bush_cheney2004 Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 I'm not too worried about man adapting. Don't you care about other animals, plants, ecosystems etc. getting f'ed up? Nope....they adapt as well....and have done so for many millions of years....long before man was around to "eff" anything up. Man is part of the ecosystem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Nope....they adapt as well....and have done so for many millions of years....long before man was around to "eff" anything up. Man is part of the ecosystem. No they don't - nature needs our help - try putting a house plant outside these days - a plant that would have thrived in the sun rays of the 50s...today the plant is burned - If you don't assist in incrimmental adjustment within the adaptation...a little shade - a little sun - and so forth - then full sun...plants and animals need assistance - UV rays are intense - there is dry soil where there once was moist - you have to water - you must steward the planet- to think it will 'adapt' on it's own in this artifical environ we have created is wishful thinking and dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) They should stop using the term green house gases. Most people do not even know what a green house is or what if feels like to be in one. Look at the ice caps - what has been there for thousands of years has suddenly in less than one human generation is disappearing. Only a fool would suggest that it's natural and part of some natural cyclical earthly occurance. Natural changes do not take place in a flash of time - they have to be enduced artifically. They are dissapearing fast. Not as fast as you make it out to be but still pretty fast but I don't see the as a problem roughly have of earths life there were no Ice caps and those time in history tended to have a huge very strong ecosystem. No they don't - nature needs our help - try putting a house plant outside these days - a plant that would have thrived in the sun rays of the 50s...today the plant is burned - If you don't assist in incrimmental adjustment within the adaptation...a little shade - a little sun - and so forth - then full sun...plants and animals need assistance - UV rays are intense - there is dry soil where there once was moist - you have to water - you must steward the planet- to think it will 'adapt' on it's own in this artifical environ we have created is wishful thinking and dangerous. Good UV rays cause mutation and mutation leads to evolution. If they don't Adapt they will die I have no problem with that but I'm willing to bet most will adapt. Edited August 22, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 I read this a couple of days ago. Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for. Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 I read this a couple of days ago.Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for. Link Is it too late to nominate Gore for a Razzie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Don't matter about the technical end of this gas or that gas - it only matters that we have generated to much waste within a closed invironment..we excret to much - becaue we consume more than we need - It's greed and gluttony on an industrial scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 ..we excret to much -Did you mean excrete?Yes, I've noticed much excretion on the threads as of late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Did you mean excrete?Yes, I've noticed much excretion on the threads as of late. I spelled it right the first time and looked at the attatched e - and droped it...You jaded comment about my long winded wet excretions on this forum is greatly appreciated. Actually before you condemn the excretors - think of us as a colony of bacteria - If we are in a petre dish - and we are over abundant - and we consume the glucose..and poop out the waste - if there is to much waste - we get drunk - and if the whole world is drunk on over comsumption - then......well we lose all good judgement - just as I have now.......So maybe we have some warming on an electronic level here on threads....I wonder if I should put on more sun screen? Okay - I get the message ...now I am going to talk to BC the not so ugly American - he excretes some fun. Nice try though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 I love this quote from the movie "The Matrix". Agent Smith talking to Neo (i think): "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species (humans). I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure." It's damn true. Humans pretty much suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) It's damn true. Humans pretty much suck.Michael Crichton noted that western environmentalism is the perfect remapping of Christian original sin myth the perpetuates the notion that nature is somehow perfect and humans need to apologize for their existance. In my opinion, it is quite a sick belief system.The quote from the Matrix neglected to mention that nature's 'way' of rebalancing populations involves mass starvation, predation and disease. If the environmentalists are so keen to human's follow nature's way we shouldn't be trying to 'stop global warming'. We should just let it come and let nature pick the winners and losers. Edited August 25, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 It's damn true. Humans pretty much suck. It is a truly repulsive belief system that preaches hatred for one's own species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 I find it hilarious when some people can't grasp the concept that humans can affect the climate and/or environment in a major way with their actions. Do these dolts not remember what happened to the ozone layer? We've messed that up pretty good with the CFC's we were throwing in the air, and our response has scientists predicting an eventual total recovery of the ozone sometime after the middle of this century. Yeah about the Ozone .. don't hear to much about that anymore. Wonder why? What did happen to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) Yeah about the Ozone .. don't hear to much about that anymore. Wonder why? What did happen to it?I accepted the ozone 'science' when it came out too. But after learning how low the standards are in the climate science I wonder whether that was just another natural trend that was simply presumed to be human induced.Incidently, the replacemnet for CFCs turns out