Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: The Spac on June 29, 2005, 10:02:10 pm
-
Since the weather here is getting crazier every year I was wondering if it's the same everwhere else?
-
Yea it's a lot wetter here.:doubt:
I think Bush found Bill Clintons old weather control machine.
-
we had a freaky warm winter, but the summer hasn't been too hot, exept for today, today it was just a mother ass fcuker of a hot day, I sat in my car and when I got in I could feel the effect of the moisture quickly evaporateing from my flesh, like the effect you get when you step into one of those dry soanas.
-
It's tropical here. Hot and humid, with regular evening thunderstorms. I wish it were like this for more of the year.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4634595.stm
Booyah.
-
Weather going completey crazy during the last 20 years or so.
Not even the oldest ones in the town remeber bizzare weather shifts like this...
Before it was like an atomic clock - you knew precisely waht to excpet and when.. now, it's totaly unpredicatable..
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
It's tropical here. Hot and humid, with regular evening thunderstorms. I wish it were like this for more of the year.
Same here... Oh wait :p :nervous:
-
Freezing cold (<10 degrees most days) up till a couple of weeks ago, now it's spiked to between 20-25 with occasional storms, and we've not had snow at christmas for several years now. So the weather is a bit ****ed up round my way.
-
Soon it'll be hitting 100F (~40C) here every day without fail. Oh and humidity... no one here has room to talk about humidity unless they live in the Amazon basin or something. Anyway, when we were fishing in northern Canada a couple years ago my dad and I joked that we should buy property there since with rising sea levels and temperatures it would be nice tropical beachfront property in a few years. :D
-
Opposite here, we've had snow around chirtsmas this year, and it's been freaking hot for the last couple weeks. It's been awfully hot around the end of april, begining of may too, iirc. Two or three days ago, the whole day has been a heat storm (lots of lightnings, no rain, so heavy it was difficult to breathe ~~). I hate that, I like rain, I want rain!
-
It's back to normal here in Alabama, mid 90s with dewpoints in the 70s. Weve been spoiled here the past few years with Mild summers.:)
And Hurricane season is getting started, two TS in June, looks to be another big season.
-
It hardly rained at all last winter, and it has been raining a lot during June and the Spring. Usually it is the opposite. I wonder what the hell is going on with our weather......
-
It's just about normal here (southeast PA); the average for this time of year is around 83, and we've had a few hot and sticky days in the high eighties. I believe we're looking at somewhat of a cooldown tomorrow. The last winter/early spring were unusually wet and cool, but the last two months have been somewhat drier than usual. Nothing really out of the ordinary, though.
-
We maybe had a few of those nice, sunny spring days in May, but not nearly as many as we normally do, lots of cloudy/rainy days, as if it was April. Then all the sudden, it's summer when June rolls along. I used to think Jersey was turning into Florida, but now I'm not so sure. It's only poured once. The climate is slowly changing though, probably faster than it should be.
-
Last summer it mostly rained in here (I live in Vasa, on the west coast of Finland). Contrast to that, the summer before that was one of the hottest that I remember. And the summer before. Now the temperature has kept mostly at ca.15*C, and there have been no heatwaves, thank God, I can't stand temperatures above 25*C at all. :ick: As EtherShock said, the trend seems to be more cloudy and rainy than before.
-
Here in Sydney it hasn't really been hot during the summer. It also rained heaps.
For Winter it has been raining heaps too, so it hasn't really been cold.
Although we are in the middle of a drought because the rain is just on the coast.
-
Global warming was a huge right wing conspiracy to cause lots of hurricanes to smack flordia so that the locals would be happy when bush got a chance to give them billions in relief aid so that they would vote for him and push him to victory. It was planned years ago when they found out that flordia would be tough to win. So they built all these huge secret government facilites to generate greenhouse gases and they detonated these high explosives in the antartic to break ice off to melt to cause global warming. Now that nothing can be done and we are all going to die, they are denying it every happened.
Actually i dont believe a damn thing i just said but im sure somebody does. There is so much contradicting evidence on the part of the scientific community that the only 'evidence' they have of globabl warming is that the temperatures in certian climates which havent changed very much in the last 50 years of recording are slightly changing. In planetary terms, 50 years is a split second compared to thousands. Its just political bs imo.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Actually i dont believe a damn thing i just said but im sure somebody does. There is so much contradicting evidence on the part of the scientific community that the only 'evidence' they have of globabl warming is that the temperatures in certian climates which havent changed very much in the last 50 years of recording are slightly changing. In planetary terms, 50 years is a split second compared to thousands. Its just political bs imo.
Sort of the point of noting such a large change in a geological instant like 50 years is highlighting the likelihood of human involvement. Although they can study, for example, ice cores going back thousands of years (IIRc you can measure carbon/etc levels in the atmosphere from ice, and also I think from absorption into rocks).
Also the acidity levels of the ocean (increasing), the rate of melting in ice caps/glaciers (again something you can measure using the ice cores), changes in weather patterns (weather records can go back centuries), changes in coral reefs (affected by CO2), and soforth (which I can't remember offhand). For example, ice cores recovered from Himalayan glaciers indicate that this century has been the warmest in 1,000 years, and there is factual evidence that over the last 50 years the average rate warming (the planet has been warming since the ice age, at a steady rate) has increased drastically.
