I may be stupid

[ferrarigod]

but, I thought Katrina, and the other 3 hurricanes that hit Florida were caused by global warming.

Now people are saying global warming prevents serious hurricanes?????


Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, we have no CONTROL, EFFECT or CLUE as to how things work and what makes the world react the way it does?

Seems like the obvious answer, especially considering predicitons last year show'd 15 major hurricanes impacting the US and not a single one hit anywhere.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-04-17T223135Z_01_N17419452_RTRUKOC_0_US-WEATHER-HURRICANES-SHEAR.xml&src=rss&rpc=22


Honest opinion:
I may be the only one, but I just feel alot of the reason why people claim global warming is because they have an insane idea that humans actually are the greatest thing since sliced bread. That everything we do has an effect and that we are all over carrying capacity and ability.

Is it perhaps not true, is there maybe outside forces that effect more than we ever can, like, oh I don't know, Volcano's, the Sun, solar winds.

In my view the claim of global warming, and being able to tie it directly to human growth is one of the most arrogant and imcompetent ideas.

If everyone doesn't realize that this is all a scare tactic for my power and greater idea of socialization and liberalization, then you aren't look hard enough.

I'm not saying global warming is a falacy, but I don't believe that we are the only ones causing it, and I don't believe if we stopped CO2 emissions today that anything would change. There were Ice Ages before humans and there will be drastic changes in temperatures after humans are gone.

This isn't political, I just wanted to have a discussion about the absolute arrogance and comedy provided by global warming fanatics every day.

ok. enough serious crap. lets get drunk.

[Ankf00]

they teach science in b-school these days? I picked the wrong major. :gomer:

[B3RACER1a]

Took the words from my mouth, FG. :thumbup:

[Stu]

This isn't political, I just wanted to have a discussion about the absolute arrogance and comedy provided by global warming fanatics every day.

Problem is, those arrogant fanatics are on one side of the political spectrum, and the non believers are on the other.

[TravelGal]

I'm sure all of us who ride in airplanes will be happy to hear that windsheer could possibly might be on the increase.

I'll go with you that we have no clue and maybe even no control, but to think that several billion creatures have no effect on their host isn't logical.

[Insomniac]

I personally tend to believe the scientists. The one group that does not agree on global warming is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

I also believe that it doesn't hurt by triyng to pollute less and take care of the planet. If the majority of scientists are right and skeptics are wrong, by the time there is practically irrefutable proof (I'm sure there will always be people who don't agree) we're screwed. If the scientists are wrong, and the skeptics were right, we didn't pollute as much and did some good things.

[nrc]

Interesting British Documentary, "The Global Warming Swindle".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

[Ankf00]

scientists have MS's and PhD's and stuff, so naturally they're ignorant toolshed blowhards who are 100% full of ****. they never learned a damn thing in their life, they stay in academia because they're too chickenshit to face the real world, are you going to trust someone too chickenshit to face the real world?

how can you believe scientists? you communist. :flame:

[ferrarigod]

scientists have MS's and PhD's and stuff, so naturally they're ignorant toolshed blowhards who are 100% full of ****. they never learned a damn thing in their life, they stay in academia because they're too chickenshit to face the real world, are you going to trust someone too chickenshit to face the real world?

how can you believe scientists? you communist. :flame:

your best post ever.

:laugh:

[Kiwifan]

I was talking to a scientist about this the other day and gave my view that the Earth has been colder and hotter and this was way before humans were around. Surprisingly he agreed but said it is the rate of change which was the concern.

Taking our back door, Antarctica, there has been quite dramatic change (warming) and what may have taken thousands of years was now happening in the 100s.

Scary stuff, don't know who is right or wrong but I do try to do my bit with recycling and stuff but will still fly and drive when I want and need to. ;)

Take care, Rusty.

[JLMannin]

Problem is, those arrogant fanatics are on one side of the political spectrum, and the non believers are on the other.

I happen to be a non-believer in global warming, but I am no Rush-baby . . . . . .



BTW, Mars is warming up too. Do the rovers count as SUV's?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[Tifosi24]

scientists have MS's and PhD's and stuff, so naturally they're ignorant toolshed blowhards who are 100% full of ****. they never learned a damn thing in their life, they stay in academia because they're too chickenshit to face the real world, are you going to trust someone too chickenshit to face the real world?

how can you believe scientists? you communist. :flame:

I agree. How dare we listen to qualified professionals. They are clearly in it for the money.

[Gangrel]

I was talking to a scientist about this the other day and gave my view that the Earth has been colder and hotter and this was way before humans were around. Surprisingly he agreed but said it is the rate of change which was the concern.

Taking our back door, Antarctica, there has been quite dramatic change (warming) and what may have taken thousands of years was now happening in the 100s.

Scary stuff, don't know who is right or wrong but I do try to do my bit with recycling and stuff but will still fly and drive when I want and need to. ;)

Take care, Rusty.

Ah, but that too is a hotly contested point. There has been much evidence uncovered or reinterpreted recently that prehistoric climate change has been much more sudden and fast than previously believed. Major changes thought to have taken place over thousands of years are now believed to have taken place over hundreds or even tens of years. That combined with the fact that the sample size (# of years) being used to "prove" global warming is too small to be significant...

Polution, particluarly carbon emissions, cause all kinds of problems, and we definately need to find ways to correct that for many reasons. I am not convinced that global warming is one of those reasons.

[Turn7]

Humans have zero effect on the Earth and 100% effect on themselves.

No matter what humans do, Earth will still be there humans or not. So, you can't harm Earth only humankind.

Do what you want because you are going to die anyway so it really doesn't matter one iota if the Earth is warming or not.

[JLMannin]

Wow. Just imagine a few millenia from now when the current cycle of warming comes to an end and we begin the several millenia fall into the next ice age - there will be fanatics talking about global cooling cooming up half-baked ideas to entrap solar radiation in the atmosphere to ward off the certian destruction of mankind by advancing glaciers and rapidly falling sea levels.

On a geologic time scale, we are still emerging from the last ice age. Of course the global temperature is rising. That is what happens when we come out of an ice age. It's the temperature of the atmospehere that changes that causes the glaciers to advance or recede.

One Krakatoa like volcanic eruption could easily wipe out a century or two of temperature rise by putting volcanic dust high into the atmospehere for years. Keep in mind that Krakatoa is like a firecracker compared to the supervolcano that goelogists think may covers vast portions of the western states - there is geologic evivence indicating repeating eruptions with a mean time in between of 2,000,000 years. A supervolcanic eruption of that scale would cover the city of Chicago with several inches of ash.

Only the arrogance of man could assume that we have the power to alter a system like Earth that has survived clamaties and disasters far worse than man.

[ferrarigod]

Interesting British Documentary, "The Global Warming Swindle".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

That is the video I was referring to. I have some other ideas outside of that movie as well. I don't believe this, or anything for that matter, is as clear cut as the 'experts' say.

How was the 'expert' hurricane prediction last year? And now its because of global warming. I thought the reason Katrina happened was because of global warming, which is it?

[cameraman]

Only the arrogance of man could assume that we have the power to alter a system like Earth that has survived clamaties and disasters far worse than man.

