Global Warming

[Kosmo]

So does life on this planet period. Some species are an essential counterbalance to CO2 levels if some climatologists are to be believed. We're not I have to say, but then I don't believe we have a right to expect a comfortable technological civilisation forever. We've done well as a species, but our survival is no more guaranteed than any other, and there's plenty of species that have died out because they couldn't adapt to changing conditions. Humans do have an advantage of course, in that we build our own enviroments (and we're getting good at doing that), but that depends on our abaility to exploit the planet. In fact, I think humanity as a successful technological society has a limited lifespan. I can't honestly guess how long the good times will last, and there's some real tests waiting just around the corner. What I will say is we've become a very specialised creature (at least the modern western variety) and that makes us vulnerable as a species. Nature does this. Creatures evolve to exploit the enviroment and become better at it until the enviroment changes, leaving the creature with little or no chance of surviving. In any case, the planet will change beyond recognition eventually. Our sun won't last forever, and as it uses up hydrogen stocks it will burn hotter, making the earth somewhat unpleasant for most species. Eventually the oceans will boil away and thats it. The sun will then swell into a red giant once it starts to burn helium (so I understand) and you won't believe how big its going to get. We might be enveloped by it! Or perhaps there'll be a very very bright and hot star filling the sky. Who knows? It all seems pretty bleak I guess but then look at the bright side. You're here, you're alive, and chances are you can do something to make life wonderful.

 

There are two theories: the Universe will expand forever and all stars will die and everything will be frozen or the expansion started by Big Bang will be reverted in a Big Crunch when all matter will be regrouped in one place. Anyway, this looks bad, but making plans for things that will happen billions of years away it's pointless. The near future it's more important. And for sure the "Co2 it's bad and you're gone pay for it" is and will be a part of our lifes.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Kosmo

[caldrail]

making plans for things that will happen billions of years away it's pointless.

Yep, I do have to agree there. But then I'm not sure that mankind is well equipped to control the earths climate either, and I rather suspect we might find out how easy it is to tip the see-saw the other way. Nature has balanced this palnet for billions of years. Sure, the extremes it reaches may not suit us - there's been more than a few species that have fallen by the wayside by changing climate - but is eco-tyranny any better? Do I really want to live in a world where throwing out the wrong rubbish is a criminal act, or where private transport is a heinous sin against society (unless you're rich course - I think you'll find the world leaders suggesting these happy socialist idels will have their own get-out clause) etc etc. What I mean is, these eco-concerns are in danger of being used as excuses for controlling our activities even closer, regardless of any supposed benefit to our daily lives. Truth is, we're getting too successful as a species. There are too many of us and its pushing the ecosystem out of balance. There's a cure for that although understandably its a bit distateful to most peoples sensibilities (it is to mine). We have no natural predators, and modern society protects us from accident and disease better than in previous ages. So there's more of us. And the poorer countries of this world want our almighty dollars so they sell their souls for it - sweatshops, industries, tree-felling etc. They don't care about the enviroment one jot. Why should they? Lots of fancy talk won't put food on their table. So, in the final analysis, does this eco-initiative we see today really count? I think not. Most of it is ill-informed wishful thinking or blatant politically correct vote-mongering. Increasingly, its a moneyspinner. Thats why we will have to endure this eco-sensitive culture - because the profit motive will demand that we conform and become part of the market. The changing enviroment? Isn't that something happening tomorrow? But as long as we do what our leaders want, we can soothe our shame and throw off the guilt of... well... having a good time at the planets expense. Even if others intend to anyway.

[Gaius Octavius]

Malthus and Milton Friedman were right after all! flush rimflour is spot on. Disease kills - not pollution!

 

[Gaius Octavius]

The last elected president just won a Nobel. A heat wave in Octember? Minisoda is ticked off!

Edited October 13, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Faustus]

The last elected president just won a Nobel. A heat wave in Octember? Minisoda is ticked off!

 

GLOBAL WARMING/GLOBAL COOLING

 

Which Really IS The Most Likely Threat?

From the vantage point of geologic history, and considering we are are presently in a warm interlude of an Ice Age which includes short warm periods(10-15 thousand years or so) like the present one, the greater threat might just be global cooling.

 

These seem to be the choices:

 

1. Grapes being harvested in Canada

2. New York City and Boston being plowed into the Atlantic Ocean

 

Could the only thing to prevent number 2 be the beneficial effects of a warmer climate creating the situation in number 1?

 

Could this be the reason only 13% of Canadians consider Man Made Global warming to be an issue something should be done about?

 

And could it be that those in the 13% are being persuaded to act, if they are indeed committed to action, against their own best interests?

 

How many times during the past 1.8 million years has Canada been buried in ice, and as a matter of fact, has the U.S. also been buried under ice as far south as Kentucky? The answer to that question may be found, but not with much certainty as to timelines.

 

During past glaciations, the amount of CO2 and methane, both greenhouse gasses that tend to cause global warming, were lower than during interglacial episodes. There seems to be an implied cause and effect there, but the following link at least explores all the possibilities, including astronomical which includes solar activity: this is interesting.

 

Could it be more likely that instead of the severe global warming we are warned will soon happen, instead an ice age which is cyclical and almost certainly predictable is being forestalled?

 

Over the past 1.6 million years the northern hemisphere has been under ice a proportionally far greater amount of time than not, and this cycle is all but certain to repeat itself.