Essentially enough evidence to indicate a climatic change. Whilst it is true that climatic change is a natural part of the earths history (ice age, for example), I believe most scientists can put a strong correlation between the rate of change and the direct atmospheric effects of human industry/activity. Thanks to both historical evidence of climate vis-a-vis human output, and also through understanding & simulating the effect of stuff like increased CO2 levels (past computer simulations of the effects global warming upon the oceans have been verified with actual observation, for example, or measure the loss of artic ice sheets and corresponding drops in the salinity of ocean water).
The simple reason global warning is regarded as a political issue is because the highest polluting countries are selfish. It's more politically expedient to preserve the economy of a country than it is to examine the consequences to the entire world in 20,30,40 etc years and act proactively.
-
We're breaking records here....ones that were set 100 years ago or more in some cases.
The hottest I've seen the thermometer at in the last few weeks was 36.9c. I've never see that...and we have both a digital and an old mercury thermometer that both said the same thing so I don't doubt that we hit it. The air quality is bad, the temperatures are high, and the province is warning brownouts or rolling blackouts to prevent another Blackout 2003 from happening - with Hydro on strike, however, this could get bad.
So yes, weather is exceptional. Last year it was very cold all summer long. This year its very hot so far. Something is definately going out of whack here.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Actually i dont believe a damn thing i just said but im sure somebody does. There is so much contradicting evidence on the part of the scientific community that the only 'evidence' they have of globabl warming is that the temperatures in certian climates which havent changed very much in the last 50 years of recording are slightly changing. In planetary terms, 50 years is a split second compared to thousands. Its just political bs imo.
Then your opinion is rather badly informed.
What contradictory evidence is there? Post links. To accredited journals or at least press reports that used them. Every single reputable climatologist states that the Earth has gotten warmer.
There is a lot of political BS involved but it's all coming from the people who deny that it is happening. None of them have any qualifications in the field but they are arrogant enough to say that they know better than people who do.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Global warming was a huge right wing conspiracy to cause lots of hurricanes to smack flordia so that the locals would be happy when bush got a chance to give them billions in relief aid so that they would vote for him and push him to victory. It was planned years ago when they found out that flordia would be tough to win. So they built all these huge secret government facilites to generate greenhouse gases and they detonated these high explosives in the antartic to break ice off to melt to cause global warming. Now that nothing can be done and we are all going to die, they are denying it every happened.
Actually i dont believe a damn thing i just said but im sure somebody does. There is so much contradicting evidence on the part of the scientific community that the only 'evidence' they have of globabl warming is that the temperatures in certian climates which havent changed very much in the last 50 years of recording are slightly changing. In planetary terms, 50 years is a split second compared to thousands. Its just political bs imo.
Keep in mind that most of the contradictory information is because of one of these reasons:
1) The research was done by corporations that have high stakes vested in heavily polluting industries
2) The new research partially contradicts the old because the variables are so numerous and difficult to predict
3) The government backs both points of view to keep research going but without actually having to do anything
Its political BS yes...But please tell me you don't believe that dumping thousands of tonnes of CO2, methane, and other gasses into the atmosphere has no effect on our planets ecology and that we shouldn't do something about ****ing up our planet.
Because thats what were doing.
The planet goes through natural warming and cooling processes. We're probably going through a natural warming...but we're also dumping all sorts of crap into the equation and if that tipes the scales between a minor change and the onset of an iceage, runaway greenhouse effect, or the ultimate destruction of the ecology then we're really screwed because we have no where to go.
-
From what I've seen climatologists are saying that by around 2025 global warming will become irreversable regardless of what we do to limit mankinds production of greenhouse gases. By then it will be warm enough to trigger the release of methane from the methane hydrate traps in the ocean.
The sad thing is that this isn't new. The scientists have been banging on about this for nearly 30 years and very little evidence has been produced to show that they're wrong.
-
I see America is refusing to even entertain the idea. Global Warming is debateable but it seems the Bush Admin is once again going out of their way to isolate themselves from the rest of the developed world
-
Essentially, Bush isn't willing to make any sort of sacrifice that will benefit the rest of the world rather than the US.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
From what I've seen climatologists are saying that by around 2025 global warming will become irreversable regardless of what we do to limit mankinds production of greenhouse gases. By then it will be warm enough to trigger the release of methane from the methane hydrate traps in the ocean.
What happens then?
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
What happens then?
Massive global warming; Methane is apparently 20 times more efficient than Carbon Dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
This has been responsible for at least 2 mass extinctions; including the Permian extinction 250m years ago, that nearly wiped out all lif on earth - 94% of oceanic life died, oxygen levels plumetted, it took about 20-30m years for the coral reefs to regrow and about 100m for ecosystems to recover to the same extent as before..
It's believed that was caused by CO2 emissions from volcanic activity. Humanity is capable of the same output levels.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Essentially, Bush isn't willing to make any sort of sacrifice that will benefit the rest of the world rather than the US.
He might not, but individual communities, such as Seattle (http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/) are supporting it. It's a small step, but it's at least something to get the ball rolling.
For now, I'll just link to the main site.
-
We're breaking records here....ones that were set 100 years ago or more in some cases.
Ok granted, but what caused incredible warming 100 years ago, when the population was MUCH smaller industry was MUCH smaller?
Plus this is just a snapshot in one place. So are you going to tell me also that record colds in the winter is also caused by global warming?
So i guess after 2025 we are all doomed, New York will become the north pole, Americans will flock to mexico to save themselves ALL because the selfish US didnt want to destroy its economy to satisfy the demands of some scientists pumping out this bilge.