You are absolutely wrong in that belief. Humans have the power to drastically alter the biosphere and humans are doing exactly that.

[G.]

You are absolutely wrong in that belief. Humans have the power to drastically alter the biosphere and humans are doing exactly that.Got proof?

Real Cause-and-Effect proof?

Not coincidental "proof".

[Ankf00]

That is the video I was referring to. I have some other ideas outside of that movie as well. I don't believe this, or anything for that matter, is as clear cut as the 'experts' say.

I saw this cool video that said the moon landings were filmed in some secret bunker in Nevada by the government. The 'experts' are all lying to us.

Neil Armstrong never went to the moon, people!!!!!

[G.]

SYDNEY (AFP) - An Australian scientist called Wednesday for an end to the age-old tradition of cremation, saying the practice contributed to global warming.

Professor Roger Short said people could instead choose to help the environment after death by being buried in a cardboard box under a tree.

The decomposing bodies would provide the tree with nutrients, and the tree would convert carbon dioxide into life-giving oxygen for decades, he said.

"The important thing is, what a shame to be cremated when you go up in a big bubble of carbon dioxide," Short told AFP.

"Why waste all that carbon dioxide on your death?"


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070418/tod-lifestyle-warming-death-7f81b96.html

[cameraman]

Got proof?

Real Cause-and-Effect proof?

Not coincidental "proof".

Cause: Carbon pumped into the atmosphere by humans.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/56/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png/250px-Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png

Direct effect: Increase in atmospheric CO2

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png/280px-Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

That is pure human activity. Humans are actively changing composition the atmosphere and we do not have any way of knowing the what the exact result of that ongoing change will be. We do know that it will change weather patterns, exactly how and when are not absolutely known, but there is no argument that a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 over forty years must alter the system.

Look at the first chart, humans will put more CO2 into the atmosphere in 2007 than they did in the entire 19th century. It is that extreme ramp up in the rate of CO2 emmisions that are the real concern.

[cameraman]

Fixed it for you.



SYDNEY (AFP) - An Australian scientist called Wednesday for an end to the age-old tradition of cremation, saying the practice contributed to global warming.

Professor Roger Short said people could instead choose to help the environment after death by being buried in a cardboard box under a tree.

The decomposing bodies would provide the tree with nutrients, and the tree would convert carbon dioxide into life-giving oxygen for decades, he said.

"The important thing is, what a shame to be cremated when you go up in a big bubble of carbon dioxide," Short told AFP.

"Why waste all that carbon dioxide on your death?"
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070418/tod-lifestyle-warming-death-7f81b96.html

[G.]

Check out the movie linked in the topic, when you have a spare hour and 15 mins to kill.

CO2 represents a small % of the greenhouse gasses in our atmos.

H20 is a rather large percentage, btw.

The movie is a "debunking" of the Inconvenient Truth" movie.

It opens up a lot of questions. (and gets it's own tit-for-tat debunking itself)

I don't have time for a blog on this, but there is no causal proof of human carbon production causing greenhouse. When there IS proof, I will be the guy in the park handing out tree seedlings, wearing my hemp sandals.

What gets me on this, is that the whole issue is based on Belief, and if you do NOT believe in it, you get jumped on HARD by believers.

That really pegs my BS meter.

But when there is proof, I will be on board. Really.

The answer is somewhere in the middle (as usual), but the bitterness of the carbon-free proponents gives me the creeps.



An Extremist Idiot in Australia lol Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

[oddlycalm]

How about a thread on religion next eh? :gomer:

oc

[G.]

How about a thread on religion next eh? :gomer:

oc:D

Kept my nose out of it until Richard posted.

I might start a thread on abortion though...;)

[Ankf00]

mayo in guac (communist)? sauce on bbq (heathen)? well-done burgers (okie)? beans in chili (communist)?

[cameraman]

The movie is a "debunking" of the Inconvenient Truth" movie.

I don't get my science information from movies. I did not waste my time with "An Inconvienient Truth" and I am not about to kill any watching somebody debunk it. Nor will I spend any time watching the debunking of the debunker. I'm sure you can find a debunker of the debunker of the debunker of the movie if you look hard enough:rolleyes:

Movies, politicians, talking heads, the vast majority of the internet and the press corps are lousy places to get scientific information.

[oddlycalm]

:D

Kept my nose out of it until Richard posted. Always good to wear a helmet...:thumbup:

My take is that the emotional arguements for and against somwhat miss the point. Leaving out climatic issues completely there are more than enough good reasons to cut carbon emissions. Not being energy reliant on unfriendly regimes is #1 for me followed closely by resolving our unsustainable balance of trade deficit.

On that abortion thing, are we talking retroactive as well, cough, TG, cough...? :tony:

oc

[Turn7]

I don't get my science information from movies. I did not waste my time with "An Inconvienient Truth" and I am not about to kill any watching somebody debunk it. Nor will I spend any time watching the debunking of the debunker. I'm sure you can find a debunker of the debunker of the debunker of the movie if you look hard enough:rolleyes:

Movies, politicians, talking heads, the vast majority of the internet and the press corps are lousy places to get scientific information.

Scientist say we are doomed because of global warming. Scientist say creatures evolve.

Which is it? will we die out or will we evolve. Scientist talk out both sides of their mouths and end up looking like fools.

[datachicane]

Scientist say we are doomed because of global warming. Scientist say creatures evolve.

Which is it? will we die out or will we evolve. Scientist talk out both sides of their mouths and end up looking like fools.

Scientists also say that somewhere north of 96% of all marine species and 72% of all terrestrial species became extinct during the Permian die-off.
Wrap your head around that one.

Extinction is faster than evolution- otherwise the planet would be graced with venomous dodos that run 45 mph and Polaris-missile-equipped Stellar's sea cows. 'Scientists' aren't the ones talking out of both sides of their mouths or looking foolish, friend.

Anybody else remember the glossy magazine that spontaneously appeared in our mailboxes thirty years ago, arguing that 'the jury was still out' re: the potential for negative health effects of tobacco? Anybody else have a serious case of deja vu? Check out some of the PR firms and professional industry-shill 'experts' behind the current pseudocontroversy- there's plenty of familiar names and faces there.

Science is fallible. Scientists are human. Scientists make mistakes. They also have a hell of a lot better track record than industry lobbyists. Warts and all, I'll take an overwhelming consensus of peer-reviewed scientific papers over paid consultants and crackpot gadflies any day. They may well turn out to be wrong, but the odds are definitely in my favor.

[Ankf00]

Scientist say we are doomed because of global warming. Scientist say creatures evolve.

Which is it? will we die out or will we evolve. Scientist talk out both sides of their mouths and end up looking like fools.

that's only a foolish comparison on your part. inspecting the time scales of both of those phenomena answers your question.



lets turn it around...

