

Back then there wasn't the faintest idea of some "pollution trade" or anything like that, so I find it difficult to believe all this fuzz about an excessive amount of greenhouse gases causing global warming could have been fueled by economic interests that surfaced 1,5 decades /later/. Conspiracies do happen, but I still tend to not believe in conspiracy theories. And claiming that "they" have been secretly planning all this since the beginning of 90's and have only now, after 15 years of sneaking erroneous information to newspapers, decided to start making money, is in my opinion quite gross.

Back then they were saying that around the years 2000 to 2020 we would start seeing the climate getting warmer. Looking at Antarctica melting in satellite pictures, seeing how there seem to be so many more deadly weather-based nature catastrophies, seeing how the el niño effect has been changing, I just can't avoid noticing it all happens just in the time frame, when it was told in the early 90's that it would happen.
Back then probably not that very many people cared of all this stuff, because it was decades away in the future, because it was not such a sexy topic to write about. Those of us who liked reading science magazines, did know quite a bit, however.

Now all this is so much better known about, but people think the whole thing has been invented only now that it has come to public attention. And consider it a hoax. For aforementioned reasons, I will definitely not believe it is a hoax. A mistake maybe (although I have yet to see any functioning reasons to believe it would be a mistake), but not an intentional hoax, not a conspiracy. I do know, that there is a certain fluctuation in the yearly average temperatures. But, because the quick change of circumstances in many parts of Earth happens just at the same time and in the same way it was "supposed" to happen according to all that I read about global warming in the 90's, I find it unlikely that all this fitting so well together could be a coincidence. It might be, but the likelihood for such a coincidence is very small

People are ready to believe anything, no matter how weakly argumented, if that gives them an excuse to keep living like they have always lived. If they don't need to dramatically change their lives, they are happy. And they want to stay happy, even if that kills them. I believe this to be the main motivation for the criticism towards claims about global warming being man-caused.

For now, I have always managed to find something flawed or suspicious in each argument against the idea of global warming being caused by us humans. Be it, that I am reading the texts of the climate skeptics like the devil reads the bible, but I really want to be rather safe than sorry.
As long as I do have a reason to believe that the quick global warming might be in action, that it might be caused and therefore be stoppable by humans and that it will cause great destruction if it truly takes place, I will stand straight and do my responsibility in fighting the threat. I am ready to give up many things in my life and rady to make my life more difficult, if that way I can help the generations coming after me having a safe place to live a good life. I do not hold it for completely sure that the scientist are correct. However, I do hold it for very likely. Even if the likelihood for all the fuzz being correct was only some 33%, I still would want to play safe and take the necessary measures to stop the possible threat, until I get trustworthy evidence that the threat does not exist. The risks are simply too high, more than my life or death.

In order to show that the climate skeptical argumentation is flawed, I took a random climate skeptical page and read the arguments. Here a list of some problems I have found among the arguments listed on a page linked earlier in this thread, as an example of what my climate skepticism-skepticism is based on. It seems in these arguments that most of the arguments are tackling only some uninformed FUD, but letting the core of the problem unaddressed.
1. This argument is true, however tackles only a misbelief unrelated to the actual effect. Climate has always been changing, but that does not mean also humans could cause a climate change at a point when it should not happen. The argument only works to tackle those, who have no clue of what they are speaking about.
2. On what level have the balloons flown? Also, this claim is in direct conflict with other claims I have seen from other sources. Since I cannot know which one is true, I play safe.
3. I am sticking to the word "unambiguous". How does the writer of the argument define "unambiguous"? Defining it strictly enough, it is possible to prove that life itself doesn't exist and such metaphysical crap. How precise proof do they require? As long as the level of unambiguousity required is unclear, I won't consider this a proof.
4. Greenhouse effect is what keeps us alive and kicking. However, it getting /stronger/ is what this is all about. Therefore, a non-argument. Also, the argument has a subargument saying that CO2 is responsible for one quarter of the greenhose effect and that a quarter of that is caused by humans. A quarter of 25% is about 6%, which is actually quite a lot. 6% change in a delicate balance such as the warmth of the global climate is actually not small at all.
5. What has happened in the past when humans weren't there to change things, is no proof of what will happen now that humans are there to change things. This point is just fud.
6. IPCC is an organization composed by world's governments, because they want information on the subject. Because precisely IPCC was the organ composed by the governments, it is of course precisely IPCC whose words are listened to. Also scientific bodies would be happy to work as "scaremongers", but nobody gives them enough authority. IPCC is of course automatically political, because it has been composed by governments, ergo politicians.
7. The Kyoto protocol is indeed a joke and just an excuse to keep on killing ourselves. What news? What does this argument have to do in this list?
8. Yes, indeed. Some parts are not understood. That does not serve as a /proof/ that the science has been wrong. It only casts doubt.
9. Here the keyword is "regional". It is completely true that it is difficult making precise predictions. However, if the global warming does take place, then of course also the regions that together consist the globe, get an effect here and there. Might be some region gets no effect at all and some other one gets helluva strong an effect. In other words, it cannot be predicted, how the global warming will change things regionally, only that it generally will.

[vermeer]

edit