Chew on this:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html)
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000ED75C-D366-1212-8F3983414B7F0000 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000ED75C-D366-1212-8F3983414B7F0000)
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_lopsided_planet.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_lopsided_planet.html)
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html)
Wierd Junk Science
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Ok granted, but what caused incredible warming 100 years ago, when the population was MUCH smaller industry was MUCH smaller?
I don't think you grasp the concept. We're CONSISTENTLY breaking records that are hundred or fifty years old on a regular basis.
Its not that it hasn't been this warm, or this wet, or this dry, or this destructive (when you talk about storms) before....but that its happening all at the same time, in the same years in a row over and over again.
You're unfortunately amongst that average percentage of the population that doesn't understand, doesn't care, and is quite happy to go along feeling happy that they have no idea what sort of devastation we're creating just to live a certain way of life.
Furthermore, the average warming of the entire planet by several degrees C has massive impacts all across the world changing climates and affecting the way weather operates. Yes some areas may infact be colder in climate depending on how winds, water, and the like shift around. Some of the record colds that have been racking up in places where continental flows, determined in part by airflow around the equator (where it generally is very warm and getting warmer), become stronger and have an extreme cooling effect during the winter and an extreme heating effect during the summer.
Most of those articles you've got there present new theories and new ideas in the field. All of the scientific community (or nearly there so) knows that there is a global warming effect occuring. Average temperatures globally are up (in the 1-2 degree range). What they disagree on is why and how much humans have an impact. Some disagree that the large quanities of CO2 in the atmosphere are having any huge impact and that humanity has little ability to have an overall influence. So in otherwords, warming is going to happen if we're here or not. On the other hand, many support that but suggest that our influence is that we're increasing the speed and impact of the warming which adds an unstable and unknown potential into the whole equation.
What does it mean? Weather and ecology are difficult to precisely predict...but I'll say it again...where in gods name would anyone get the idea that dumping thousands of millions of tons of toxic chemicals in watersheds, into the atmosphere (that we breath by the way!), and so on would be good for anyone?
I think you'll find that if you suck on the exhaust of your car for a few minutes you'll be quite dead. So why is it any better to take that car, multiply it by millions of times, and then dump it into the atmosphere at large? Its not...thats bull****.
Heat related deaths in my area are on the rise every summer. Continually decreasing air quality (as indicated by the PPM by the Weather Channel) is taking its toll on anyone with health conditions. I was talking to a firefighter earlier in the week...said people are falling like flies in this unseasonably hot weather and has said that he's never seen anything like it and that it keeps getting worse every year. We we're even talking environment...just people and saving lives and such.
If people like Bush, Blair, Martin, and so on don't get their countries together, their industries and corporations in line (using a large stick if necessary), then our current way of life is going to end very badly - then alot of people are going to die and those of us who have been reading the reports, studying the science, and listening to those who really know, are going to say "we told you so but you ****ups were too stupid".
-
Not a single one of those contradicts global warming (apart from the hypothesis which says that we're still to blame for it but that we started 8000 years ago).
In fact the whole global dimming thing actually means that the greenhouse effect is worse than the predictions made in the 80 and 90s because global dimming was masking the true effects of global warming. I took global dimming into account when I stated that the deadline was around 2025 (which is why you'll find it's much closer than most predictions you'll have heard).
-
So basically, we have 15 years or so to get our sh*t together, or nature will start pushing back?
Doesn't sound very nice, actually it sounds apocolyptic.
-
Humanity should be able to survive global warming. It won't get warm enough that it will make us extinct or anything like that. The question is whether civilisation can deal with it.
Britain for instance is quite severely f**ked cause the gulf stream is already showing signs of shutting down. If that goes we can kiss goodbye to winters with 4-5 days of snow and look forwards to winters like Norway and Sweden get.
America is basically going to lose the entire grain belt. I've got no idea what that will do to the country but it doesn't sound good to me.
The problem is what will happen once we start getting food shortages etc in the developed world. I suspect they're going to start throwing their weight around even more than usual in an attempt to try to grab as much of the worlds resources to themselves. In a tinderbox environment like that it's possible that although Global Warming itself can't wipe us out we'll manage to do it ourselves.
BTW the Pentagon did some work on trying to figure out what effect a rise in temperature would have on the world by 2020. It was pretty chilling reading but is actually a lower rise than scientists are now starting to believe will happen.
There's an article about that here (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html).
-
IIRc someone worked out the effects if the entire ice cap melted and raised the ocean level (275 ft IIRC); basically every populated area in the Uk would be wiped ouy by floods, the highlands would become physically isolated from the rest of the UK, and Ireland would virtually cease to exist.
Incidentally, one of the main concerns over global warming is not the rise in temperature, but the ever (I think exponentially) increasing rate of increase.
Incidentally, this graph indicates the rate of temperate increase since 1600; (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/t-trend.gif) (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/boreholeT-feb00.htm)
In the likely event of us (humanity) being ****ed royally by global warming, it's not going to be solely the US' fault, of course. But being the worlds largest produced of pollution (2nd largest per capita behind Oz), and having consistently failed to address the issue (and even pulled out of international agreements to do so) is scarcely going to make the US look the best of a bad lot. Ultimately, it's the likes of the US (and China, etc) who have to take a lead, because not only do they produce the most, they also have the ability to finance and identify alternatives.
-
You guys are acting like this stuff that is preached in the pulpits of labratories is gospel. These clowns cant even predict correctly or not if it is going to rain or not much less predict the end of the world in 20 years. Even if we found a nice spot in the middile of the pacific and detonated a thousand nuclear weapons, we couldnt destroy the atmosphere. Gosh in order to destroy the atmosphere the planet would have to look like Couroscant from space.
