or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming becomes even harder to deny...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global warming becomes even harder to deny... - Page 3

post #81 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
No one is saying we can turn back global warming for sure... but we can reduce it and lessen its impact

No, you can't. Not by conservation, anyway.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #82 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
No, you can't.

Yes, you can. Your hypothetical "someone else will use it" idea is just that, hypothetical.

This isn't NihilisticOutsider.
post #83 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Yes, you can. Your hypothetical "someone else will use it" idea is just that, hypothetical.

This isn't NihilisticOutsider.

No - it seems to be IrrationalOutsider. You guys are so resistant to this idea because you have wasted a bunch of your lives fighting helplessly against CO2. I believe that humans cause global warming, and that we don't have the capibility to stop it, so we better get ready for a new geological Epoch with a thermal maximum followed by the NeoEocene - global warming is much worse that you make out because of its invincibility, and harping about Prius cars is just fiddling while Rome burns.

You can see supply and demand setting prices if you just look at the world around you. Look at the patterns of car purchasers - they buy less efficient cars when the price of gas goes down.

It is unbelievable to me that you all can't see the evidence that fills the world around you. Just look at the prices of any commodity - Australian fruit is expensive right now because of crop failures, price goes up and people use less. If the whole US stopped eating imported rice, the price would drop, and other countries would jump on that oppertunity to feed themselves. etc.

The same things apply to oil, coal and natural gas.

There are only three ways to stop global warming:

1. Kill most of the people in the world, as many as you can without disrupting our technological culture.
2. Global totalitarian state, probably combined with #1
3. Invent an alternative energy source which can scale, and is cheaper than petrochemicals. This will definitely not be wind power, geothermal, tidal power, or biofuel, and will probably not be solar or nuclear fission.

Actually, biofuel may be the answer, in that it will cause massive famine in poor countries due to farmland competition. Biofuel can't supply 6-9 billion people with energy, but it could supply 500-800 million people.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #84 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
No, you can't. Not by conservation, anyway.

Just because you...say so. Ok, cool.
Are you Moe's older brother or father? I see your logic:

Laws of nature, exist only when it's convenient for me.

Free market capitalism and its laws, such as supply and demand only exist when they're convenient to me.

People who buy energy efficient cars are "environmentalists" (as if that were a bad thing) and SUV keying eco-tuhrrorists.
Quote:
No - it seems to be IrrationalOutsider. You guys are so resistant to this idea because you have wasted a bunch of your lives fighting helplessly against CO2.

We have wasted a bunch of our lives fighting helplessly against CO2? Is that the best you could make up? How pathetic. But I guess it fits your little imaginary world better, rather than realizing we're just regular people who want to save money and do our part, whether "right" or not to reduce our OWN footprints.
The only time we've wasted...is with you.
Quote:
I believe that humans cause global warming, and that we don't have the capibility to stop it

That's not what you were saying earlier when you said: "If global warming is a real phenomenon, and if it is caused by man, it is probably unstopable".
Quote:
global warming is much worse that you make out because of its invincibility, and harping about Prius cars is just fiddling while Rome burns.

You're the one with the Prius obsession. So what are you doing about it? Please enlighten us.

Don't become a cartoon man.
post #85 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Actually, biofuel may be the answer, in that it will cause massive famine in poor countries due to farmland competition. Biofuel can't supply 6-9 billion people with energy, but it could supply 500-800 million people.

Don't become a cartoon....too late.
post #86 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
That's not what you were saying earlier when you said: "If global warming is a real phenomenon, and if it is caused by man, it is probably unstopable".

Every reply you make is poorly thought out blather, I banish you to my ignore list. And my opinion is still the same, if you carefully compare that post to my more recent ones with a rational mind, you will notice.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #87 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978

There are only three ways to stop global warming:

1. Kill most of the people in the world, as many as you can without disrupting our technological culture.
2. Global totalitarian state, probably combined with #1
3. Invent an alternative energy source which can scale, and is cheaper than petrochemicals. This will definitely not be wind power, geothermal, tidal power, or biofuel, and will probably not be solar or nuclear fission.