to be a big GHG so after spending billions migrating to them they have to be phased out too. Edited August 25, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Michael Crichton noted that western environmentalism is the perfect remapping of Christian original sin myth the perpetuates the notion that nature is somehow perfect and humans need to apologize for their existance. In my opinion, it is quite a sick belief system.The quote from the Matrix neglected to mention that nature's 'way' of rebalancing populations involves mass starvation, predation and disease. If the environmentalists are so keen to human's follow nature's way we shouldn't be trying to 'stop global warming'. We should just let it come and let nature pick the winners and losers. Excellent response. Humans are a part of nature, obviously, and are therefore `natural`. However, humans are unique to any other living thing on the planet given our level intelligence and heightened state of awareness/consciousness. What we do greatly affects the environment, and we have a choice on how we affect it. If we blew up most of the earth in an atomic war that would be as "natural" as us deciding to dismantle all nukes and eat oatmeal in mud huts. Life would survive either way, but we have a choice. I think what is ultimately best for the health & survival of humans is also best for the earth and the environment. Dismantling nukes rather than testing them, keeping our waters clean, avoiding using chemicals that make us sick etc. etc.....these are all best for humans as a species and human health & economy on a long-term basis. At the same time, they are also best for the rest of the environment. Sure if we pollute our waters and air, we can always adapt by creating water and air filter facilities and take pills that negate most of the effects, but that would be wasting a lot of money, resources, and brainpower and ultimately humans would still live longer and healthier by just keeping the water and air clean and natural. IMO, the less destructive and pervasive to the environment humans are, the best it is for everyone and everything. If we allow man-made global warming to persist, humans will no doubt ultimately suffer greatly from the effects in ways we have even yet to calculate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) IMO, the less destructive and pervasive to the environment humans are, the best it is for everyone and everything. If we allow man-made global warming to persist, humans will no doubt ultimately suffer greatly from the effects in ways we have even yet to calculate.We have already completely re-engineered the environment we live in with cities and farms. These human created environments have problems and benefits but the benefits largely outweigh the problems.I do not feel it is reasonable to assume that: 1) A warming planet will be a net negative. 2) That we could actually do anything to stop it with the technology we have today. We have the ability to adapt to any climate It is worth noting that the AGW scare is not the first 'the world is going to end' panic and it will not be the last. The population bomb turned out to be nonsense because humans adapted (i.e. found new ways to find resources when the existing supplies started to run out). I see catastrophic climate change as a hypothetical risk like a meteor strike that we cannot do much about given the information we have now. So our best course of action is to continue to develop new technologies that might help and keep an eye on what is happening. Panic and a rush to create artifical deadlines for actions will simply waste resources and will not accomplish the stated goal. Edited August 25, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) I do not feel it is reasonable to assume that:1) A warming planet will be a net negative. By warming the planet through man-made means (mostly the burning of fossil fuels), and seeing mostly negative impacts so far on the environment, i find it reasonable to hypothesize that it is much more likely there will be a overall negative impact than a positive one. 2) That we could actually do anything to stop it with the technology we have today. It would be extremely difficult, or at least take a long time, to stop global warming entirely. But it's a reasonable goal to think that we can at least slow down the rate of warming and/or minimize the amount of warming. Last i heard, the earth has warmed about 7/10ths or 8/10ths of a degree. They say a warming of 2 degrees will be irreversible & have dramatic impact. Humans can improve the situation simply by changing some of our daily habits. We have the ability to adapt to any climate You don't find it reasonable to assume your 2 points above, so what makes it reasonable to predict such a massive statement? I don't think we'd last too long on Jupiter. Stick us on any other planet in the solar system and we'd be dead, Mars a possible exception. Not a single living cell has been discovered surviving on any other planet, tough to assume we'd be a special case. In the documentary "The 11th Hour", Stephen Hawking says the worst-case scenario for global warming on earth would be all ice melting, massive amounts of CO2 on the seabed being released, and earth eventually having a similar climate as Venus, which has a surface temperature of 250 degrees. He argues that humans could not survive in a climate like that. I tend to agree since plant-life would be gone, therefore no oxygen. Even if we could survive in that climate, who would want to? Edited August 25, 2009 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 ....It would be extremely difficult, or at least take a long time, to stop global warming entirely. But it's a reasonable goal to think that we can at least slow down the rate of warming and/or minimize the amount of warming. Last i heard, the earth has warmed about 7/10ths or 8/10ths of a degree. They say a warming of 2 degrees will be irreversible & have dramatic impact. Humans can improve the situation simply by changing some of our daily habits. Improve compared to what? Which baseline are you trying to preserve, only to be faced with another cycle of change? You don't find it reasonable to assume your 2 points above, so what makes it reasonable to predict such a massive statement? I don't think we'd last too long on Jupiter. Stick us on any other planet in the solar system and we'd be dead, Mars a possible exception. Not a single living cell has