I ask: if god is loves us all and is all poweful, why does he let horrible things happen to people?

you say: it's all part of his plan

do people get to call you a fool even though I'm the one who asked the b.s. question about something I don't 100% understand just so I can say "you're full of it?"




regarding global warming, I don't know either way, how would I? I spend my days designing gizmos that fly, not researching in climatology. I'll read, I'll listen, but I certainly won't take anything away from movies, media, blogs, or talking heads.

the telling thing to me is so how fervently ppl are opposed to the concept of human influence, when 10 years ago they denied the existence of the phenomenon in the first place. global warming is just a proxy battle against left-wing environmentalism much as stem cells are with abortion.

90% of scientists agree on GW, 10% disagree, the majority isn't always correct. but what exactly puts any of us in a position to criticise the competence of every one of these scientists who spend their lives on this? because of a bloody movie?

me? I love the outdoors. I want a nice thick snowpack to ski south of the Canadian border. I want clean rivers to kayak and float that aren't toxic cesspools. I want to mountain bike through vibrant forests teeming with wildlife.

Therefore, I like environmental leg that takes your taxes for my own selfish reasons. If GW initiatives work towards that end for me, then allsome. However, I'm in no position to put forth any authoritative argument for human influence, and noone here against it is either. My smartass replies earlier in the thread aren't because I'm a hardcore global warming proponent, (because like I said, I have no clue) but because mind-numbingly asinine posts deserve asinine replies.

[Insomniac]

I saw this cool video that said the moon landings were filmed in some secret bunker in Nevada by the government. The 'experts' are all lying to us.

Neil Armstrong never went to the moon, people!!!!!

Tell Buzz Aldrin that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo)

[Turn7]

So what fuel did the dinosaurs burn to cause the greenhouse gas that lead to their extinction? Couldn't have been oil, that's them.

What I am saying is that humans can become extinct and it won't stop life on Earth. We can not destroy Earth, we may be able to destroy our habitate to the point that we are greatly reduced in numbers or killed off completely. If you are a true science beleiver, then you'll realize that the Earth was here long before man and will be here long afterward. No matter how important you think "we" are, in the grand view of things we are nothing but a passing fancy.

Either that or you can accept reality.

[Turn7]

So evolution only works in books and not in real scenarios? Is that what I am hearing?

[coolhand]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Mars is warming too. carbon emissions :gomer:


"A Convenient Fiction"
http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/inconvenient3.html

More scientists challenging the "Consensus".

How come to the Global Warming Crowd a "Consensus" on Genetically Modified Food is not good enough?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119530.html

[Ankf00]

What I am saying is that humans can become extinct and it won't stop life on Earth.

complete agreement dude, but as a human, I don't want to become extinct, not that it will happen in our lifetimes, but posterity and all that...


So evolution only works in books and not in real scenarios? Is that what I am hearing?

serious evolution usually doesn't happen in 50-100 year timeframes is what you're hearing

[JLMannin]

Cause: Carbon pumped into the atmosphere by humans.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/56/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png/250px-Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png

Direct effect: Increase in atmospheric CO2

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png/280px-Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

That is pure human activity. Humans are actively changing composition the atmosphere and we do not have any way of knowing the what the exact result of that ongoing change will be. We do know that it will change weather patterns, exactly how and when are not absolutely known, but there is no argument that a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 over forty years must alter the system.

Look at the first chart, humans will put more CO2 into the atmosphere in 2007 than they did in the entire 19th century. It is that extreme ramp up in the rate of CO2 emmisions that are the real concern.

Let's look for the following data to add to the chart - CO2 emissions from volcanos, fungi, mammals, ect, and lets see if the burning of fossil fuels results in any detectable change in slope.

Also, why is Mars, Triton, and Jupiter all also warming?

Jupiter warming up? (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA)

A plethora of links to Triton's warming atmosphere (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22global+warming%22+triton)

Well, they all, like Earth, orbit the same star. I wonder if the magnetic field and surface atcivity of that star show any correlation to the mean temperature here on Earth?

A plethora of links to scientific articles detailing this correlation for the last 140 million or so years (http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html)

What caused the end of the last ice age? I don't think the stone age humans had figured out how to drill oil wells and burn prodigious amounts of fossil fuels yet. However, even if they did, this graph seems to indicate that global temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are not strongly correlated.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

[Methanolandbrats]

"that is pure human activity. Humans are actively changing composition the atmosphere and we do not have any way of knowing the what the exact result of that ongoing change will be. We do know that it will change weather patterns, exactly how and when are not absolutely known, but there is no argument that a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 over forty years must alter the system. "

Only intelligent post in this thread. That is why it is important to limit emissions and mindless waste. My academic background is in physical meteorology and physical geography. I'm not even going to bother responding to individual points. For those that never took basic Earth Science.....look up "threshold" and "magnitude and frequency" and how they apply to changes in the Earth/Atmosphere system.

[G.]

"that is pure human activity. Humans are actively changing composition the atmosphere and we do not have any way of knowing the what the exact result of that ongoing change will be.:thumbup: We do know that it will change weather patterns:thumdown: , exactly how and when are not absolutely known:thumbup: , but there is no argument :thumdown: that a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 over forty years must alter the system. "

Only intelligent post in this thread. That is why it is important to limit emissions and mindless waste. My academic background is in physical meteorology and physical geography. I'm not even going to bother responding to individual points. For those that never took basic Earth Science.....look up "threshold" and "magnitude and frequency" and how they apply to changes in the Earth/Atmosphere system.
Meth,

You believe it. You may be right.

But it IS a belief, not a proven fact. AND I AM WILLING TO LISTEN!!!!
Every study that "proves" GW theories, has a counterpoint, with just as much academic backbone behind it as the original.

WE.
DO.
NOT.
KNOW.

Mother Earth is going to shake us off her body like a dog coming out of the water.

Show a study that actually can PROVE that CO2 emissions from humans accelerates GW, AND all counterpoints from academia, and we'll start there.

I will err on the side of Ank's sponging off our taxes. Ma Nature kicks ass!

That's my view as well, but I can't see completely altering our entire lifestyle, without a reason.

We don't have one yet. (note: excessive pollution is bs, and must be stopped. "Normal" polution is bs.)

Belief vs. facts.

S'all I'm sayin'.

[ferrarigod]

Tell Buzz Aldrin that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo)

I was just getting ready to type this exact post :D


Back on topic, I'm not saying the earth isn't warming, I'm saying its arrogant and stupid to think that humans and only humans are causing it. I don't think we have much control of it, just like we have zero control of earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, volcano's, blah blah blah.

So looking at some of the graphs, CO2 was increasing before industrialization, how was that caused? Too many horses and ox farting while moving people to western America?

Come on, nothing in nature is this clear cut. We have an idea, and a possible correlation, but saying it is THE reason, and WE have ruined earth and humankind is nothing but a dream. The science community leaves everything like evolution and other subjects open ended and free to interpretation, but with this topic, everyone is in agreement and saying we did it. Who's naive now?

[chop456]

You're a bunch of know-nothing boobs.

http://static.flickr.com/35/70683016_77704cf15e.jpg

:tony:


And yes, it's stale.

[Insomniac]

I was just getting ready to type this exact post :D


Back on topic, I'm not saying the earth isn't warming, I'm saying its arrogant and stupid to think that humans and only humans are causing it. I don't think we have much control of it, just like we have zero control of earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, volcano's, blah blah blah.