Actually, biofuel may be the answer, in that it will cause massive famine in poor countries due to farmland competition. Biofuel can't supply 6-9 billion people with energy, but it could supply 500-800 million people.

Well 1 and 3 seem to solve the problem.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #88 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
I banish you to my ignore list. And my opinion is still the same, if you carefully compare that post to my more recent ones with a rational mind, you will notice.

No,No!! Please, don't banish me!!!! Must suck to get tangled in your own web of contradictions and irrational thoughts. Pretty weak.

Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Well 1 and 3 seem to solve the problem.

I'm partial to number 1 myself. Especially if we get to use our nukes! Yipee!
post #89 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch

I'm partial to number 1 myself. Especially if we get to use our nukes! Yipee!

I was thinking more Matrix-y or Hitleresque furnace.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #90 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I was thinking more Matrix-y or Hitleresque furnace.

I'm not advocating #1, mind you - also the decomposing bodies would produce more CO2, unfortunately.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #91 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
I'm not advocating #1, mind you - also the decomposing bodies would produce more CO2, unfortunately.

You seem to be assuming that we couldn't come up with a way to capture that CO2 and use it for our own nefarious purposes.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #92 of 278
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
There are only three ways to stop global warming:

1. Kill most of the people in the world, as many as you can without disrupting our technological culture.
2. Global totalitarian state, probably combined with #1
3. Invent an alternative energy source which can scale, and is cheaper than petrochemicals. This will definitely not be wind power, geothermal, tidal power, or biofuel, and will probably not be solar or nuclear fission.

I admit the problem is very difficult, but I don't think the problem is all that intractable.

Without going as far as option 2, I think it's possible to use tax incentives and tax penalties to artificially manipulate the desirability to conserve energy and/or use alternative sources of energy. Yes, this would take an unusual amount of dedicated political will among all of the largest energy consuming nations. These measures don't have to be completely effective, however, they merely need to help us reduce production of C02 enough to buy a more time for option 3.

You're right that individual choices to conserve, especially when they're completely voluntary, won't add up to enough to stop or even significantly slow the problem of global warming. But they do help build the political climate for change, do help in demonstrating the possibilities for getting by with lower consumption of fossil fuels, and do help attract investment into the technologies used by those trying to conserve. With enough of that, and, frankly, enough pain and fear caused by ever stronger hurricanes, increases in things like flooding, drought, famine, etc., I do think it's possible to build the necessary political will, and institute measures effective enough to make a difference, without having to go nearly as far as a global totalitarian state to get the job done.

As for option 3, I think there are some promising technologies on the horizon which just need a bit more time and investment to bear fruit. A lot of the basics for replacing oil are already there, we just need to improve efficiencies here and there, and figure out how to scale up and deploy these technologies in what will admittedly have to be a complex, multi-solution approach to replacing the attractive versatility of oil and other fossil fuels.

One big advantage of oil is that it's both a source of energy and a very convenient carrying of that energy. Hydrogen could be made into a useful carrier of energy, but you need a sources of energy like solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear to produce it. Biofuels could solve some of the problems which can't be solved using hydrogen, so long as the need for biofuel can be kept low enough so as to not take too much land out of use from food production. Distributing and using more energy in the form of electricity will help use use sources of energy that work better when implemented as large-scale centralized operations.

Maybe we do need a back-up plan if all of this fails, but giving up and not even trying to stave off catastrophe is hardly a good solution.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #93 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Without going as far as option 2, I think it's possible to use tax incentives and tax penalties to artificially manipulate the desirability to conserve energy and/or use alternative sources of energy. Yes, this would take an unusual amount of dedicated political will among all of the largest energy consuming nations. These measures don't have to be completely effective, however, they merely need to help us reduce production of C02 enough to buy a more time for option 3.