been discovered surviving on any other planet, tough to assume we'd be a special case. Correct..."we" are not a special case...not even here on Earth. In the documentary "The 11th Hour", Stephen Hawking says the worst-case scenario for global warming on earth would be all ice melting, massive amounts of CO2 on the seabed being released, and earth eventually having a similar climate as Venus, which has a surface temperature of 250 degrees. He argues that humans could not survive in a climate like that. I tend to agree since plant-life would be gone, therefore no oxygen. Even if we could survive in that climate, who would want to? Dr. Hawking has been wrong before, but is certainly entitled to his dire predictions. A lot of the guys ignore positive and negative feedback loops, open v. closed systems, entropy, etc. They have an agenda and will force the "data" to support an objective, just like the oil companies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 It would be extremely difficult, or at least take a long time, to stop global warming entirely. But it's a reasonable goal to think that we can at least slow down the rate of warming and/or minimize the amount of warming. Last i heard, the earth has warmed about 7/10ths or 8/10ths of a degree. They say a warming of 2 degrees will be irreversible & have dramatic impact. Humans can improve the situation simply by changing some of our daily habits. They say stuff like that but in the past the world have been much hotter than it is today and those times had incredible diversity. As for stopping it I would really like to know how much of it is natural and how much is man-made. In the documentary "The 11th Hour", Stephen Hawking says the worst-case scenario for global warming on earth would be all ice melting, massive amounts of CO2 on the seabed being released, and earth eventually having a similar climate as Venus, which has a surface temperature of 250 degrees. He argues that humans could not survive in a climate like that. I tend to agree since plant-life would be gone, therefore no oxygen. Even if we could survive in that climate, who would want to? The amount of CO2 that would be required for that would mean we would have suffocated long before that anyway. I doubt it would happen anyway when CO2 levels rise plants grow much faster. did you not see the post that said CO2 mught not have as large effect as we once thought? Also Stephen Hawking is a Physicist this isn't exactly his area of expertise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 By warming the planet through man-made means (mostly the burning of fossil fuels), and seeing mostly negative impacts so far on the environment, i find it reasonable to hypothesize that it is much more likely there will be a overall negative impact than a positive one.The planet was much warmer in the past with much higher CO2 levels and it also had an abudance of life. Warming is not a threat to life or the ecology of the planet - it is only an economic problem for humans because human settlements are not particularily mobile at this time. That means the negative impacts are entirely dependent on our ability to adapt.A point to consider: Q) why to heat wave related deaths go down in cities in hotter climates. A) because humans in hotter climates invest in the technology required to protect them. Another point to consider: The Sahara was a savanna 10,000 years ago because hotter temperatures brought more rainfall from the ocean. But it's a reasonable goal to think that we can at least slow down the rate of warming and/or minimize the amount of warming. Last i heard, the earth has warmed about 7/10ths or 8/10ths of a degree.People who have crunched the numbers which make reasonable assumptions based on the technology available conclude that any CO2 reductions will be insignificant and rediculously expensive. Hawking's claims are pure speculative fiction that belong below 'alien invansion' on the list of threats to humanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) By warming the planet through man-made means (mostly the burning of fossil fuels), and seeing mostly negative impacts so far on the environment, i find it reasonable to hypothesize that it is much more likely there will be a overall negative impact than a positive one. What about the increasing habitability of regions like Canada's and Russia's North, Greenland, and Antarctica? The cultivation and habitation of these immense land areas could dramatically increase the Earth's carrying capacity for humans. It would be extremely difficult, or at least take a long time, to stop global warming entirely. But it's a reasonable goal to think that we can at least slow down the rate of warming and/or minimize the amount of warming. Last i heard, the earth has warmed about 7/10ths or 8/10ths of a degree. They say a warming of 2 degrees will be irreversible & have dramatic impact. Humans can improve the situation simply by changing some of our daily habits. "Daily habits" are entirely irrelevant. How much electricity can really be saved by turning off lights, when the lights nowadays take almost no power anyway (CFLs and LEDs)? How much oil can really be saved by driving a medium size family car instead of an SUV? A few % savings here and there maybe, but nothing to significantly slow or reverse the trend, particularly as populations increase and ever more areas of the world industrialize. The answer lies in the continued growth of the economy, which will fuel continued research into new technologies such as fusion, electric vehicles, etc, that will eliminate the production of greenhouse gases. Also Stephen Hawking is a Physicist this isn't exactly his area of expertise. Actually you are completely wrong. Thermodynamics is one of the many the areas of expertise of a physicist, and it is exactly that field which most explicitly predicts and explains the effects of greenhouse gases. Climatologists and other such scientists look at statistics and find trends and draw pretty graphs, but it is physics that explains why CO2 and other greenhouse gases would affect the Earth's temperature. It is physics that explains how the Sun's light is absorbed and reflected or re-emitted. In fact, calculating the mean global temperature of the Earth given a certain amount of surface reflection and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is something that any competent 1st or 2nd year university physics student should be able