The slow road to destruction... Climate change.

[xolademoness]

What do you think should or can be done? Is it too late to undo the damage unrestrained capitalism has done? Should we even try?
"It doesn't affect me, let the children deal with it"?

New Scientist Special Report on Climate Change
user:nsmigration
password:tempuser

"The Earth may be much more sensitive to global warming than previously thought, according to the first results from a massive distributed-computing project.

"The project tested thousands of climate models and found that some produced a world that warmed by a huge 11.5?C when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations reached the levels expected to be seen later this century.

This extreme result is surprising because it lies far outside the 1.4?C to 4.5?C range predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the same CO2-level increase - a doubling of CO2 concentration from pre-industrial times. But it is possible the IPCC range was wrong because its estimate is based on just a handful of different computer models."

-------------------

"Pattern of changes in ocean temperatures almost perfectly match simulations of human effects on regional climate, ruling out natural causes"

-------------------

"People are responsible for the spike in global warming in the last 30 years, says a new US government report. The verdict, long accepted by most scientists, has encountered resistance from the Bush administration in the past"

-------------------

"Climate scientists fear fudge at G8 meeting -- A scientific meeting set up by G8 chair Tony Blair concluded that climate change was a "clear and present danger" - but have the politicians heard the message?"

-------------------

"Increases in temperature could be much worse than feared, says a new study - the new predictions hinge on how little warming has been felt so far"

-------------------

"Global sea level rise in the 21st century could be significantly higher than previously estimated, according to the most comprehensive glacier dataset ever compiled.

The missing factor is the melting of the world's largest temperate glaciers in Alaska and Canada, say Mark Meier and Mark Dyurgerov at the University of Colorado at Boulder. New data from the University of Alaska show this has been underplayed in earlier calculations"

 

[dmcowen674]

Welcome to P&N

Be prepared to be bashed as a nut.

No such thing as Global Warming, it's in your head.

 

[Albatross]

Originally posted by: xolademoness
What do you think should or can be done? Is it too late to undo the damage unrestrained capitalism has done? Should we even try?
"It doesn't affect me, let the children deal with it"?

just look at africa, people living in harmony with nature.
earth`s climate has changed constantly,global warming is a problem,but leftist ideology is even a bigger problem.

 

[Czar]

would be interesting to see two threads, one with nothing but "pro" global warming links and one with "anti" global warming links, would be intersting to see what the sources would be

ofcorse I can assume how it would end but it might convince a few people

 

[xolademoness]

Sources for global warming: Scientific sites, cold hard facts, climatologists.
Sources for global warming denial: Religious sites, oil/car industry corporate PR, government propaganda.

Anyone can see which is more reliable. 😉

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No such thing as Global Warming, it's in your head.

Ah, denial, first weapon of choice for the discerning religious fundamentalist...

 

[KB]

Thanks to global dimming (pollution that blocks the sun and slows downing warming) the effects of Global warming are happening too slowly, thus people can deny it is occurring. Until the effects are felt no one will rally behind the cause.

I look forward to rising seas as I want to live closer to the beach.

 

[Genx87]

Is it too late to undo the damage unrestrained capitalism has done?

Do you think Communism and Socialism has done better?

Chernobyl, wonderful example of Communism's donation to nature
China, Their rivers are as dirty as they come.

Our nation has doubled our GDP in the past ~15 years and yet our emissions consumption has gone up a fraction of that.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Is it too late to undo the damage unrestrained capitalism has done?

Do you think Communism and Socialism has done better?

Chernobyl, wonderful example of Communism's donation to nature
China, Their rivers are as dirty as they come.

Our nation has doubled our GDP in the past ~15 years and yet our emissions consumption has gone up a fraction of that.

Go tell it to Katrina. :roll:

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: KB
Thanks to global dimming (pollution that blocks the sun and slows downing warming) the effects of Global warming are happening too slowly, thus people can deny it is occurring. Until the effects are felt no one will rally behind the cause.

I look forward to rising seas as I want to live closer to the beach.

Actually the real danger is melting Greenland ice shutting down the global oceanic conveyor belt. This could actually trigger another ice age.