You think this civilization which 'exploits and destroys' the earth purposefully for financial gain is evil anyway, so why should you have any qualms about letting it destroy itself?
If we are going to die anyway, why should we waste our last days in fear, panic, and uncertainty about whether our foolish notions that we can fix the planet like they do in the movies, that we destroyed no less, rather than just accept our fate and get on with our lives? You know what, if the world as we know it does come to an end because of global warming, does that mean that fewer sperm will be produced because of the increase of temperature in the male gonads? We are doomed no matter what.
-
you know if you look at that graph it's a fairly standard geometric growth paturn, and it starts hundreds of years ago, we have plenty of evedence that there is a climate shift, but I don't beleve it qualifies as more than maybe correlative. blowing up all the cars and powerplants is not going to happen, it's an imposable goal, and imposable goals are realy nice to get people hooked on so you can controle them.
-
Here in TO, streams off hot days, we've hit 34 Centigrade...it's only July 1st.
And in Tuytoyatuk (sp?) I believe the ice melted two weeks early around the Arctic Ocean...:ick:
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
You guys are acting like this stuff that is preached in the pulpits of labratories is gospel. These clowns cant even predict correctly or not if it is going to rain or not much less predict the end of the world in 20 years. Even if we found a nice spot in the middile of the pacific and detonated a thousand nuclear weapons, we couldnt destroy the atmosphere. Gosh in order to destroy the atmosphere the planet would have to look like Couroscant from space.
And you're qualified to be a better judge of this than thousands of experience, trained and well studied individuals why?
Decrying a common consensus by insulting the intelligence of the people who've come to that conclusion, is the lowest and most banal form of argument.
If you lack the intelligence or background knowledge, or the simple willingness to look for it, to point out actual reasons for disagreeing then don't bother arguing atall.
-
You are right, im too stupid to understand the importance and the reality of global warming, and since i dont have a degree in climatology, and not a certified 'expect' i can never talk any sense about global warming and i must listen and believe without question everything they say, even if it includes altering the way of life of every person in a civilized country.
If you want to alter the way of life of everybody just wait another 20 years and everything will chage. At least we will know if its all just a buch of bulsht or not. We will save lots of money, lots of work hours, and lots of problems. But even if it isnt 20 years, im predicting that Global Warming will go on, just the predictions will change to be 20 more years. Another thing why isnt global warming called Worldwide Warming?
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
You are right, im too stupid to understand the importance and the reality of global warming, and since i dont have a degree in climatology, and not a certified 'expect' i can never talk any sense about global warming and i must listen and believe without question everything they say, even if it includes altering the way of life of every person in a civilized country.
Calling the scientists behind predictions 'clowns' as the basis of your argument would indicate you aren't able to talk sense about it, because you can't present a logical response that actually addresses the scientific issues.
you're not even asking questions, after all. Just discounting without thought, because it might hurt you in the pocket.
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
If you want to alter the way of life of everybody just wait another 20 years and everything will chage. At least we will know if its all just a buch of bulsht or not. We will save lots of money, lots of work hours, and lots of problems. But even if it isnt 20 years, im predicting that Global Warming will go on, just the predictions will change to be 20 more years. Another thing why isnt global warming called Worldwide Warming?
And if it proves to be a problem in 20 years time? What then? I mean, by your logic, maybe we should just wait and see if the AIDS epidemic will burn itself out and we'll develop an immunity. The principle of simply assuming nothing will happen - without even borthering to consider the consequence - has never been a good strategy. for anything.
Do you think this is some sort of grand conspiracy? That all these climate researchers, biologists, etc (almost every tract of physical science has some involvement in the issue) are simply making stuff up?
-
what was it Bush was saying about Iraqs WMDs? we can't wait untill we loose a city? were threatened with looseing thousands of miles of land and millions of our people alone dieing. while I am not convinced that we are the cause of the problem, there is a problem, and you seem to have a far too dismissive attitude about it, it seems, because it might hurt you politicaly.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
what was it Bush was saying about Iraqs WMDs? we can't wait untill we loose a city? were threatened with looseing thousands of miles of land and millions of our people alone dieing. while I am not convinced that we are the cause of the problem, there is a problem, and you seem to have a far too dismissive attitude about it, it seems, because it might hurt you politicaly.
Without wishing to stray into Iraq-war-debate territory, global warming does have the benefit of stuff like evidence and ongoing research and soforth ot back up action.
Incidentally, RE: that graph I put up earlier. IIRC here is quite a bit evidence of an increase in the rate of temperature rise over the last 50 years (if you look at that graph, it's not a linear rise but a curved, increasing one). Alone it's obviously not proof of a relationship to human activity (although it parallels somewhat the industrialisation of the world), the connection is backed up by studies and soforth into the effect of pollution in terms of climate change.
Also, tacking climate change doesn't entail a wholespread change of human civillisation. Things like tightening control over emissions regulations, focusing on replaceable fuel sources (waves, wind, solar), encouraging use of non-petrol based cars (hybrid, electric, natural gas) and reducing car use (encouraging carpooling, putting money into subsidised public transport). Not to mention the simple benefit of requiring people switch the power off - how many offices do you see at night with the lights, computer screens, etc left on?
None of these require fundamental changes; they won't solve the problem, but they will make a start.