Tax incentives would only work if you had a world government. Even if you got 90% of the world's countries to fall in line, that would just make the financial rewards that much greater for the remaining 10%. Anyway, they would not fall in line - look at the Kyoto accord.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
You're right that individual choices to conserve, especially when they're completely voluntary, won't add up to enough to stop or even significantly slow the problem of global warming. But they do help build the political climate for change, do help in demonstrating the possibilities for getting by with lower consumption of fossil fuels, and do help attract investment into the technologies used by those trying to conserve. With enough of that, and, frankly, enough pain and fear caused by ever stronger hurricanes, increases in things like flooding, drought, famine, etc., I do think it's possible to build the necessary political will, and institute measures effective enough to make a difference, without having to go nearly as far as a global totalitarian state to get the job done.

The more successful that you are convincing people to conserve, the greater the price-lowering effect of that conservation on oil. People are selfish, they will burn the oil given the chance.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline


As for option 3, I think there are some promising technologies on the horizon which just need a bit more time and investment to bear fruit. A lot of the basics for replacing oil are already there, we just need to improve efficiencies here and there, and figure out how to scale up and deploy these technologies in what will admittedly have to be a complex, multi-solution approach to replacing the attractive versatility of oil and other fossil fuels.

One big advantage of oil is that it's both a source of energy and a very convenient carrying of that energy. Hydrogen could be made into a useful carrier of energy, but you need a sources of energy like solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear to produce it. Biofuels could solve some of the problems which can't be solved using hydrogen, so long as the need for biofuel can be kept low enough so as to not take too much land out of use from food production. Distributing and using more energy in the form of electricity will help use use sources of energy that work better when implemented as large-scale centralized operations.

Maybe we do need a back-up plan if all of this fails, but giving up and not even trying to stave off catastrophe is hardly a good solution.

Scaling alternative energies is a long-shot bet. They currently supply less than 1% of our energy needs - and only 15% of our energy is CO2-free (including Nuclear). Our CO2-free energy supply has to scale to 3200% (to get to 5x our current supply) in the next 40 years - that is 9% growth, not so bad except most of that is nuclear fission and we will run out of uranium (unless we allow breeder reactors in the 3rd world).

The problem is that I have never heard of anyone trying to figure out a back up plan - all our effort is going into conservation and alternative energies.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #94 of 278
You're a brave man Shetline. However...........

All action is futile. Repeat. All action is futile.
post #95 of 278
No, since a large-scale CO2 scrubber has already been invented. If we cut down our current emissions and put the scrubbers into use, we'll be fine in a century or two.
post #96 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
No, since a large-scale CO2 scrubber has already been invented. If we cut down our current emissions and put the scrubbers into use, we'll be fine in a century or two.

link? Cutting down on our emissions is impossible, unless you mean emit less CO2 while still burning the same amount of oil (as I explained above), but if we could pull carbon out of a smokestack and store it, then problem solved (provided the process does not use some scarce material, or have some noxious by-product).

Scrubbers would also probably be expensive, and therefore limited to the west for the most part. Which would further increase the benefit of burning as much oil as you can make a profit on (to keep it out of the hands of the unscrubbed 3rd world).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #97 of 278
Oh boy. Hey Gilsch you like my sig?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #98 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Without a global dictatorship that has total control of its citizens, conservation will not work period.

Bullshit. Without conservation, people living in industrialized American cities would have to wear gas masks RIGHT NOW. Conservation HAS worked, if not so clearly for global warming (which is definitely debatable), then at least, obviously, for urban pollution.
post #99 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Oh boy. Hey Gilsch you like my sig?

This is an automated response. All action is futile. Repeat. All action is futile.

Any reason why I should or shouldn't?
post #100 of 278
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Tax incentives would only work if you had a world government. Even if you got 90% of the world's countries to fall in line, that would just make the financial rewards that much greater for the remaining 10%. Anyway, they would not fall in line - look at the Kyoto accord

Without the US signed on, and the US producing more greenhouse gasses than anyone else, it's not amazing that the Kyoto accords haven't accomplished much yet. Even if the US eventually signs on, it's going to take some work to build the political will to get serious about global warming -- I'm not denying that.

But let's go with your hypothetical 90%, or even say 80%. But let's say that's not 80% measured in numbers of people or numbers of countries, but weighted according to current levels of consumption. Get the US, Europe, Japan, Australia and China signed up, and you're probably there or damned close. Sure, the 20% left over can take advantage of the situation, but how much and how fast?