The earth is self-regulating. Picture a spring. If the earth warms slowly through some natural cause, it slowly corrects itself. If it warms rapidly, it stands to reason that it could rapidly cool itself.

If you do a little research, you'll see that there's already some evidence that the conveyor belt is slowing down.

 

[xolademoness]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Is it too late to undo the damage unrestrained capitalism has done?

Do you think Communism and Socialism has done better?

Chernobyl, wonderful example of Communism's donation to nature
China, Their rivers are as dirty as they come.

Terribly weak examples:

China - Do you really think it would be any better otherwise? It would be an ecological sh**-hole whatever government was running it, simply because it's a country still at "developing nation" status but with access to a lot of heavily-polluting technology. It's basically going through an industrial revolution akin to that of Europe hundreds of years ago.

Chernobyl - That it happened in a Communist country is totally irrelevant, it wasn't Communism that was responisbly for flaws in the reactor design/control rods or stupidness on the behalf of the operators (for a bit of background - as you seem to not have a clue - see here) - it was a combination of small errors leading to a hell of a big accident. Many other countries have had major human-induced disasters too but you can hardly blame it on the political system - Chernobyl was definitely a wake up call to be a hell of a lot more careful about nuclear plant safety, and it's likely other nuclear plants around the world were just as bad beforehand...


But anyway, yeah, those two are totally irrelevant BUT it's true Communism doesn't work - but ignorance is just as bad. Socialism does NOT equal Communism, at all. The US has a major issue with this, leading from all the paranoia left over from the Cold War. The UK has a socialist government, many countries in Europe do, and we're a hell of a lot more like the US than Communist countries...

Yes, socialism works a hell of a lot better than libertarianism/republicanism, neither of which give a sh** about the environment for future generations...

 

[xolademoness]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: KB
Thanks to global dimming (pollution that blocks the sun and slows downing warming) the effects of Global warming are happening too slowly, thus people can deny it is occurring. Until the effects are felt no one will rally behind the cause.

I look forward to rising seas as I want to live closer to the beach.

Actually the real danger is melting Greenland ice shutting down the global oceanic conveyor belt. This could actually trigger another ice age.

The earth is self-regulating. Picture a spring. If the earth warms slowly through some natural cause, it slowly corrects itself. If it warms rapidly, it stands to reason that it could rapidly cool itself.

If you do a little research, you'll see that there's already some evidence that the conveyor belt is slowing down.

The technical term for the "conveyor belt" is thermohaline circulation.... The failing of that (which includes the Gulf Stream) would be very serious, and it looks like it's on it's way to happening:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation (small snippet)

 

[GTaudiophile]

I suggest we all stop eating, sell our cars and houses, quit our jobs, shed our clothing, and go back living amogst the animals...which we won't be allowed to hunt for food because they are endangered. As a consolation prize we'll smoke lots of weed.

Sounds a lot like a hippy commune from the 1960s doesn't it?

 

[xolademoness]

That's not a viable solution, but neither is the current situation either, where pollution is not going down but increasing in leaps and bounds...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Is it too late to undo the damage unrestrained capitalism has done?

Do you think Communism and Socialism has done better?

Chernobyl, wonderful example of Communism's donation to nature
China, Their rivers are as dirty as they come.

Our nation has doubled our GDP in the past ~15 years and yet our emissions consumption has gone up a fraction of that.

Go tell it to Katrina. :roll:

Oh so now capitalism is to blame for Katrina and the destruction from it? lmao

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: xolademoness

Originally posted by: Genx87

Is it too late to undo the damage unrestrained capitalism has done?

Do you think Communism and Socialism has done better?

Chernobyl, wonderful example of Communism's donation to nature
China, Their rivers are as dirty as they come.

Terribly weak examples:

Oh this ought to be fun

China - Do you really think it would be any better otherwise? It would be an ecological sh**-hole whatever government was running it, simply because it's a country still at "developing nation" status but with access to a lot of heavily-polluting technology. It's basically going through an industrial revolution akin to that of Europe hundreds of years ago.