-
That article was incredibly disturbing karajorma. Hopefully we won't get the worst-case scenario if we can't curb global warming.
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
You guys are acting like this stuff that is preached in the pulpits of labratories is gospel. These clowns cant even predict correctly or not if it is going to rain or not much less predict the end of the world in 20 years. Even if we found a nice spot in the middile of the pacific and detonated a thousand nuclear weapons, we couldnt destroy the atmosphere. Gosh in order to destroy the atmosphere the planet would have to look like Couroscant from space.
You think this civilization which 'exploits and destroys' the earth purposefully for financial gain is evil anyway, so why should you have any qualms about letting it destroy itself?
If we are going to die anyway, why should we waste our last days in fear, panic, and uncertainty about whether our foolish notions that we can fix the planet like they do in the movies, that we destroyed no less, rather than just accept our fate and get on with our lives? You know what, if the world as we know it does come to an end because of global warming, does that mean that fewer sperm will be produced because of the increase of temperature in the male gonads? We are doomed no matter what.
This is an example of the kind of attitude that will lead to our destruction, basically ignoring the problem. I say it's better to act on the information we have than to sit back and see what happens.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Incidentally, RE: that graph I put up earlier. IIRC here is quite a bit evidence of an increase in the rate of temperature rise over the last 50 years (if you look at that graph, it's not a linear rise but a curved, increasing one). Alone it's obviously not proof of a relationship to human activity (although it parallels somewhat the industrialisation of the world), the connection is backed up by studies and soforth into the effect of pollution in terms of climate change.
Originally posted by Bobboau
geometric growth (http://images.google.com/images?q=geometric%20growth&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wi)
-
Wow...that Pentagon report adds another dimension I hadn't really considered. I hope we never see that day...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
This has been responsible for at least 2 mass extinctions; including the Permian extinction 250m years ago, that nearly wiped out all lif on earth - 94% of oceanic life died, oxygen levels plumetted, it took about 20-30m years for the coral reefs to regrow and about 100m for ecosystems to recover to the same extent as before..
It's believed that was caused by CO2 emissions from volcanic activity. Humanity is capable of the same output levels.
Isn't this extinction now believed to be caused by an impact with an asteroid or comet, similar to that of 65 mya (link (http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2001archive/02-01archive/k022201.html))? Or are you referring to the aftereffects of said collision?
-
You think this civilization which 'exploits and destroys' the earth purposefully for financial gain is evil anyway, so why should you have any qualms about letting it destroy itself?
See, right there is the problem. You're making it a moral issue when it doesn't have to be. I hate camping and I think whales are boring as sh!t, but I recognize that curbing pollution is not about being nice to the cute furry animals, it's about our survival. We won't know how long we can survive unless we try.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
You are right, im too stupid to understand the importance and the reality of global warming, and since i dont have a degree in climatology, and not a certified 'expect' i can never talk any sense about global warming and i must listen and believe without question everything they say, even if it includes altering the way of life of every person in a civilized country.
I don't have a degree in climatology but I'm talking. Talking is fine as long as you don't act like you know everything. You've yet to provide me with one reason why global warming isn't real. The articles you linked to generally support that it is real (Including the one on global dimming which you probably though was a contradiction).
If you've got a real point to make I'm happy to listen but at the moment all I'm hearing is tin foil hat theories about how all the climatologists are wrong but you're right and no evidence whatsoever of why you're right.
All I see from you is a case of someone who wants to stick his fingers in his ears and pretend that it isn't happening. If you think it's not happening prove it.
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
If you want to alter the way of life of everybody just wait another 20 years and everything will chage. At least we will know if its all just a buch of bulsht or not. We will save lots of money, lots of work hours, and lots of problems. But even if it isnt 20 years, im predicting that Global Warming will go on, just the predictions will change to be 20 more years
We've waited 30 years already and the effects are already obvious. Out of the top ten hottest years since recording began almost all (if not all of them) are within the last 30 years. That's not isolated data. That's a trend.
Sure solving global warming might cause lots of problems but ignoring it will cause a f**kload more.
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Another thing why isnt global warming called Worldwide Warming?
That's a rather silly question. Why the hell should they have called it that. Besides worldwide warming implies (to me at least) that everywhere in the world will get warmer. As I've already stated that's not true. Britain for instance will get colder (at least in winter). Global Warming on the other hand indicates that the Earth as a whole will get warmer which is exactly what will happen.
Originally posted by Mongoose
Isn't this extinction now believed to be caused by an impact with an asteroid or comet, similar to that of 65 mya (link (http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2001archive/02-01archive/k022201.html))? Or are you referring to the aftereffects of said collision?
I don't know if I believe that an asteroid or comet impact could cause the Permian extinction. It seems unlikely that a single impact triggered the million year long erruption of the Siberian Traps.
I tend to go with the theory here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/dayearthdied.shtml).
The exctinction due to warming was slow until the methane hydrate bubbled out of the ocean. After that happened 95% of sea life died within 4,000 years.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Isn't this extinction now believed to be caused by an impact with an asteroid or comet, similar to that of 65 mya (link (http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2001archive/02-01archive/k022201.html))? Or are you referring to the aftereffects of said collision?
Effects; see
[q]The collision wasn't directly responsible for the extinction but rather triggered a series of events, such as massive volcanism and changes in ocean oxygen, sea level and climate[/q]
My understanding is that climate change is regarded as the most likely cause, although I think the triggering factor for that change is still a matter of debate.