There will be a lot of poor countries in that 20% who weren't guzzling oil that badly even when it was half the price it is right now. These people aren't going to suddenly buy SUVs and monster trucks overnight no matter how cheap oil gets. They aren't going to suddenly double factory production and air condition entire cities in a month or a year or even five years.

Beyond that, how hard would it be to convince oil producers to act, with the blessing of countries all around the world, to cut back production while maintaining artificially higher prices? Sanctioned price fixing. Sure there will be some cheating, but countries worried about running out of the oil their trying to sell might gladly stretch their reserves, make higher profits, and put off they day of reckoning when oil either runs out or is in such low demand it's no longer the cash cow it once was.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #101 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Sure, the 20% left over can take advantage of the situation, but how much and how fast?

Quote:
There will be a lot of poor countries in that 20% who weren't guzzling oil that badly even when it was half the price it is right now. These people aren't going to suddenly buy SUVs and monster trucks overnight no matter how cheap oil gets. They aren't going to suddenly double factory production and air condition entire cities in a month or a year or even five years.

Good points. Here's a little fact that's overlooked somehow. Gas prices are higher in most of those poor countries. My family owns coffee plantations in Central America and I can tell you that gas prices are at least 10% higher there-at $3/gallon in CA that's 30 cents more- except for diesel which gets subsidized a little bit by governments.

The country I'm most familiar with has the lowest prices in the region. At $100 monthly minimum wage it's silly to assume that like you said, they would be able to afford SUVs and monster trucks and if they could...somehow...then be able to afford the high prices of gas.
post #102 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Without the US signed on, and the US producing more greenhouse gasses than anyone else, it's not amazing that the Kyoto accords haven't accomplished much yet. Even if the US eventually signs on, it's going to take some work to build the political will to get serious about global warming -- I'm not denying that.

But let's go with your hypothetical 90%, or even say 80%. But let's say that's not 80% measured in numbers of people or numbers of countries, but weighted according to current levels of consumption. Get the US, Europe, Japan, Australia and China signed up, and you're probably there or damned close. Sure, the 20% left over can take advantage of the situation, but how much and how fast?

There will be a lot of poor countries in that 20% who weren't guzzling oil that badly even when it was half the price it is right now. These people aren't going to suddenly buy SUVs and monster trucks overnight no matter how cheap oil gets. They aren't going to suddenly double factory production and air condition entire cities in a month or a year or even five years.

Beyond that, how hard would it be to convince oil producers to act, with the blessing of countries all around the world, to cut back production while maintaining artificially higher prices? Sanctioned price fixing. Sure there will be some cheating, but countries worried about running out of the oil their trying to sell might gladly stretch their reserves, make higher profits, and put off they day of reckoning when oil either runs out or is in such low demand it's no longer the cash cow it once was.

1. You realise, of course, that China and Russia are allowed to pollute as much as they like in the Kyoto accord, and even leftist european countries that signed it against their financial interest are violating their quotas.

2. You must not watch the news much - "Sanctioned price fixing?". Look at the whining that is going on about $3 gas - and it is going much higher without price fixing. Any pollitician in a democratic country that tried this would be voted out very quickly.

3. No matter how poor those 20% of the non-complying countries are, factories will move there soon enough. Anyway, every country will be non-complying (as you can see with Kyoto).

Without a global dictatorship that has total control of its citizens, conservation will not work period.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #103 of 278
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
1. You realise, of course, that China and Russia are allowed to pollute as much as they like in the Kyoto accord, and even leftist european countries that signed it against their financial interest are violating their quotas.

Then we need a better accord. It will be difficult to achieve, certainly won't be followed strictly, but I see no reason we can't do better than we're doing now, good enough to buy us some time, without requiring a world-wide totalitarian government.
Quote:
2. You must not watch the news much - "Sanctioned price fixing?". Look at the whining that is going on about $3 gas - and it is going much higher without price fixing. Any pollitician in a democratic country that tried this would be voted out very quickly.

It wouldn't have to be overt, this could be behind the scenes negotiations, and all I'm talking about is supporting some price floor which discourages the automatic consumption of all oil which one person tries to conserve by somebody else, I'm not recommending urging or sanctioning oil producers to charge $250/barrel.