Nice apology lmao, so it is ok for a communist nation who is developing to destroy the envionrment but not for a capitalist nation? Ok nice double standard you have going there.

btw China is the 2nd largest economy in the world.

Chernobyl - That it happened in a Communist country is totally irrelevant, it wasn't Communism that was responisbly for flaws in the reactor design/control rods or stupidness on the behalf of the operators (for a bit of background - as you seem to not have a clue - see here) - it was a combination of small errors leading to a hell of a big accident. Many other countries have had major human-induced disasters too but you can hardly blame it on the political system - Chernobyl was definitely a wake up call to be a hell of a lot more careful about nuclear plant safety, and it's likely other nuclear plants around the world were just as bad beforehand...

Communism is a responsible for the low quality design and low quality training that caused the accident.

But anyway, yeah, those two are totally irrelevant BUT it's true Communism doesn't work - but ignorance is just as bad. Socialism does NOT equal Communism, at all. The US has a major issue with this, leading from all the paranoia left over from the Cold War. The UK has a socialist government, many countries in Europe do, and we're a hell of a lot more like the US than Communist countries...

Yes, socialism works a hell of a lot better than libertarianism/republicanism, neither of which give a sh** about the environment for future generations...

Bunch of crap.

 

[LegendKiller]

Look, according to the Vostok cores, we are at a natural high point in the earth cycle. Now, if you look at previous peaks, you would notice they tailed off and this one hasn't. HOWEVER, this one hasn't tailed off for more than a THOUSAND YEARS. Mankind's significant influence hasn't happened until the last 100 years or so.

So you are telling me, that a cycle that lasts more than 10,000 years AND is now at a high peak AND has been high for 1,000+ years is only because mankinds influence in the past 100 years?

Can you say bullcrap?

The fact of the matter is that Coral growth isn't as old as the earth's oceans, so it must grow and die in cycles.

The fact of the matter is that, given the Vostok core, we *KNOW* the planet operates on cycles. We *KNOW* that we are at the peak of a cycle, and we *KNOW* that earth has gone down traditionally.

Furthermore, we *KNOW* that earth had oceans in the mid-west before and that the polar ice caps aren't earth age.

Why is any of this huge and groundbreaking? Why wouldn't the ice caps melt again liek they have done before? Why couldn't the earth operate on a cycle?

Because people want to blame everything on something.

However, we cannot, based upon our limited accurate historical data, extrapolate a correlation/causation conclusion just because we are at a peak, which is natural anyway. To do so is false science and statistics, let alone logically bankrupt.

That is not to say that we shouldn't reduce our emissions ASAP. I think that air quality, as well as ground/water pollution is a major problem. I hate SUVs and think they should be banned, or taxed exorbitantly. I also think gas should be set at a mininum of $5/gal, with the taxes going to environmental cleanup and alternative energy development.

I also think the world should band together and get their crap moving on fusion power and also standardizing a fission power source that is both powerful and uber-reliable for the medium term. All coal power should be phased out within the next 10 years.

 

[xolademoness]

Originally posted by: Genx87

China - Do you really think it would be any better otherwise? It would be an ecological sh**-hole whatever government was running it, simply because it's a country still at "developing nation" status but with access to a lot of heavily-polluting technology. It's basically going through an industrial revolution akin to that of Europe hundreds of years ago.

so it is ok for a communist nation who is developing to destroy the envionrment but not for a capitalist nation

No and I never said that, stop being an ass.

Originally posted by: Genx87

Chernobyl - That it happened in a Communist country is totally irrelevant, it wasn't Communism that was responisbly for flaws in the reactor design/control rods or stupidness on the behalf of the operators (for a bit of background - as you seem to not have a clue - see here) - it was a combination of small errors leading to a hell of a big accident. Many other countries have had major human-induced disasters too but you can hardly blame it on the political system - Chernobyl was definitely a wake up call to be a hell of a lot more careful about nuclear plant safety, and it's likely other nuclear plants around the world were just as bad beforehand...

Communism is a responsible for the low quality design and low quality training that caused the accident.