-
The exctinction due to warming was slow until the methane hydrate bubbled out of the ocean. After that happened 95% of sea life died within 4,000 years.
So basically the earth killed everone on it due to its own warming, or the dinosaurs had internal combustion engines?
If the earth is warming itself, how do you think that any solution of ours could fix it? Volcanoes erupt all the time, and they release more gases and heat than mankind could ever pump out.
But seriously you didnt think that the story about clearer skies killing off the planet was comical? That flies in the face of all the scientists that state how we are producing so much smog and pollution that its warming up the planet, but when the skies are clearer than expected, its still a problem.
-
Volcanoes erupt all the time, and they release more gases and heat than mankind could ever pump out.
I think you're underestimating the sheer amounts of gas produced by human machinery. There are six billion people on this planet. Just because the earth has warmed itself in the past doesn't mean we can't do it too. Again, I'm not saying that humanity is "evil", just that we're going to have to start paying real attention to this issue for our own good.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
So basically the earth killed everone on it due to its own warming, or the dinosaurs had internal combustion engines?
More ignorance. The question is whether or not Trilobites had the internal combustion engine. The dinosaurs didn't evolve until after the Permian extinction.:p
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
If the earth is warming itself, how do you think that any solution of ours could fix it?
Who said that the Earth is warming itself this time? Do you not understand the basic concept that mankind can duplicate the effects of nature? Previous extinctions have caused deforestation so I guess what's going on in the Brazillian rain forests must also be natural and not due to people cutting down trees. I suppose that since the H-Bomb is similar to the processes in the centre of the sun it must also be a natural phenomenon? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Volcanoes erupt all the time, and they release more gases and heat than mankind could ever pump out.
Volcanos do not pump out more gases than mankind does. Last time someone made that assertion I found sources to prove it *digs up old thread*
The eruption of Mount Pinatubo released 42 Megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere (source (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/Emissions/Reports/Pinatubo/pinatubo_abs.html)). Remember that Pinatubo is considered one of the biggest eruptions of recent times (if not the biggest).
The USA however produces emissions of 5,500 Megatons each year (source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778287.html))
In other words the USA alone pumps out more CO2 than all the volcanos on Earth.
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
But seriously you didnt think that the story about clearer skies killing off the planet was comical? That flies in the face of all the scientists that state how we are producing so much smog and pollution that its warming up the planet, but when the skies are clearer than expected, its still a problem.
Nope. It isn't comical. It's tragic. If you pay attention scientists have never been claiming that smog was warming the Earth. The comments have always focused on CO2, Methane, CFCs and various other greenhouse gases.
Air pollution is bad for other reasons. Mainly because of damage to the ozone layer and also because of the effects of smog on peoples health. I've never seen a single scientific paper that blamed smog for global warming.
Scientists have always known that smog would cool the Earth. The mistake they made is that they didn't realise how much because greenhouse gas emissions were masking this effect and there are very few ways you can directly measure the effect of particulate matter on global temperature. As a result the effects of smog and particulate matter were always taken as being nearly negligable.
-
Kara, why do you even bother?
-
Cause maybe some bystanders other than DeepSpace9er might actually sit up and take notice. I know he's a lost cause but hopefully a few other people will read things like the Pentagon report and realise what a big problem this actually is.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Effects; see
[q]The collision wasn't directly responsible for the extinction but rather triggered a series of events, such as massive volcanism and changes in ocean oxygen, sea level and climate[/q]
My understanding is that climate change is regarded as the most likely cause, although I think the triggering factor for that change is still a matter of debate.
I guess it would be nice if I managed to read my own links. :p
-
Just to clarify a little bit on where i stand. I am not a destroy-the-environment types, but i understand that pollution is a necessary evil that must exist for society to continue to exist. Being realistic there is no way we can become completely green; there will always be pollutants.
What i am against is going to extremes to protect the environment even to the point of accepting what these scientists say without question because it fits the green template: that mankind is ruining the earth and we must fix it. I dont think that we should pollute unchecked, and that unoverbearing emissions controls can be a good thing, but Kyoto is too much.
Another illustration of where i stand would be: I would consider buying a hybrid car, because it has better gas milage not that its a green car.
Could you just give me a simple illustration of what civilization would be in your perfect society where we dont pollute the world?
-
Do you actually know what Kyoto required?
It set targets ('credits') upon CO2 emissions which were actualyl higher than the emissions at the time of ratification (targeted at reducing the rise in temperature to 0.8c). Nations which hit/were under these targets (such as Russia) can sell the 'credit' from this to other nations (i.e. countries can actually make money from being under their targets). Additionally, nations receive credit based upon environmental measures such as reforestation.
Strangely, the EU has implemented the protocol (on target to reduce emissions to be 4.7% less than 1990 by 2008); and yet I don't see the UK economy collapsing. Although I believe the main argument is that Kyoto is itself quite weak and serves a purpose as groundwork for further reductions rather than being a be-all and end-all. (It's worth noting preventing global warming has its own financial benefits; 141 countries don't ratify a treaty out of the goodness of their hearts)
It's probably worth noting China - one of the worlds fastest growing economies - has managed to reduce CO2 emissions 17% since 1997, and it's not even formally covered by Kyoto yet (although it has ratified it and is expected to declare itself an Annex-1 country by the end of the decade).