Besides, adjusted for inflation current oil prices aren't really all that terribly high right now. It's very difficult to imagine that prices wouldn't be much higher than they are now if so much pent-up demand is actually out there, as you're claiming, waiting to burn up every drop of oil anyone tries to conserve.
Quote:
3. No matter how poor those 20% of the non-complying countries are, factories will move there soon enough.

How fast is "soon enough"? It could be slow enough that by time the rest of the world has found something better to burn than fossil fuels, that what they've found will be more attractive to use, even for poorer countries. We'll still be a lot better off if a good portion of the world tries to make the switch from oil and succeeds, even if some poorer countries keep burning oil for a while after that.
Quote:
Anyway, every country will be non-complying (as you can see with Kyoto).

Without a global dictatorship that has total control of its citizens, conservation will not work period.

Okay, I get it. You're very cynical about human nature. Quite often a cynical attitude does make for an accurate predictor of human behavior.

On the brighter side, however, although it hasn't been quite as big of a challenge, we have managed to get off of CFC's to an effective degree through coordinated international effort, and there are already signs that's paying off with a recovering ozone layer, even with cheating going on and less than 100% compliance.

I'm also impressed that Y2K software compliance went so well, with so few actual problems having occurred. While some of the possible problems were overplayed (not every goddam computer relies on keeping track of today's date to run right!) there was real potential for major disruptions of economic activity. Surprisingly enough, however, a lot of people really heeded the warnings and got their acts together before disaster had to strike, people spent the money they needed to spend to prepare rather than nay-saying all warnings, sticking their heads in the sand, and watching their short-term bottom lines only.

What could have been a disaster turned into such a major yawn that some people wondered if all the fuss had been worth it. I'm pretty sure it was worth it, and it's a damn good thing we didn't have to learn the answer for sure the hard way.

I'm hardly a wide-eyed fan of the collective wisdom of humanity. But I do think it is possible, possible enough to not throw my hands up in the air and act like the only thing left to do is prepare for climatic disaster, possible enough not to blithely dismiss all efforts at conservation as hopeless symbolic gestures or mere issues of family budgets, for people to get energized enough to occasionally do what needs to be done for the collective good, to great enough an extent to make a difference.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #104 of 278
Of course conservation will not work. Why? Because we can't conserve. We can not bring ourselves to conserve. By nature, we are just too greedy. It'd never work. Sort of like communism. Seriously.

What's the real problem? Half of it is tech/behavior leading to GHG emissions. What is the other half? Population.

Per capita emission rates have remained static since the 70s. Population is skyrocketing. The REAL root of the problem is population. And those explosive populations in developing nations will, yes they will, have factories. That, and of course America is still growing substantially, along with many other industrialized nations.

Hits on the other part of your quote, now you see why I made it my sig Gilsch.

Are there any other environmental scientists here?

Anyone that does not "believe" in global warming is just plain wrong. As far as scientists can tell. See the other thread, I don't feel like rehashing.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #105 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
But I do think it is possible, possible enough to not throw my hands up in the air and act like the only thing left to do is prepare for climatic disaster

I would be fine with the situation if we were preparing for disaster as well as trying to conserve, but we are not. There is no effort to re-locate populations away from low lying areas like New Orleans and Myanmar, for example - we wait for Nature to kill the people instead.

We need to spend time figuring out how to quickly convert atmospheric methane into CO2, for example, because that would help us eliminate the thermal maximum event. If we get to the Eocene conditions without dying off, then we are home free - the Eocene was some sweet sh*t - tropical jungles from pole to pole, and lots of rainfall - not as much land, but more usable land. Warm oceans, coconuts hanging from every tree, it will be a return to the garden of eden (but without man, if we don't start getting ready to kill the thermal maximum).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #106 of 278
I'm posting primaily to see if I am still getting the "you can't post, cause it's been less than 30 secs since your last post" error msg. [mods may delete this at will, please]

Aquatic, glad to see someone is left in the world that understands that population pressure is the primary source of most of our ills; povery, environmental destruction, etc.