 

There are just too many variables involved in global climate change to know with any certainty what will happen next.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Faustus

[Moonlapse]

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109712

 

This article basically states that aerosol pollution is greatly amplifying the greenhouse effect over Asia. However, the consensus is that the cooling period from 1940 - 1970 was caused by aerosol pollution, which was reversed by air pollution laws. Am I missing something? This is a huge contradiction.

[Faustus]

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109712

 

This article basically states that aerosol pollution is greatly amplifying the greenhouse effect over Asia. However, the consensus is that the cooling period from 1940 - 1970 was caused by aerosol pollution, which was reversed by air pollution laws. Am I missing something? This is a huge contradiction.

 

Salve Moonlapse

 

To possibly answer your question,

Could that be understood to mean china? And the reason for the contradiction, is it doesn't really matter. Whatever is said will confuse the general public, certain segments of which believe contradictory information anyway, and they become even more shrill, etc. to add to the din, which is the object of the excercise. It's a form of public hysteresis: yes, no, yes, no, yes, no . . . and all meaning in words is lost. . .(think 1984, sadly I say)

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

Nowadays, this would be a typical Hurricane season:

 

[Kosmo]

Could that be understood to mean china? And the reason for the contradiction, is it doesn't really matter. Whatever is said will confuse the general public, certain segments of which believe contradictory information anyway, and they become even more shrill, etc. to add to the din, which is the object of the excercise. It's a form of public hysteresis: yes, no, yes, no, yes, no . . . and all meaning in words is lost. . .(think 1984, sadly I say)

 

I fully agree! Somwhere beetwen 1984 and Catch 22.

We fight against famine and diseses in Africa. If we are succesfull this leads to an even greater increase of population. If you have a greater population and with a better living this puts a lot of pressure on the enivroment. But we want a good enviroment and try to preserve what it's there.

The development of the Third World (ridiculous name) it's on every international agenda since 1940's. But the development destroys the enviroment (see Brazilian jungles or China)

It's obvious that this development will eventualy wipe out all big size animals except those in well protected spaces, real zoo's for tursits and hunters. This happened in Western Europe and the people living there have no intention of repopulating the countryside with large animals. The hunt for a bear was an international event while all repopulation programs met fierce resistance. It's no coincidence that Romania and Poland hold almost the entire populations of bears, wolfs, lynx etc in the EU.

 

Going back to the global worming I think that the Nobel prize for peace was given on a political agenda and with no attention to the facts that those people claim. A huge political machine has it's propaganda in full swing. This officialy supported hysteria would work even if the temperature drops.

[caldrail]

Could it be more likely that instead of the severe global warming we are warned will soon happen, instead an ice age which is cyclical and almost certainly predictable is being forestalled?

The trend is toward warmer global climates. On average, the world has usually been warmer than our current temperatures, so you might say that the earth is returning to normality? Its a little unfortunate, because we've become just a little dependent on our infrastructure which is based on the sea travel of former times and therefore at risk from rising sea levels. As to when another ice age occurs, who can say? The warm ocean currents are a delicate balance, and in theory could freeze britain very quickly if the warm water doesn't reach our shores. On the other hand, the planet wobbles somewhat and another movement like that would also spark off another deep freeze (it could actually go the other way, and we get another hothouse period). Ultimately, we cannot prevent climate change at all.

[ASCLEPIADES]

The development of the Third World (ridiculous name) it's on every international agenda since 1940's.

 

Going back to the global worming I think that the Nobel prize for peace was given on a political agenda and with no attention to the facts that those people claim.

Salve, K.

 

"Third World" is an analogy to the tiers

[Northern Neil]

I am beginning to thing that there isn't anything in this global warming theory after all. Four months ago it was quite warm, whereas now it is actually quite cold.

[Melvadius]

I am beginning to thing that there isn't anything in this global warming theory after all. Four months ago it was quite warm, whereas now it is actually quite cold.

 

The correct term is actually 'Climate Change' as 'Global Warming' gives the incorrect impression that everywhere will become warmer. In fact, as has already been mentioned, we have entered a period where weather patterns are becoming less predictable over a long period, particularly in an El Nino year, within an overall rise in Global Average Temperature.

 

Some areas are experiencing sudden savage storms, such as the recent spates of flooding (the once in two hundred years variety) that occured last year in Carlisle and this year in Hull, etc. The problem is with Climat Change those 'once in two hundred year' storms could very easily recur on an annual basis. In other areas the opposite effect can occur with some parts of North Africa having received minimal rain fall during the winter period which is normally their stormy season for several years now. If this goes on for long enough it could effectively make some of those areas uninhabitable due to long term drought conditions and consequently ground water obtained from wells and bore holes not being replaced.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Melvadius

[Gaius Octavius]

Climate change or not, things have to change as we are all breathing the bad stuff.

[Faustus]

Climate change or not, things have to change as we are all breathing the bad stuff.

Right you are Gaiuss, and the air and water have been improving in this country. That's been established by the record. I can provide links on that. Wealthy capitalistic democracies tend to enforce the necessary disciplines that dictatorships with command economies don't concern themselves with (Chernobyl for an example), but aside from that I'd like to swerve into something that has dominated the History channel, as it and the Weather channel often do all day on a Sunday: Tell us about our eminent catastrophic destruction. Here are some past events which may be informative:

 

Jonestown, The Mayan Calendar

Edited January 27, 2008 by Faustus