So looking at some of the graphs, CO2 was increasing before industrialization, how was that caused? Too many horses and ox farting while moving people to western America?

Come on, nothing in nature is this clear cut. We have an idea, and a possible correlation, but saying it is THE reason, and WE have ruined earth and humankind is nothing but a dream. The science community leaves everything like evolution and other subjects open ended and free to interpretation, but with this topic, everyone is in agreement and saying we did it. Who's naive now?

Humans are probably the most intelligent species to ever be on Earth. I absolutely believe we have the capability to change how the Earth has behaved in the past by the way that we live.

We have polluted lakes and rivers to points where people thought they were ruined forever, but were able to clean them up so they can be used again when the effort was put into it.

We have seen the Ozone layer deplete and by the large reduction in CFCs we are seeing the hole stop growing and maybe even shrink a little.

We have seen that we can change ecosystems that will lead to the extinction of species.

Why is it that we can't be responsible for producing more CO2 than would normally be produced if we weren't around?

There are simple scientific facts that I'm pretty sure there isn't a dispute over. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more infrared radiation is trapped here, which means a hotter earth. Light surfaces reflect heat and dark ones absorb it. I'd think if the Arctic circle and Antarctica are becoming smaller and less snow covered while the ocean is getting larger that means less heat from the sun is getting reflected.

We've shown an amazing ability to change the environment, both good and bad. We know the earth gets hot and then gets cold, why do we need to hasten it when we don't have to?

[Turn7]

Awwwe, mother earth our Saviour. We must make sacrifices to please her or she'll get mad and kill us all. :saywhat: that's the sentiment I get from you scientificotards.

[Insomniac]

Awwwe, mother earth our Saviour. We must make sacrifices to please her or she'll get mad and kill us all. :saywhat: that's the sentiment I get from you scientificotards.

What sacrifices do you have to make?

[Turn7]

What sacrifices do you have to make?

I don't have to make sacrifices. That's already been done for me.

I am referring to the way some here say we have to sacrifice our way of life, to please mother earth. They sneer and look down on religion and then practice and promote a form of ancient ritualistic behavior that mirrors caveman mentality of worshiping earth. They then self promoting themselves to god like status by claiming they can conquer what they view as a superior being and destroy what they hold to have the highest order.

I think they are feeling a little too big for their britches. That's just my opinion though.

[Ankf00]

Hindu's == cavemen? Who knew? :D

[TravelGal]

Back on topic, I'm not saying the earth isn't warming, I'm saying its arrogant and stupid to think that humans and only humans are causing it. I don't think we have much control of it, just like we have zero control of earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, volcano's, blah blah blah.

So looking at some of the graphs, CO2 was increasing before industrialization, how was that caused? Too many horses and ox farting while moving people to western America?

Come on, nothing in nature is this clear cut. We have an idea, and a possible correlation, but saying it is THE reason, and WE have ruined earth and humankind is nothing but a dream. The science community leaves everything like evolution and other subjects open ended and free to interpretation, but with this topic, everyone is in agreement and saying we did it. Who's naive now?

I don't think anyone here is saying humans and only humans are causing it. Reading the posts there are many eloquent expressions of how we affect the earth and that it's the speed at which change is now occurring that leads one to believe humans are a contributing factor.

As for those like G. and perhaps Turn7 who want proof, please remember that you cannot prove a positive. You can prove a negative. Do you have PROOF that humans are NOT a contributing factor?

In my geology classes there were professors who believed in the stability of the earth's crust and those who believed in the outlandish theory called "continental drift." I heard the same sort of arguments then. Mostly, "PROVE it to me." Eventually enough data were gathered that there was "proof" so the fact of stability changed to the fact of drift. Think of the 7 basic food groups. They are not recommended now. My mother grew up spending 12 hours a day in the sun. Sunshine was healthy for you. It gave you vitamin D. No one would do that without sun screen now.

Facts change because facts are scientific theory that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There are always doubters, however. And sometimes their research, often in the face of severe criticism or skepticism changes the facts. The pendulum is now changing away from "the earth and the oceans are so vast that humans cannot affect them" to "we should take more care because, in the totality of billions of humans, we *are* affecting the earth and the oceans."

Like Ank, Kiwifan, and others, I wonder why people are so violently opposed to this thought. Insomniac said it best: I also believe that it doesn't hurt by triyng to pollute less and take care of the planet. If the majority of scientists are right and skeptics are wrong, by the time there is practically irrefutable proof (I'm sure there will always be people who don't agree) we're screwed. If the scientists are wrong, and the skeptics were right, we didn't pollute as much and did some good things.

[datachicane]

that's the sentiment I get from you scientificotards.

Scientificotards? :rofl: :rofl:
Buncha snooty lab-coat types trying to shove their reality-based agenda down your throat. If they're so great, how come they don't have their own radio shows? :laugh:

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, there is only one thing in the world less reliable than believing in science, and that is not believing in science.

[coolhand]

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, there is only one thing in the world less reliable than believing in science, and that is not believing in science.

science science science. People here posting evidence form scientists who disagree.

[nrc]

Insomniac said it best: I also believe that it doesn't hurt by triyng to pollute less and take care of the planet.

The trouble is that it's not as simple as you and I "trying to pollute less". You can't turn down your thermostat enough to offset the fact that there are hundreds of emerging markets out there that all want access to the same cheap energy that you and I enjoy. If you accept that man made global warming is truth then correcting it will require the developed world to either make major sacrifices and lifestyle changes or stifle development of emerging markets indefinitely.

[coolhand]

The trouble is that it's not as simple as you and I "trying to pollute less". You can't turn down your thermostat enough to offset the fact that there are hundreds of emerging markets out there that all want access to the same cheap energy that you and I enjoy. If you accept that man made global warming is truth then correcting it will require the developed world to either make major sacrifices and lifestyle changes or stifle development of emerging markets indefinitely.

Exactly, in the Beijing area alone there are over a 1,000 news cars on the road a day. India and China are developing and have huge populations. Oil prices will go up independently of what the US does same with carbon emissions.

[Insomniac]

The trouble is that it's not as simple as you and I "trying to pollute less". You can't turn down your thermostat enough to offset the fact that there are hundreds of emerging markets out there that all want access to the same cheap energy that you and I enjoy. If you accept that man made global warming is truth then correcting it will require the developed world to either make major sacrifices and lifestyle changes or stifle development of emerging markets indefinitely.


Exactly, in the Beijing area alone there are over a 1,000 news cars on the road a day. India and China are developing and have huge populations. Oil prices will go up independently of what the US does same with carbon emissions.

It all has to start somewhere. If everyone said I'll do it when so and so does it nothing will ever get done. Someone has to start developing the technologies and some people/companies are. R&D is not cheap.

Also, when I say trying to pollute less, I mean collectively. It all adds up, from each person individually to corporations.

I wouldn't expect this to be an overnight change to reduce emissions either.

[nrc]

Also, when I say trying to pollute less, I mean collectively. It all adds up, from each person individually to corporations.