(China, incidentally, produces 2.3tonnes of CO2 per capita; the US produces 20.1 and the EU 8.5)
your main arguement seems to be that 'we can't eliminate all pollution, so lets do nothing atall'. Unfortunately that's akin to some sort of damage maximisation programme... although there's probably a strong argument that with switches to sustainable energy, investment in electric rather than petrol transport (incidentally, IIRC they just tested an elctrically powered jet aircraft), reforestation, etc you could create a natural balance where reduced emissions can be controlled through said reforestation.
It's probably an attitude akin to the people in the Us government who thanked the Exxon corporation for their input into US climate policy. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html)
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
What i am against is going to extremes to protect the environment even to the point of accepting what these scientists say without question because it fits the green template: that mankind is ruining the earth and we must fix it.
Oh dear. This just gets worse by the second. :rolleyes:
So now that we've proved every single ill-informed assertion you've made on this thread incorrect you resort back to your tin foil hat assertion that the entire scientific community is involved in some kind of secret agenda designed to cripple economies just because they are tree-huggers.
You can't produce a single shred of evidence that this is the case but because conspiracy theories are so hard to catagorically deny you've decided to latch on to the one argument you know can't be refuted.
Absolutely pathetic. :rolleyes:
While you might think that the emission controls laid out in Kyoto were bad for America you'll find out soon enough that they are nothing compared to what the Pentagon thinks is going to happen when the world warms up.
You're doing to a great job of protecting American industry all the way down the toilet.
-
It's probably worth noting China - one of the worlds fastest growing economies - has managed to reduce CO2 emissions 17% since 1997, and it's not even formally covered by Kyoto yet (although it has ratified it and is expected to declare itself an Annex-1 country by the end of the decade).
(China, incidentally, produces 2.3tonnes of CO2 per capita; the US produces 20.1 and the EU 8.5)
And China is a much poorer country than the US. The government there has a much larger population to take care of, and has fewer resources to do it with.
Just to clarify a little bit on where i stand. I am not a destroy-the-environment types,
Prove it.
What i am against is going to extremes to protect the environment
The US spends many times more in a month occupying other countries than it spends in 3 years on the development of cleaner energy sources/fuels.
I swear I feel the IQ of this country dropping every second......
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Just to clarify a little bit on where i stand. I am not a destroy-the-environment types, but i understand that pollution is a necessary evil that must exist for society to continue to exist. Being realistic there is no way we can become completely green; there will always be pollutants.
What i am against is going to extremes to protect the environment even to the point of accepting what these scientists say without question because it fits the green template: that mankind is ruining the earth and we must fix it. I dont think that we should pollute unchecked, and that unoverbearing emissions controls can be a good thing, but Kyoto is too much.
Another illustration of where i stand would be: I would consider buying a hybrid car, because it has better gas milage not that its a green car.
Could you just give me a simple illustration of what civilization would be in your perfect society where we dont pollute the world?
*Sighs* Why must "being realistic" mean "pessimistic" so often? Is this really America I live in, or is it an alternate dimension America?
Did you ever have an environmental science class? Pollution is unnecessary. There are ways to live with clean burning fuels in combination with renewable resources resulting in virtually no pollution from emissions today. The technology is there, but it needs proper funding to get going. We're not saying the only way to survive is to go back to hunting and gathering, but if nothing is done about this, we just might.
I agree that money will be the big motivator for a lot of people to conserve. It is truly sad that a lot of people think like this. "What's in it for me?" You're saving the earth and preserving the human race! What more could the people want?
We will fight this threat to the bitter end though. The price of failure is far too high to ignore this. It's suicide if we do...as a species.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
And China is a much poorer country than the US. The government there has a much larger population to take care of, and has fewer resources to do it with.
I think it's even more important to note that the Chinese economy has been growing whilst doing so; which flies in the face of the belief that environmental responsibility would destroy the economy.
-
I want to ride a bicycle to work everyday too!
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
I want to ride a bicycle to work everyday too!
If your being sarcastic I feel sorry for you :blah:
If your being serious good going:yes: :D
Although I can't really ride a bicycle around here that well my ATV gets better gas mileage then a car.
-
Actually, there's at least one very good reason to try and slow down global warming...
Much of global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels. These are something of a finite resource. So what happens to our civillization - which apparently we can't try to change to not use fossil fuels, because that would cost money - when fossil fuels run out?
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Actually, there's at least one very good reason to try and slow down global warming...
Much of global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels. These are something of a finite resource. So what happens to our civillization - which apparently we can't try to change to not use fossil fuels, because that would cost money - when fossil fuels run out?
It would collapse. But I guess that doesn't really matter to the right wing of this country or ill-informed people like Deepspa9er..... :rolleyes:
-
Last time I was in London - and in the financial sector (rough area of St. Pauls and the Bank of England) it was packed with the bikes of people cycling to work.
It avoid congestion, for one thing. Also helps people get fit; the only real problem with it is the air pollution (they have to breathe in).
(actually, that's probably another major benefit of pollution controls; reduces problems like asthma and lung conditions)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
(China, incidentally, produces 2.3tonnes of CO2 per capita; the US produces 20.1 and the EU 8.5)
America does generate IIRC 35% of the total capital of the planet. Obviously that isn't justification.
-
Eh, missed this first time 'round.
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
I want to ride a bicycle to work everyday too!
It'd be a good way to help keep in shape and save money.
-
Actually considering what my job is it would be physically impossible as i travel more than 60+ miles everyday. And my bike has flat tires in my basement covered with dust and cobwebs... guess it is sarcasm; now feel sorry for me!