Bull. Many of the things bought en masse by Americans from China are better made than they would be in the US, by lazy, fat (Way over half of Americans are fatties - 65.2% of those aged 20 years and older [source😱besityInAmerica.org (The Endocrine Society)]), overpaid workers. And you wonder why many American industries prefer to use Mexicans?

Originally posted by: Genx87

But anyway, yeah, those two are totally irrelevant BUT it's true Communism doesn't work - but ignorance is just as bad. Socialism does NOT equal Communism, at all. The US has a major issue with this, leading from all the paranoia left over from the Cold War. The UK has a socialist government, many countries in Europe do, and we're a hell of a lot more like the US than Communist countries...

Yes, socialism works a hell of a lot better than libertarianism/republicanism, neither of which give a sh** about the environment for future generations...

Bunch of crap.

What a well structured argument... Still in high school?

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Is it too late to undo the damage unrestrained capitalism has done?

Do you think Communism and Socialism has done better?

Chernobyl, wonderful example of Communism's donation to nature
China, Their rivers are as dirty as they come.

Our nation has doubled our GDP in the past ~15 years and yet our emissions consumption has gone up a fraction of that.

Go tell it to Katrina. :roll:

The changing phases of Atlantic hurricane activity are not completely understood; but there appears to be a link to fluctuations in the thermohaline circulation, the global pattern of ocean currents which in western Europe appears as the Gulf Stream.

By causing the sea-surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic to change by even a degree Celsius, these fluctuations can bring major differences to the number of hurricanes generated in a particular year.

Other natural climate cycles such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation may also play a role...

One problem is that not all of those answers exist. Another problem is that some scientists - not to mention lobby groups, environmental organisations, politicians, newspapers and commentators - will go much further in their public statements than the data allow.

With such incendiary material, that is unlikely to change; but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we would all benefit from people on both wings of the issue looking rather more to research, however laboured its progress, and rather less to screaming headlines and easy quotes.

Text

 

[xolademoness]

Originally posted by: LegendKilleris only because mankinds influence in the past 100 years?

http://google.com/search?q=cache:S8JxZs...scientist.com/article.ns%3Fid%3Ddn6334

the approximate 0.5°C rise over the second half of the century, most pronounced in the last 30 years, can only be explained when factors related to human activity, such as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, are taken into account.

The US government has been in denial over it for a long time, yet they accept it... There's plenty of evidence. Sure we're on a peak and everything but the change would be far less without the huge amounts of pollution churning into the atmosphere...

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Look, according to the Vostok cores, we are at a natural high point in the earth cycle. Now, if you look at previous peaks, you would notice they tailed off and this one hasn't. HOWEVER, this one hasn't tailed off for more than a THOUSAND YEARS. Mankind's significant influence hasn't happened until the last 100 years or so.

So you are telling me, that a cycle that lasts more than 10,000 years AND is now at a high peak AND has been high for 1,000+ years is only because mankinds influence in the past 100 years?

Can you say bullcrap?

The fact of the matter is that Coral growth isn't as old as the earth's oceans, so it must grow and die in cycles.

The fact of the matter is that, given the Vostok core, we *KNOW* the planet operates on cycles. We *KNOW* that we are at the peak of a cycle, and we *KNOW* that earth has gone down traditionally.

Furthermore, we *KNOW* that earth had oceans in the mid-west before and that the polar ice caps aren't earth age.

Why is any of this huge and groundbreaking? Why wouldn't the ice caps melt again liek they have done before? Why couldn't the earth operate on a cycle?

Because people want to blame everything on something.

However, we cannot, based upon our limited accurate historical data, extrapolate a correlation/causation conclusion just because we are at a peak, which is natural anyway. To do so is false science and statistics, let alone logically bankrupt.

That is not to say that we shouldn't reduce our emissions ASAP. I think that air quality, as well as ground/water pollution is a major problem. I hate SUVs and think they should be banned, or taxed exorbitantly. I also think gas should be set at a mininum of $5/gal, with the taxes going to environmental cleanup and alternative energy development.

I also think the world should band together and get their crap moving on fusion power and also standardizing a fission power source that is both powerful and uber-reliable for the medium term. All coal power should be phased out within the next 10 years.