e1 61 89 78, your point is well taken. I have pondered this and it would be a monumental task to say the least. Even today, in America, most areas or cities cannot handle 2" of rain per hour without disasterous flooding. Add the anticipated 20-30 rise in sea level, well we're a talkin a major mo-fo disaster! I heard people bandy about the idea that we would have to build some levees. Hell, most folk today don't think we can build 1500 miles of fence to ward off illigal immigrants. What would we need to hold back the 'aquatic' problems? {pun intended, no harm, no foul} My guess is about 20 or 30 THOUSAND MILES of levees. MOVE CITIES???? Hell, we sat around for 100 years waiting for NewOleans to fall into the sea. But I do agree, we need to work equally hard at correcting, mitigating, and responding to what is to come.

Paz
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
post #107 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by rufusswan
I'm posting primaily to see if I am still getting the "you can't post, cause it's been less than 30 secs since your last post" error msg. [mods may delete this at will, please]

Aquatic, glad to see someone is left in the world that understands that population pressure is the primary source of most of our ills; povery, environmental destruction, etc.

e1 61 89 78, your point is well taken. I have pondered this and it would be a monumental task to say the least. Even today, in America, most areas or cities cannot handle 2" of rain per hour without disasterous flooding. Add the anticipated 20-30 rise in sea level, well we're a talkin a major mo-fo disaster! I heard people bandy about the idea that we would have to build some levees. Hell, most folk today don't think we can build 1500 miles of fence to ward off illigal immigrants. What would we need to hold back the 'aquatic' problems? {pun intended, no harm, no foul} My guess is about 20 or 30 THOUSAND MILES of levees. MOVE CITIES???? Hell, we sat around for 100 years waiting for NewOleans to fall into the sea. But I do agree, we need to work equally hard at correcting, mitigating, and responding to what is to come.

Paz

Actually, total sea level rise will be 270'.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #108 of 278
Well, if you are correct, the the problem wouldn't be 10X as bad, but 100X as bad.

I'm not up to doing the math, but I would guess that moving that much mass/weight FROM the poles TO the equator would be enough to slow the rotation of the earth. Our 24 hour day would grow by a noticable amount.

Maybe we'll all start growing gills, and additional webbing 'tween the digits.

Paz
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
post #109 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by rufusswan
but I would guess that moving that much mass/weight FROM the poles TO the equator would be enough to slow the rotation of the earth. Our 24 hour day would grow by a noticable amount.

I doubt it, most of the earth is made of molten metal and rock - and the density increases as you go down. The thin crust of rock and water is neglegable.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #110 of 278
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science....ap/index.html

A little something about Gore's movie.


Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #111 of 278
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
I doubt it, most of the earth is made of molten metal and rock - and the density increases as you go down. The thin crust of rock and water is neglegable.

Depends on your meaning of "negligible". For the guys who decide when to add leap seconds to world's clocks, it'll probably would make a small but noticeable difference.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #112 of 278
Yeah e# that sounds really great, except for one problem. You think the global ecosystem will evolve fast enough? I think biodiversity short term (hundreds of years) will take a hit. Of course long-term it will go up, as we know, wetlands and tropics have the highest biodiversity and production. Or perhaps the Earth will dry out. Maybe it will get wetter. Maybe the thermohaline current will stop. This is the most complicated topic...there is. Amazing how something so simple...1 variable, 1 degree...can have such an impact. Hey that went all Lord of the Rings eh.

Better get to buildin' an ark folks!
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #113 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Population is skyrocketing. The REAL root of the problem is population.

It has been a while since people talked about the population crises. I guess some think the doom and gloom didn't pan out, but really much of it has. We just get use to loosing are open space, environment, resources little by little.

In an ideal world we would have stopped at a couple of billion people, but it is too late for that.
post #114 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
No, since a large-scale CO2 scrubber has already been invented.


Did you mean the forests? Sadly they're under some pressure, but maybe when the permafrost melts, they can move northward.
post #115 of 278
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Yeah e# that sounds really great, except for one problem.

One problem?