-
60 miles = only 4 hours biking @ an avg speed of 15 mph. :p
-
so that means to get to work i got to wake up at say.... 3am, but that still doesnt cover all of my work supplies i have to haul. Maybe ill get one of the pedal cars instead.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Actually, there's at least one very good reason to try and slow down global warming...
Much of global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels. These are something of a finite resource. So what happens to our civillization - which apparently we can't try to change to not use fossil fuels, because that would cost money - when fossil fuels run out?
Originally posted by Kosh
It would collapse.
What I don't get is why the oil companies don't adapt and focus on cleaner sources of energy. They have to switch eventually, and there's a ton of money in it for them if they do.
-
With Brent at $60 a barrel I can't say I blame them completely for not wanting to stop the money rolling in. Rather short sighted of them though.
-
Ironically the best hope is coming from one of the bigger pollution responsible: the energy companies.
With the oil price going up they are finally forking up cash in order to try switching to other sources, this is going quite nicely in places like Germany, maybe not everything is lost...
BTW, if some experimentation about solar cells made with saline crystals in Italy goes well I think M.E. and Africa are going to take a good share of energy production...
They surely got room and sun for massive solar plants...
-
Even monkeys can learn:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050703/pl_afp/g8summitclimate_050703205719
-
Why waste huge masses of land for solar plants? Isnt there some prototype fusion reactor that is going to be built in France that supposedly is going to attempt to break even on energy production?
Yes here is da link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm)
Why collect rays from the sun when you can make one next door?
:ha:
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Why waste huge masses of land for solar plants? Isnt there some prototype fusion reactor that is going to be built in France that supposedly is going to attempt to break even on energy production?
Yes here is da link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm)
Why collect rays from the sun when you can make one next door?
:ha:
Because
a) that plant will be just a large scale replication of an experiment that so far consumed more energy than it produced
b) it will take more than 20 years to build it with no certainity over the productivity
c) In places like sahara (or texas) you got miles and miles of desert and barren... put them at use in a productive way...
d) solar plants already break even and with decent research behind they could give fossil fuel a run for its money
oh, and
e) solar plants don't go boom if given poor maintenance
-
RE: to further the point of b) It's been estimated IIRc that it will take at least 40-50 years to develop a working fusion reactor (if it's even possible, which is to be decided).
And as kara said earlier, it's predicted that global warming will become irreversible after 2025 at current rates. So it's not even a solution, if it could be guarenteed to even work, which it isn't. Which means the problem of global warming has to be 'solved' regardless of the Iter project.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4647383.stm - more lack of progress....at least Bush is now conceeding that humans have an impact...but he's not willing to budge. The economy is more important he says.
Kyoto so far has not wrecked Canada's economy.
-
Thats because Kyoto is targeting countries like the US not Canada to go by what environmentalist wackos want. This is basically institutionalised socialism when it all boils down.
-
Considering the fact that we have the technology to have a sustainable economy and "go by what the environmentalist wackos want" yet companies in the US are refusing to make the necessary changes, perhaps treaties such as Kyoto or even the emission standards that McCain and Lieberman proposed are a necessary kick in the pants?
When the US military is moving to hybrid vehicles, but a certain popular consumer car is getting at best 7 mpg, there's something wrong.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Considering the fact that we have the technology to have a sustainable economy and "go by what the environmentalist wackos want" yet companies in the US are refusing to make the necessary changes, perhaps treaties such as Kyoto or even the emission standards that McCain and Lieberman proposed are a necessary kick in the pants?
When the US military is moving to hybrid vehicles, but a certain popular consumer car is getting at best 7 mpg, there's something wrong.
YEP...for sure.
The Japanese thankfully are much smarter than the US car makers. I've read that most of them are going towards an all hybrid line by 2007 or 2008. They will probably be the first to adopt widescale hydrogen if that ever comes along.
-
and well get slaughtered in the market... worse
-
Originally posted by Ace
When the US military is moving to hybrid vehicles, but a certain popular consumer car is getting at best 7 mpg, there's something wrong.
I have heard we could've had fuel cell cars by now, that Detroit has been pushing for it, but they just can't beat the oil lobby. Now that gas prices are skyrocketing, they should be able to market more efficient vehicles and ultimately, develop clean burning cars. It's either that or repeat the mistakes of the 70's all over again.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Thats because Kyoto is targeting countries like the US not Canada to go by what environmentalist wackos want. This is basically institutionalised socialism when it all boils down.
Canada is also a developed country. It isn't like the US is the only major economy you know. Where do you find all this garbage anyway?
And this is going way past environmentalism. Getting off fossil fuels would be highly beneficial to national security.
But appearently you seem more interested in protecting the oil industries' profits than this countries' future. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Thats because Kyoto is targeting countries like the US not Canada to go by what environmentalist wackos want. This is basically institutionalised socialism when it all boils down.
I was goin to write a considered reply about how Kyoto targets all first-world nations (with the ability to replace pollutant technology with cleaner alternatives both in existing and future applications) such as Germany and Japan, and how it's no more socialist than say the Geneva Convention or existing corporate law (do you even know what socialism is? by nature it can't be anything but institutionalised, for one thing....), but then I realised you're still talking rubbish with terms like 'environmentalist whackos' and are working from a viewpoiint of wilful ignorance, bias and short term self-interest.
Of course, Kyoto is suppossed to target all heavy polluters, so it would sort of have to target the country that produces 25% of the worlds pollution as much as any other. I'm sure they'd be happy to let the US wallow in its own filth if it wasn't for the somewhat tricky 'global' part of 'global warming'.