Dude. We passed the natural high shown by the vostok cores about 60 years ago.
Besides, you are confusing the "stable" age of earth we are living in now with the ages where there were massive volcanoes all around and no oxygen in the atmosphere (well, less anyways).

 

[Meuge]

Are we heating the planet - yes. Is it going to have a noticeable effect beyond the natural cycle of the planet's climate -> we have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER. There is simply not enough data to directly attribute the global warming to human activity (to a full extent). Do I think we've played a part it it - sure. But we're not hurting the planet - we're only hurting yourself.

 

[Czar]

I blame capitalism on how badly the dams were built in new orleans 😛

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Dude. We passed the natural high shown by the vostok cores about 60 years ago.
Besides, you are confusing the "stable" age of earth we are living in now with the ages where there were massive volcanoes all around and no oxygen in the atmosphere (well, less anyways).

Wow, so we passed an unpredictable peak! Gee! We diverted from a measurement that had significant standard deviation *BEFORE* mandkind came around. I bet those algae caused that previous high so long ago, them and their dastardly polluting vehicles and coal power plants, darn them!


As far as xolandemoness' post.

1. On something that has a cyclical period of tens of thousands of years, you cannot take measurements for 30 years and then say "ohh crap, x caused y and we know for certain!". That is bankrupt logic.

It is a theory that mankind had that type of influence over the earth, especially when the earth has exibited it's own self-destructive and cyclical tendancies in the past.

I am not debating whether there *COULD* be an effect, I am debating the chicken-little's using false science in saying there *HAS* to be a link. There doesn't have to be, especially considering the cyclical nature.


For example, we know the stock market goes into cycles., sometimes following economic growth, soemtimes not so closely We know that they are unpredictable and there is no sure-fire logic that dictates their movement.

However, over the past few decades there has been a correlation that when the NFC wins the super bowl, the economy goes up (or is it down...forgot) and when the AFC wins, it goes down.

Now, although they two appear to be VERY strongly correlated, we cannot draw a causationary conclusion from that correlation. It is illogical and intellectually bankrupt to say that a football division has any affect on the general trends of the economy.

Could there be a link? Sure, perhaps the fact that the most robust economies are in the NFC division, therefore win they win, more economic prosperity comes from fans visiting the super bowl and those cities become euphoric and spur the economy to further highs.

Can we say that for certain? No, because

A. Our sample set is limited.
B. It's impossible to extrapolate small impacts of independant variables to an effect on the dependant variable, the R2, while strong in this example, has a sample set that is WAY too small and is highly deviant.

If I were to look at it from a statistics standpoint, I would reject the null hypothesis that pollution caused the warming, based upon the fact that there are strong cyclical dendancies anyway.


Now, I know you are looking for some sure-fire way of blaming it on a group, groups, or ideology. But statistics and logical science, devoid of emotional bias, would tell us that your scenario, while compelling, is hardly conclusively concrete.

Just to reiterate, I hate gas guzzlers and polluters as much as any tree hugger. I am just not as eager to blame them for everything going on with the environment.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Is it too late to undo the damage unrestrained capitalism has done?

Do you think Communism and Socialism has done better?

Chernobyl, wonderful example of Communism's donation to nature
China, Their rivers are as dirty as they come.

Our nation has doubled our GDP in the past ~15 years and yet our emissions consumption has gone up a fraction of that.

Go tell it to Katrina. :roll:

Oh so now capitalism is to blame for Katrina and the destruction from it? lmao

No, capitalism isn't to blame. But the major proponent of what is now regarded as capitalism, that guy in The White House who ignores science in favor of "faith based" inititaives, that guy who ignored Kyoto, whose "Clear Skies" legislation is a text book study on how to create dirty skies, that guy is to blame. And what he's supposedly selling America with his feed the rich, starve the poor "capitalist" policies is too.

🙂

 

[Jmman]

Isn't this really "much ado about nothing?" Most scientists, even the ones who staunchly believe that manmade emissions are to blame, will admit that there is no practical method to reduce emissions to the point that it will have a visible impact.