to do, at least to a first approximation. However, Hawking's statement refer to the case of a runaway greenhouse effect, where the temperature rises to the point that the oceans boil away. Water vapor is itself a potent greenhouse gas, and if the oceans boiled the effects would be truly irreversible. However, we are obviously very far away from the point where the temperature of the world's oceans reaches the boiling point. Like he said, that is the "worst case". It is not a prediction for any time in the foreseeable future, but a statement of what could happen if the temperature continued to rise and rise and rise. Correct..."we" are not a special case...not even here on Earth. Actually, we are precisely that. Humans alone of all life on Earth have been able to develop technology, to seek to understand the world and the universe around us through science, and to record our knowledge for future generations through language and writing. Our modern technology gives us power which thousands or even hundreds of years ago could have been attributed only to Gods. And the technology that we will have developed in a few hundred more years will seem like magic to the humans of today. Humanity's unique intelligence allows us to shape the environment around us to our own ends, or else to shield ourselves from that environment. In the past, we have manipulated the environment on the scale of individual houses, then towns and cities. We turn forests into farmland to produce more food than the environment could otherwise have produced. We build cities so that vast numbers of humans can live in small areas where otherwise only a much smaller number could have lived. We build outposts in areas of hostile climates and use our technology to survive where otherwise we could not. The time is fast approaching when we can do this on a global scale. We can and will shape the entirety of the Earth to best serve our needs. Just as in the future we will shape other worlds to resemble Earth (terraform them), so we can inhabit them also. This is why the polarized debate on global warming is complete folly. You have the rabid environmentalists on one side, who don't care what is actually beneficial or harmful, and just want humanity to basically curl up and die and stop affecting nature. And you have the close-minded deniers on the other side, who believe that humans cannot affect the environment, even though that is precisely what we have been doing for thousands of years. One side's mistake is to undervalue humanity, the other's, to underestimate its power. Is there no one else here who has a position on the issue of global warming that does not fall squarely into the "environmentalist" or "denier" camp? Edited August 25, 2009 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 The planet was much warmer in the past with much higher CO2 levels and it also had an abudance of life..... By the past, you mean several hundred million years ago when all the CO2 (we are emitting back into the atmosphere) was already roaming the planet in the form of dinosaurs, tropical plants and other animals that could withstand such heat. Then suddenly by some catastrophe all that CO2 got buried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Actually, we are precisely that. Humans alone of all life on Earth have been able to develop technology, to seek to understand the world and the universe around us through science, and to record our knowledge for future generations through language and writing. Our modern technology gives us power which thousands or even hundreds of years ago could have been attributed only to Gods.... OK....we'll put you in the "humans-as-gods" group. Our puny existence on this planet has been short and unremarkable on a geologic or cosmic scale. Whatever happens vis-a-vis "global warming" will be equally unremarkable in such a context. Save the Dinosaurs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Our puny existence on this planet has been short and unremarkable on a geologic or cosmic scale. And yet we have already achieved much in so short a time. What will we have achieved after humankind has existed for a time long on the cosmic scale? Whatever happens vis-a-vis "global warming" will be equally unremarkable in such a context. The evolution of our planet's climate is relevant only inasmuch as it relates to our planet's capacity to provide sustenance and enjoyment for humankind. Save the Dinosaurs! The dinosaurs are extinct, there is nothing to save. OK....we'll put you in the "humans-as-gods" group. Feel free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 And yet we have already achieved much in so short a time. What will we have achieved after humankind has existed for a time long on the cosmic scale? You are making an assumption.....get back to us after "humankind" has survived for many millions of years....like...say...sharks! The evolution of our planet's climate is relevant only inasmuch as it relates to our planet's capacity to provide sustenance and enjoyment for humankind. Nope.....the planet doesn't care one iota.....our stay is ultimately temporary. The dinosaurs are extinct, there is nothing to save. They are still here in different form....adaptation is fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 (edited) By the past, you mean several hundred million years ago when all the CO2 (we are emitting back into the atmosphere) was already roaming the planet in the form of dinosaurs, tropical plants and other animals that could withstand such heat.Humans live in every environment where life exists from hot jungles to cold tundra. Nothing we do will cause the earth to go outside the range of climate that supported life in the past. The only issue is whether the planet will be able to support the same number of humans in the same locations. But even then that is not necessarily a problem because technology and economic development do lead to natural decline in human populations which will make it easier to adapt by moving people around. Then suddenly by some catastrophe all that CO2 got buried.No catastrophe - just continental drift that buried rocks that absorbed the CO2 and replaced them with new rocks that absorbed more. CO2 levels have fluxuated naturally in the past. Even if humans never existed it is quite likely that CO2 levels would rise naturally to >1000ppm levels again in the future. Edited August 26, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.