Today's forecast: very hot and humid, with a chance of showers or thundershowers during the afternoon.
Tomorrows's forecast: very hot and humid, with a chance of showers or thundershowers during the afternoon.
Extended 50,000 year forecast: very hot and humid, with a chance of showers or thundershowers during the afternoon.

Not to mention a whole planet crawling with bugs the size of cocker spaniels. Maybe more on the chihuahua size as you approach the poles. <shudder!>

I wonder how long it would take for the oceans to recover from the horrendous pollution they'd pick up by swamping through all of the crap in and around our costal cities?

Hey, maybe we can nuke our way into nuclear winter? j/k
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #116 of 278
Thread Starter 
Taking an easy way out?

How to Cool a Planet (Maybe)

(Looks like the old "appleinsider" username for the NYT doesn't work any more, so you'll have to sign up to get into the article if you haven't signed up already.)
Quote:
In the past few decades, a handful of scientists have come up with big, futuristic ways to fight global warming: Build sunshades in orbit to cool the planet. Tinker with clouds to make them reflect more sunlight back into space. Trick oceans into soaking up more heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Their proposals were relegated to the fringes of climate science. Few journals would publish them. Few government agencies would pay for feasibility studies. Environmentalists and mainstream scientists said the focus should be on reducing greenhouse gases and preventing global warming in the first place.

But now, in a major reversal, some of the world's most prominent scientists say the proposals deserve a serious look because of growing concerns about global warming.

Curbing emmissions of greenhouse gasses is still I believe the most responsible way to go about averting a major climate crisis, especially since conserving non-renewable resources like oil and coal is a sensible long-term thing to do regardless of climate issues.

The effectiveness, and possible dangerous and unpredictable side effects of some of these global cooling solutions, is something that has to be considered seriously. But compared to losing major coastal population centers and tens, if not hundreds of millions of lives to rising sea levels, the subsequent poisoning of the oceans, radical ecosystem shock, and further massive loss of human life due to argricultural losses as we head into Eocene-like conditions?

If things start to look bad and reducing greenhouse gases isn't happening or going fast enough, I think we need to start seriously considering some of these geoengineering solutions, or develop new and better ideas along the same lines. I'd even think rushing into such plans in the next 5-10 years might be a smart idea if problems with increasingly stronger storms and ususually high instances of both drought and flooding continue unabated.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #117 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
If things start to look bad and reducing greenhouse gases isn't happening or going fast enough, I think we need to start seriously considering some of these geoengineering solutions, or develop new and better ideas along the same lines. I'd even think rushing into such plans in the next 5-10 years might be a smart idea if problems with increasingly stronger storms and ususually high instances of both drought and flooding continue unabated.

We should attack the problem from all directions and not wait to see if A or B or C work or aren't working fast enough.

We should get people educated on the problem so that they can make a decision to become involved. One option would be to become educated and take action from an individual standpoint. Buy products that conserve energy. Buy products that produce energy. Try to become energy independent as soon as the technologies allow for it. (in rural areas it's happening...it's still expensive at the urban level).

GE (I'm only choosing them for name recognition) is implementing an initiative called Ecomagination. It will invest $1.5 Billion annually by 2010 in research in clean technology research and development which is equivalent to 50% of it's current R&D budget.

Toyota(yes, Toyota) is developing and testing genetically engineered trees and plants that have a superior ability to recycle air and remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Another option or step.

But, but...that won't do it! Well, it's one of the many approaches that are gonna be needed to tackle the problem. For the ones with reading comprehension skills: ONE OF MANY.

Scientists are also working on biodiesel from algae because some forms of algae are capable of producing 30 times more oil per acre than the crops we are currently using for biofuels. That could alleviate the concern about feeding the people or the SUVs. ANOTHER option.

Again, I can't emphasize this enough. Education and helping people get educated. We can get involved from an individual standpoint...NOW. For example, we could switch to compact fluorescent lights (or CFLs). Don't laugh.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has published a report that says that using compact fluorescents and other energy efficient lighting would cut the world's electricity bill by one tenth. From the link:
Quote:
A global switch to efficient lighting systems would trim the world's electricity bill by nearly one-tenth.