It all adds up, but how much do you need to add up to offset billions of people starting to use energy that they never had access to before?

The global warming hysteria isn't about turning down the thermostat and car pooling. It's about taking away your SUV, putting you on a bus (or at least in a Yaris) and forcing you to burden a huge expense for alternative energy costs and pollution controls. We're talking about costs and lifestyle changes that could never be justified just based on the vague notion of a cleaner environment. These are changes that require the threat of an apocalypse and a purging of the heretics to push through.

[TravelGal]

It all adds up, but how much do you need to add up to offset billions of people starting to use energy that they never had access to before?

The global warming hysteria isn't about turning down the thermostat and car pooling. It's about taking away your SUV, putting you on a bus (or at least in a Yaris) and forcing you to burden a huge expense for alternative energy costs and pollution controls. We're talking about costs and lifestyle changes that could never be justified just based on the vague notion of a cleaner environment. These are changes that require the threat of an apocalypse and a purging of the heretics to push through.

Whoa Nelly! Who is hysterical here?

I agree to the extent that I could not see why I couldn't use the type of paint I wanted to paint my house when there are 1 billion people in India lighting fires. But then I realized, each must do what each can do. Otherwise, you are watching someone get mugged in the street and saying, I can't help because I'm not strong enough or it's not my business. I say it *is* my business and even I can lift the cell phone lid. There *is* something I can do.

Whether we like it or not, much of the world looks to the US. If we don't care and don't try, why should anyone in China EVER try? In this case, we should be the enlightened ones. Like kids, they may not start out preserving the environment (ever tell a kid to eat slowly? That works. Not.) But they get it eventually.

Quoth my mother: If we all swept our own sidewalk, the whole world would be clean.

[coolhand]

It all adds up, but how much do you need to add up to offset billions of people starting to use energy that they never had access to before?

The global warming hysteria isn't about turning down the thermostat and car pooling. It's about taking away your SUV, putting you on a bus (or at least in a Yaris) and forcing you to burden a huge expense for alternative energy costs and pollution controls. We're talking about costs and lifestyle changes that could never be justified just based on the vague notion of a cleaner environment. These are changes that require the threat of an apocalypse and a purging of the heretics to push through.

While all the wealthy elites who push this get to continue to fly in Gulfstreams and drive in Suburban Motorcades between their multiple homes. I should get into the "carbon offset" scams. I will have people pay me not to fly in a private plane when I wont anyway.

[Brian_R]

like the $2400/mo gas bill for Al Gore's house? I'm still waiting for some sort of emission change on large trucks (Semi's, Dump Trucks, etc.). Everyone is quick to change emissions on cars, because it seems like it is the path of least resistance. Plus the whole "hybrid" wave is starting to prove that although it is great for emissions, the land waste after your Prius jumps the shark is significantly higher. More of fixing one thing while ruining something else. :yuck:

[Insomniac]

It all adds up, but how much do you need to add up to offset billions of people starting to use energy that they never had access to before?

The global warming hysteria isn't about turning down the thermostat and car pooling. It's about taking away your SUV, putting you on a bus (or at least in a Yaris) and forcing you to burden a huge expense for alternative energy costs and pollution controls. We're talking about costs and lifestyle changes that could never be justified just based on the vague notion of a cleaner environment. These are changes that require the threat of an apocalypse and a purging of the heretics to push through.

Yikes! That's really going to extremes. Maybe, if no one does anything, someday that's what it will come down to.

A lot of things can be done over time to reduce emissions without really affecting lifestyles.

The United States can lower emissions thresholds on vehicles to match Japan. Right now, countries like India and China have lower maximum emission limits for new cars. Japan's is almost half of our's right now and they have SUVs.

Here is a comparison:

EU-Equivalent CO2 (g/km) (Standards in 2007 for new cars)
Japan 133
EU 166
China 180
Australia 212
Canada 241
California 243
US 248

Now, you might says it's unfair to the US auto makers, especially given that they're getting killed by the foreign car makers. I agree, it is unfair. How about the gov't shifts the $billions in oil subsidies to corporations that are making the biggest profits in US history to the domestic car companies? This would lead to a phase out to cleaner cars.

How about instead of cutting the taxes of the top 1% they make more tax credits available to everybody to offset the extra cost of these cars? Or to offset the extra cost of getting green power from your power company.

There are many things that we can do. It would also put us in a position of leadership in taking care of the environment, instead of being the one of two countries to not ratify the Kyoto Protocols:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png

How about returning to investment in nuclear power?

[coolhand]

like the $2400/mo gas bill for Al Gore's house? I'm still waiting for some sort of emission change on large trucks (Semi's, Dump Trucks, etc.). Everyone is quick to change emissions on cars, because it seems like it is the path of least resistance. Plus the whole "hybrid" wave is starting to prove that although it is great for emissions, the land waste after your Prius jumps the shark is significantly higher. More of fixing one thing while ruining something else. :yuck:

Carbon offsets = Indulgences

[oddlycalm]

I'm still waiting for some sort of emission change on large trucks (Semi's, Dump Trucks, etc.). Everyone is quick to change emissions on cars, because it seems like it is the path of least resistance. There was a huge tightening the diesel truck emissions in 1995 and more on the way. Locomotives, marine and stationary diesels are being addressed in 2007. No comprehensive after the fact enforcement though so truck owners are able to turn the pump up and make less power with more smoke without paying a price.

Around 95% of soot was eliminated simply by recalibrating injector pumps, using concave cam lobe curves to close exhaust valves faster and using improving injector plunger to body fit so they don't weep. Big boost in fuel economy as an unintended consequence. The actual parts don't cost any more to make than the old ones did.

I can't recall any changes in CAFE standards or auto emission standards in more than 20yrs and SUV and light trucks aren't subject to the same rules as cars so I'm not sure what you mean about being quick to change the emissions on cars.

oc

[ferrarigod]

The Kyoto protocol would bankrupt the world.

do some nice research on that.


thanks, but i'll pass on the redistribution of wealth.:thumdown:

[nrc]

Yikes! That's really going to extremes. Maybe, if no one does anything, someday that's what it will come down to.

A lot of things can be done over time to reduce emissions without really affecting lifestyles.

The United States can lower emissions thresholds on vehicles to match Japan. Right now, countries like India and China have lower maximum emission limits for new cars. Japan's is almost half of our's right now and they have SUVs.

This is just fiction. First of all there is no 2007 standard for CO2 emissions in many of the countries you're citing. Your numbers are probably translated from fleet average fuel economy numbers like the U.S. CAFE standards or just the current fleet average regardless of any standard. Many of these standards are not really comparable. For instance a change in the way EPA does testing will reduce the U.S. average next year.

These are fleet averages, not a specific standard as with U.S. emissions standards. That's because CO2 output is directly tied to fuel economy. You basically can't create a CO2 limit without saying "All vehicles will get at least x miles per gallon or better" - essentially outlawing light trucks, SUVs, large cars, sports cars, anything that can't make that number.

Since these are all fleet averages there is no practical way that one country can make another country's standard without a substantially similar mix of vehicles. SUVs are a small part of the Japanese auto market. They are a big part of the U.S. market. Mini cars are non-existant in the US, they sell twice as many as they do trucks in Japan. The situation is similar in Europe.

To make the European or Japanese numbers you're going to have to change the mix of vehicles sold. That means someone has to give up their SUV and someone has to start buying mini cars. That means lifestyle changes for a lot of people.

The trouble with these kinds of standards is that they force manufacturers to sell vehicles that nobody is really motivated to buy. If the government wants people to modify their behavior they should have the guts to impose the modification directly.

[Insomniac]

The Kyoto protocol would bankrupt the world.

do some nice research on that.


thanks, but i'll pass on the redistribution of wealth.:thumdown:

So every country but the United States and Australia are too stupid to realize their countries will go bankrupt by implementing the Kyoto Protocol?

And redistribution of wealth only happens when the richest people in America get a tax increase, but not a tax cut? Makes perfect sense.

[coolhand]

It is not worth the paper it is written on in China, like most patents, contracts etc.

China and India have and will do nothing to curb emissions if it inhibits their growth. Same with Russia

[Insomniac]

This is just fiction. First of all there is no 2007 standard for CO2 emissions in many of the countries you're citing. Your numbers are probably translated from fleet average fuel economy numbers like the U.S. CAFE standards or just the current fleet average regardless of any standard. Many of these standards are not really comparable. For instance a change in the way EPA does testing will reduce the U.S. average next year.

These are fleet averages, not a specific standard as with U.S. emissions standards. That's because CO2 output is directly tied to fuel economy. You basically can't create a CO2 limit without saying "All vehicles will get at least x miles per gallon or better" - essentially outlawing light trucks, SUVs, large cars, sports cars, anything that can't make that number.

Since these are all fleet averages there is no practical way that one country can make another country's standard without a substantially similar mix of vehicles. SUVs are a small part of the Japanese auto market. They are a big part of the U.S. market. Mini cars are non-existant in the US, they sell twice as many as they do trucks in Japan. The situation is similar in Europe.

To make the European or Japanese numbers you're going to have to change the mix of vehicles sold. That means someone has to give up their SUV and someone has to start buying mini cars. That means lifestyle changes for a lot of people.

The trouble with these kinds of standards is that they force manufacturers to sell vehicles that nobody is really motivated to buy. If the government wants people to modify their behavior they should have the guts to impose the modification directly.

I did not know this. I should read more about it before I make more suggestions about emission levels.

There are more hybrid SUVs coming every year. There has to be solutions that won't force a wholesale change to the way people live. Companies like GM, Ford and Chrysler can't just jump in and make more efficient cars when the demand isn't there. Those are places subsidies should be going in my opinion. People will not opt to purchase new cars en masse that are cleaner if it's going to cost more, or if they have to give up features that were important to them and car companies aren't going to make cars or invest R&D dollars in them if people aren't going to buy them.

[JLMannin]

Does anyone here remember the phogiston theory? To simplify, phlogiston was fire, and all matter was a mixture of ash and phlogiston. The data available seemed pretty tight - the left-overs after burning something were lighter than before buring, so is was a convient truth that the missing mass was phlogiston. The principal defender of the phlogiston theory was Joseph Priestly.

Antione Lavossier was a phogiston skeptic. He thoerized that air was matter like liquids and solids and had mass, and that maybe mass went "missing" because it was not being accounted in the mass of reactants and products. He pointed to the burning of certaim elements, like Magnesium, where the ashed were heavier than the reactants. He called this missing mass "fixed air", as the mass was fixed during combustion. Preistly and others, when confronted with this evidence modified the phlogiston theory by creating elaborate rules to explain how the release of phogiston in siome cases could casue an increase in mass and a loss of mass in other cases. Lavossier was labelled a crackpot and a heretic, as it was blatently obvious to a "concensus of scientists" that the phlogistom theory was true.

Eventually, Lavossier and others conducted experiments where they burned things and captured the combustion gasses and eventually accounted for all the mass. His "fixed air" became a new element on the periodic table of the elements. Lavossier made one mistake, however, as he labeled his "fixed air" with an atomic weight of 32, not realizing that is was present as a diatomic molecule with a molucular weight of 16 - oxygen.

Why this interesting, but appearantly off-topic story on the discovery of oxygen and the debunking of the phlogiston theory? All these events happenned in the 17th century. In the 17th century, the phlogiston theory was an accepted truth - those that spoke out against it were in the minority and were ridiculed for many years for thier outlandish beliefs. Eventually, the phlogiston critics were proven right by disciplined use of the scientific method.

It may come to pass that global warming is the 21st century analog of phlogiston. Consider these points:


Empirical evidence available at the time supported the existence of phlogiston
Most of the scientific community supported the phlosiston theory
The phlogiston theory was a convenient explanation that explained all the data available at the time
The pllogiston theory was tweaked as more evidence challenging its accuracy was revealed, until is became very complex
Those who challenged it were a distinct minority


There are many, many factors that affect our planet, such as cycles present in our own star (magnegic field reversals, sun-spot activity, magnetic field strength fluctuations), cosmic rays (current thinking is that cosmic rays act as primary nucleators for cloud formation - a time of more cosmic ray activity means more cloud cover and cooler temperatures; a time of diminished cosmic ray activity means less cloud cover and warmer temperatures. The fact that cosmic rays can act as nucleators for water vapor droplet formation has be proved in a lab. This article is a good primer on the cosmic-ray-sun-earth connection:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html

Here are the results of the google search that turned up that link:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cosmic+rays+and+global+warming&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

There are many, many scientists with real theories, deduced by actually using the scientific method that can not only explain the "global warming" happening in this century, but for millions and millions of years - that is "an inconvient truth" that is harder for me to discount.

Carry on.

[Insomniac]

Happy Earth Day. :D

[coolhand]

Happy Earth Day. :D

I see some separation of church and state issues with this

[Insomniac]

I see some separation of church and state issues with this

It's not even a federal holiday. :) Unlike Christmas. ;) (I'll let the implied taking care of the environment = religion slide. :D)

[coolhand]

neo-pagans....all of yah :p

[Indy]

We are doomed as a race. Enjoy your lives.

[Opposite Lock]

We are doomed as a race. Enjoy your lives.

We are doomed as life. Enjoy your races.
:D

[grungex]

We are doomed as life. Enjoy your races.
:D

All your race are belong to us.

[TrueBrit]

Whew!

Thank Goodness! I thought the planet was in real trouble until you guys put me right...

I'm gonna go and buy an SUV that gets 8 gallons/mile, set fire to as many frickin' forests as I feel like and run my AC at 33 degrees all summer long, because those tree-hugging hippies are completely stark-raving mad and they're just trying to frighten us about 'global warming'...

Oh, and the Earth is flat, man never landed on the moon and Barney the Dinosaur killed JFK...

:yuck: :gomer: :shakehead

[TrueBrit]

Does anyone here remember the phogiston theory?


Dude, which Star Trek episode was that in? The one where Kirk nails that green chick?

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiice....

;)

[gjc2]

What is causing the temperature increase on Mars, and what caused the ice ages to come and go?