That is the conclusion of a study from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which it says is the first global survey of lighting uses and costs.

The carbon dioxide emissions saved by such a switch would, it concludes, dwarf cuts so far achieved by adopting wind and solar power.

Better building regulations would boost uptake of efficient lighting, it says.

"Lighting is a major source of electricity consumption," said Paul Waide, a senior policy analyst with the IEA and one of the report's authors.

"19% of global electricity generation is taken for lighting - that's more than is produced by hydro or nuclear stations, and about the same that's produced from natural gas," he told the BBC News website.

The carbon dioxide produced by generating all of this electricity amounts to 70% of global emissions from passenger vehicles, and is three times more than emissions from aviation, the IEA says.

I 'bolded" the part about better building regulations. Like I've been saying on this thread, here's where we come in aswell. Since commercial and public sector buildings account for 43% of the electricity used for lighting, we can elect individuals, or get the ones we voted for to give us better building regulations for example. Another approach, another option.

And with super efficient LEDs around the corner (getting better and better all the time) the future looks bright, no pun intended, in this area. Plus they are very cool.

I could go on and on but..I won't. We have options and not just waiting for the shit to hit the fan and then try to re-locate hundreds of millions if not a billion people. It's frustrating to read posts by know-it-alls who'd rather sit there and type excuses and "reasons" why X and Y won't work instead of becoming aware of the technologies that do exist now (and the ones being worked on) and the options that we currently have available.

Sure, let's prepare for a worst case scenario, but first let's work on the root of the problem now because we have plenty of options and we won't find out how far they'll take us until we try/adopt them. Besides, the more we can lessen the effects of global warming now, the more time to come up with better solutions and technologies.

An Inconvenient Truth
post #118 of 278
Given how dubious the science is, particularly with the grifters who pose as objective scientists, it's best we wait and see.

First, continued global warming at predicted rates IS not a 100% certainty, any more than the reconstructed climate history that says current warming is unpredicented (the NAS gave it a 66% likehood of being "unprecedented").

Untested and uncertain models of long-term trends, even if they were perfect for human caused warming, cannot predict fluxations in non-human forcing (or non-forcing).

Second, the degree of warming is a wide range...1.6 to 5.5 degrees C.

Third, the impact of warming (it could be a very good thing) is not certain.

Fourth, the financial impact is not certain.

Fifth, the effectiveness of counter measures are uncertain.

Sixth, the cost of prevention (or remediation or adaptation) is uncertain.

THEREFORE WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING?

Nonsense...
post #119 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Given how dubious the science is, particularly with the grifters who pose as objective scientists, it's best we wait and see.

First, continued global warming at predicted rates IS not a 100% certainty, any more than the reconstructed climate history that says current warming is unpredicented (the NAS gave it a 66% likehood of being "unprecedented").

Untested and uncertain models of long-term trends, even if they were perfect for human caused warming, cannot predict fluxations in non-human forcing (or non-forcing).

Second, the degree of warming is a wide range...1.6 to 5.5 degrees C.

Third, the impact of warming (it could be a very good thing) is not certain.

Fourth, the financial impact is not certain.

Fifth, the effectiveness of counter measures are uncertain.

Sixth, the cost of prevention (or remediation or adaptation) is uncertain.

THEREFORE WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING?

Nonsense...


Max go back and read some of the info on this. From what I'm reading here it sounds like you know very little.


" Third, the impact of warming (it could be a very good thing) is not certain. "

Lots of stuff out there about the impact. Written I might add by people much more versed in this subject than you or I.


Ps. Who are these " grifters "? What proof do you have that they are " grifters "? They certainly have the credentials to add credence to their claims and integrity.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #120 of 278
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Given how dubious...

Only is the minds of non-scientist wingnuts and a few hired industry lackeys is the evidence "dubious". There might be some details to quibble over, and like all responsible scientists the scientist predicting global warming talk in terms of probabilites and margins of error -- but study after study keeps showing the same basic general conclusions, all pointing in the direction of pending disaster of one degree or another, and all show that it's most probably due to human effects on the environment.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming becomes even harder to deny...