George

[Ankf00]

What is causing the temperature increase on Mars, and what caused the ice ages to come and go?

George

Xenu.

[emjaya]

Xenu.

Xenu, hmmm.Wikipedia is my friend, .......again. :rolleyes:


O/T, but do you think that maybe L.Ron had a wicked sense of humour and Scientology is just a giant joke. :saywhat:

[Insomniac]

What is causing the temperature increase on Mars, and what caused the ice ages to come and go?

George

The same thing that is causing the temperature increase on Earth. No one denies that the temperature on Earth hasn't been going up and wouldn't be going up regardless. The issue is that they're rising much faster than they would in such a small time.

[gjc2]

The same thing that is causing the temperature increase on Earth. No one denies that the temperature on Earth hasn't been going up and wouldn't be going up regardless. The issue is that they're rising much faster than they would in such a small time.

Do we know what the rate of increase in temperature was at any given time during the warming phase of the last few ice age cycles? Did they all come and go at the same rate or were some faster than the others?

George

[skaven]

The same thing that is causing the temperature increase on Earth. No one denies that the temperature on Earth hasn't been going up and wouldn't be going up regardless. The issue is that they're rising much faster than they would in such a small time.

Exactly...

The are a lot of positive feedback loops that are making the natural heating cycle much faster. Some are caused by human activity - greenhouse gases catching more of the increased heat leading to more heating than we should expect. Some are natural - thawing tundra releases methane (an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) which causes warming which releases more methane. See also melting ice that reflects sunlight being replaced by dark water that is a heat sink, capturing heat and melting more ice.

Like many here point out, China and India scare us because they are going to create a lot of greenhouse gases as they modernize. But since when did America shrink from a challenge? As the wealthiest, most wasteful nation, we can offset the modernization of entire nations by modest and cost-effective conservation changes - compact fluorescents, solar water heaters that pay for themselves in time, etc. Plug in hybrids can double current hybrid mpg from 50 to 100 mpg. Make the cars lightweight and you can double efficiency again. 200 mpg is capable, but our "leaders" are bought off by big-oil $$$.

nrc's linked documentary cites that rising temperatures (like we are seeing now in the natural cycle) heat the oceans and release CO2. However, atmospheric CO2 levels are so high, that the oceans are absorbing CO2 despite the increased heat (PV=nRT, Ksp, etc. in an ever changing equilibrium). As such, the earth is regulating the atmospheric CO2, but that has other consequences. The CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid which lowers the ocean's pH. This is happening now and if the trend doesn't get reversed, coral reefs (calcium carbonate) will dissolve and fisheries will suffer.

I watched all 1:17 or so of nrc's linked video and I've watched "...Inconvenient Truth." Both sides make some good arguments and both sides are guilty of glossing over their weak arguments. If the only thing I had to base my beliefs on were those two documentaries, I'd come to the conclusion that we are going through a natural heating cycle due to solar activity, cosmic rays and clouds that is being made much, much worse by human activities.

The risks of doing nothing, far outweigh the negatives of doing something (cleaner energy, less reliance on Arab cartels and wealthier environmental scientists). And if trickle down economic theory worked for oil oligarchs, wouldn't it work for ingenuitive green start-ups? :gomer:

BTW, Phlogiston is the name of my punk rock band :flame: and that is a poor analogy. The scientific method, peer review and our methods to quantitatively measure phenomena have increased somewhat in the past 300+ years. Phlogiston was a theory advanced before they had good quantitative measuring capabilities. We can measure stuff pretty good these days. :tony:

... and I see why politics are banned on this forum. :yuck:

[nrc]

... and I see why politics are banned on this forum. :yuck:

I suppose I'm naive enough to think that this can be discussed as a science topic.

[devilmaster]

I avoided this thread, but I had to add this.... :rofl: :laugh:


http://i.pbase.com/o6/12/60812/1/77421573.aoodWHFm.timechange.jpg

Oh, and if you google the name, you get an arkansas lawyer.... :rofl:


[edit]Just in case this image still don't worky....

You may have noticed that March of this year was particularly hot. As a matter of fact, I understand that it was the hottest March since the beginning of the last century. All of the trees were fully leafed out and legions of bugs and snakes were crawling around during a time in Arkansas when, on a normal year, we might see a snowflake or two.

This should come as no surprise to any reasonable person. As you know, Daylight Saving Time started almost a month early this year. You would think that members of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of daylight would have on our climate. Or did they?

Perhaps this is another plot by a liberal Congress to make us believe that global warming is a real threat. Perhaps next time there should be serious studies performed before Congress passes laws with such far-reaching effects. - Connie M. Meskimen, Hot Springs

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/187608/

[Turn7]

At what point does it make sense to quit trying to sustain more and more and more human population on a limited resource? No matter how much you skimp and save resources at one point there will be a collapse.

Should we all optimize our resource usage to a proportion that will lead to global tragedy or should there be regions/continents that are better prepared and not living on the ragged edge and let natural selection and circumstance reduce overpopulation in regions that can not support themselves?

We can pretend that we have the power to make it all work out but, reality is that there is a limited amount of resources. You can share and share alike until we all starve or you can do what is necessary for species survival and let the strongest, smartest, best prepared continue on.

This is just the tip of the iceberg with the energy situation. I know that energy is not life sustaining but, the way this topic is handled will set the precedent for how more important things are done in the future such as food, water and shelter resources.

The way I look at it is I can drive my 10mpg SUV, keep my AC on 70 and do everything else that I do to piss off al gore because I chose to only have one child thusly reducing my legacy energy usage by half.

The real problem is not global warming but, overpopulation. Kill off or limit offspring and all the problems we are facing as a species goes away.

[Insomniac]

Do we know what the rate of increase in temperature was at any given time during the warming phase of the last few ice age cycles? Did they all come and go at the same rate or were some faster than the others?

George

The charts I've seen are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

This article talks about Ice Ages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

[Tifosi24]

At what point does it make sense to quit trying to sustain more and more and more human population on a limited resource? No matter how much you skimp and save resources at one point there will be a collapse.

Should we all optimize our resource usage to a proportion that will lead to global tragedy or should there be regions/continents that are better prepared and not living on the ragged edge and let natural selection and circumstance reduce overpopulation in regions that can not support themselves?

We can pretend that we have the power to make it all work out but, reality is that there is a limited amount of resources. You can share and share alike until we all starve or you can do what is necessary for species survival and let the strongest, smartest, best prepared continue on.

This is just the tip of the iceberg with the energy situation. I know that energy is not life sustaining but, the way this topic is handled will set the precedent for how more important things are done in the future such as food, water and shelter resources.

The way I look at it is I can drive my 10mpg SUV, keep my AC on 70 and do everything else that I do to piss off al gore because I chose to only have one child thusly reducing my legacy energy usage by half.

The real problem is not global warming but, overpopulation. Kill off or limit offspring and all the problems we are facing as a species goes away.

Are you serious, or did you just channel the ghost of Thomas Malthus? Yes resources are limited, but if the world takes certain socioeconomic measures in the coming decades population growth will not be the doomsday that Malthus predicted so long ago. People have been saying we are going to starve to deal periodically for the past two hundred years. We have avoided the Malthusian Dilemma by making prudent decisions and inventing new techniques of production. World population growth is actually increasing at a much slower rate than previously expected. This rate will slow even further if we continue pushes in the developing world to increase education levels, especially in young girls.

[nrc]

I avoided this thread, but I had to add this.... :rofl: :laugh:


http://www.sportsinferno.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1908&stc=1&d=1177393952

Oh, and if you google the name, you get an arkansas lawyer.... :rofl:

got no pickture here.

[Turn7]

Are you serious, or did you just channel the ghost of Thomas Malthus? Yes resources are limited, but if the world takes certain socioeconomic measures in the coming decades population growth will not be the doomsday that Malthus predicted so long ago. People have been saying we are going to starve to deal periodically for the past two hundred years. We have avoided the Malthusian Dilemma by making prudent decisions and inventing new techniques of production. World population growth is actually increasing at a much slower rate than previously expected. This rate will slow even further if we continue pushes in the developing world to increase education levels, especially in young girls.

Yup serious as can be in a scientific point of view. Take the moral, religious and political points out of the equation and there is only one answer. Reduction in use of resources. The simplest way to do that is to cut the number of users.

Now if you want to turn this into a religious, political and morality issue then that is another topic.

[KLang]

Yup serious as can be in a scientific point of view. Take the moral, religious and political points out of the equation and there is only one answer. Reduction in use of resources. The simplest way to do that is to cut the number of users.


Or we need to seek out additional resources. We need to find other planets to expand to.

[oddlycalm]

The simplest way to do that is to cut the number of users. Which is exactly what is happening, some say to an alarming degree. Here are some comments in the MIT Technology Review by Stewart Brand, a guy with a history of correct predictions including what he termed the PC or personal computer decades before it was a reality. Reverse population growth (http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14406)
Worldwide, birthrates are in free fall. Around one-third of countries now have birthrates below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) and sinking. Nowhere does the downward trend show signs of leveling off. Nations already in a birth dearth crisis include Japan, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Russia -- whose population is now in absolute decline and is expected to be 30 percent lower by 2050.
The reason for the decline is simple, urbanization. Lots of children are an asset in a rural economy but a huge expense in an urban economy. In the US that choice essentially boils down to whether you would like to have a child or a $ million and time to spend it.

As we pass the point where more than 50% of the world population lives in urban areas the population growth hits a wall. This may sound like good news but birthrate drops of 30% are not the stuff of dreams and serious labor shortages are only the most obvious result.

oc

[Brian_R]

Which is exactly what is happening, some say to an alarming degree. Here are some comments in the MIT Technology Review by Stewart Brand, a guy with a history of correct predictions including what he termed the PC or personal computer decades before it was a reality. Reverse population growth (http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14406)
The reason for the decline is simple, urbanization. Lots of children are an asset in a rural economy but a huge expense in an urban economy. In the US that choice essentially boils down to whether you would like to have a child or a $ million and time to spend it.

As we pass the point where more than 50% of the world population lives in urban areas the population growth hits a wall. This may sound like good news but birthrate drops of 30% are not the stuff of dreams and serious labor shortages are only the most obvious result.

oc

However it will help me afford a nice house... 30 years too late.

[Turn7]

Which is exactly what is happening, some say to an alarming degree. Here are some comments in the MIT Technology Review by Stewart Brand, a guy with a history of correct predictions including what he termed the PC or personal computer decades before it was a reality. Reverse population growth (http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14406)
The reason for the decline is simple, urbanization. Lots of children are an asset in a rural economy but a huge expense in an urban economy. In the US that choice essentially boils down to whether you would like to have a child or a $ million and time to spend it.

As we pass the point where more than 50% of the world population lives in urban areas the population growth hits a wall. This may sound like good news but birthrate drops of 30% are not the stuff of dreams and serious labor shortages are only the most obvious result.

oc

Even more pollution solution. Less money means less toxic ink being used.:cool:

[oddlycalm]

The debate on global warming is largely moot IMO. Cost and global politics are driving us away from fossil fuels regardless of how we feel about it. Businesses (as always) are quietly looking for opportunities and alternatives.

Walmart (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/07/8382593/index.htm) plans to increase the fuel economy of it's truck fleet, second largest in the US, by 25% in 3yrs and double efficiency in 10yrs thereby cutting emissions in half under. They contracted with Amory Lovins at Rocky Mountain Institute to come up with the plan. Walmart is also spending $500 million in sustainability projects. It is the largest private user of electricity in the US so it is in the position to save a the most and is designing new stores from the ground up to conserve power with a goal of saving 30% of current power consumption. They also plan to reduce solid waste by 25% in 3yrs.

Texas Instruments new 1 million sq. ft. fab (http://www.greenbiz.com/news/reviews_third.cfm?NewsID=27712) outside Dallas uses 20% less power than previous fabs. Like Walmart TI retained physicist Lovins to help them review facility designs from top to bottom. TI is positioned to save $4 million annually at current energy costs allowing them to keep the fab in the US.

Lovins was also retained by the DOD to assist in the design of solar power modules for forward locations. Convoying fuel is dangerous so minimizing the use of fuel has become a top priority. If you don't burn the fuel in a generator set it's that much you don't need to haul through hostile territory.

John Doerr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doerr), the venture capitalist that funded companies like Google, Amazon, Sun, Intuit, etc. was recently interviewed in Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Program_statistics) where he was studying their sugar cane ethanol operations. While corn yields a net energy gain factor of 1.2 sugar cane yields 8 times the energy. The leaves (bagesse) of the plants are burned to run the distillery and is a low emission fuel. The US not only has substantial warm climate cane production but also has a huge cold climate sugar beet production.

It's also interesting that some "scientific" (as opposed to emotional) environmentalists are now embracing small-scale pebble bed nuclear reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor). Gaia theorist James Lovelock, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, Friend of the Earth Hugh Montefiore have been scorned by other environmentalists but that scorn may invite debate. If the alternative is loss of glacier water sources for large urban areas or loss of fish stocks that are the primary protein source for 2.5 billion people then maybe that's a debate we need to have. Unlike conventional large-scale plants the pebble bed reactors don't use water and don't carry the attendant hazards, capital expense and construction time.

General Electric (http://www.ge.com/stories/en/10557.html) is currently selling as much wind generation equipment as they can produce as are their counterparts in Europe. In Denmark, Germany and some regions of Spain 10%-25% of all power is wind generated.

On the other end of the spectrum there are small outfits supplying rain water retention systems for individual home owners and businesses. This started in the arid West but it is spreading. Using city water to irrigate the yard and garden is only going to get more expensive.

Fuel economy has a direct correlation to the successful marketing of vehicles today and companies that are meeting that demand are doing very well while those that don't are in financial free fall. Anyone that thinks it's going to take government regulation to impose fuel (and by extension emission) standards doesn't get out much. The market place is currently imposing them in a manner that is about as real as it gets. :(

oc

[coolhand]

I agree OC, economics are the only thing that will change this

[gjc2]

Want to worry about something?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/13may_2004mn4.htm