NationStates Jolt Archive

Climate change, that is.

According to a new report (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090402/ap_on_sc/sci_sea_ice), the Arctic ice could be melting at a much faster rate than was previously estimated.

So, what say you NSG? Is this a genuine threat, or baseless alarmism? If the former, to what extent does anthropogenic activity play a role? What, if anything can be done? What should be done?

Discuss.

We had the worst winter in the NW since I can remember. I have spent nearly 40 years of my life here. We will see what the summer brings. However truth be told I could care less if the Earth gets a bit warmer. My main concern is really what the true cause is and finding it out.

Anthropogenic climate change is real.

Whether it is a cause or a significant contributive factor to the current trend of global climate change is not known.

However, I say it does not matter. On a more micro level, we can have often signficiant effects on our local environmental conditions by changing our industrial and personal pollution habits, with benefits to public health and local ecological systems.

On that basis alone, I believe we should all take drastic action to reduce pollution, fuel consumption, and resource consumption. Not only will it improve living conditions in local areas, but both environmentally and economically, it might make it easier to cope with global climate change.

Plus there remains a chance that a reduction in human-generated pollution could slow global climate change. I really don't see a downside to make pro-environment changes in lifestyle and industry.

Global warming is caused by humans; therefore it can only be fixed by humans.

And yes, a few places are getting cooler. They are the exceptions, not the rule. For reference:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Global_Warming_Map.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png

By "fixed" do you mean slowed down, stopped completely, reversed, or more than one of the above?

Global warming is caused by humans; therefore it can only be fixed by humans.
Classic human insolence.

"Haw without us around there wouldn't be global warming".

How's about the volcanoes of the world, the effect of our proximity to the sun, asteroids and shit messing with the atmosphere? How's about the varying climatological conditions from when we weren't around?

Yeah, we probably affect it a bit. But I seriously doubt that we're the root cause of this pish, and that we are going to be able to stop it. That's just arrogant rubbish.

Global warming is caused by humans; therefore it can only be fixed by humans.


That is not known for absolute fact.


It still hasn't been proved the whole cause for the climate change. Humans are contributing by simple deduction but to say outright that we are the sole cause hasn't been proven. As for Humans ability to "fix it" I doubt we can do that without knowing all the causes. Yes we can cut our impact on the enviroment. As for a direct program to fix the planet as proposed by some scientist is not the way to go right now. I also do not want us to try and fix something we really don't know everything about. We could cause a climate change that would have a far more severe consequence than what may happen if we didn't try and fix it.

Global warming is caused by humans; therefore it can only be fixed by humans.

Fix what exactly? Global warming is change, something that the human race has had an undeniable and significant hand in. Just because we recognize our influence on the world around us, that is reason enough to attempt to reverse it? Why not learn from our mistakes, adapt to new situations and realize that the world will change regardless of our influence at all. That is life after all.

Ah, it takes a good three minutes between my return and the first low-quality flame...

Which, ironically, claims that I'm wrong, but refuses to give any evidence. Then again, global warming opponents never seem to have suitable reponses to facts like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Ah, it takes a good three minutes between my return and the first low-quality flame...

Which, ironically, claims that I'm wrong, but refuses to give any evidence. Then again, global warming opponents never seem to have suitable reponses to facts like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
The 900s a time of heavy, polluting industry and transport to rival that of 1900, then?

The 900s a time of heavy, polluting industry and transport to rival that of 1900, then?
So then you DO think that humans are causing the climate to warm?

The 900s a time of heavy, polluting industry and transport to rival that of 1900, then?

Not likely, seeing as the studies vary on it. 1900's, however, they all agree on.

So then you DO think that humans are causing the climate to warm?
Yeah, a bit. I didn't say that wasn't the case.

Classic human insolence.

"Haw without us around there wouldn't be global warming".

How's about the volcanoes of the world, the effect of our proximity to the sun, asteroids and shit messing with the atmosphere? How's about the varying climatological conditions from when we weren't around?

Yeah, we probably affect it a bit. But I seriously doubt that we're the root cause of this pish, and that we are going to be able to stop it. That's just arrogant rubbish.

The bit where we're pumping far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all volcanic activity does (http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html) pretty much ruins any chance of volcanoes being the cause of the current change in climate. Unless I missed it, we didn't get hit by an asteroid recently, so it's not that. Variations in the distance between the sun and the earth have a negligible effect upon temperatures (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=331), so it's not that. We're down to humans being the primary contributor to current warming trends, or that the sun suddenly started outputting a lot more energy than it normally does for no apparent reason.

The 900s a time of heavy, polluting industry and transport to rival that of 1900, then?

The Medieval Warm Period was limited to Europe and the eastern seaboard of the United States. It was strictly a local phenomenon, not a global one.

Ah, it takes a good three minutes between my return and the first low-quality flame...

Which, ironically, claims that I'm wrong, but refuses to give any evidence. Then again, global warming opponents never seem to have suitable reponses to facts like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

in b4 someone uses this graph:

http://kickmehard.com/graph.jpg

Yeah, a bit. I didn't say that wasn't the case.
Yes, I noticed that. But then I wondered why you dismiss as "arrogance" the argument that we can affect climate change. If we can affect it by contributing to it, surely we can also affect it by stopping contributing to it. Maybe we can't stop it, but if our contributions do affect it, then the lack of our contributions likely may also affect it.

Not likely, seeing as the studies vary on it. 1900's, however, they all agree on.
Uhu... from what I see on your wee grid thing, all the lines say 900ish = basically as high as the late 1800s into 1900. If humans really are the only thing affecting the climate, as you suggest, this is a bit odd.

Yes, I noticed that. But then I wondered why you dismiss as "arrogance" the argument that we can affect climate change. If we can affect it by contributing to it, surely we can also affect it by stopping contributing to it. Maybe we can't stop it, but if our contributions do affect it, then the lack of our contributions likely may also affect it.
I don't dismiss the idea that we affect the climate as arrogant. I dismiss the idea that we are the only thing affecting it as such.

You may want to peek at the red line.

And, for the record, Hydesland's graph doesn't seem to have enough space to show the last hundred or so years. No, I'm not always good at wording things properly, but it seems as if the unit of time in that graph is just too big to reflect the recent century.

I don't dismiss the idea that we affect the climate as arrogant. I dismiss the idea that we are the only thing affecting it as such.
Well, I think very few people seriously make such an argument.

Yes, techncially there are other causes, but I imagine humans are responsible for the vast majority (*at least* 90%) of it.

Yes, techncially there are other causes, but I imagine humans are responsible for the vast majority (*at least* 90%) of it.
Based on what data we have available, I am inclined to agree. However, I am also aware that we are missing a lot of data. We really can't predict how our action will affect climate change -- whether there is a different cause or the damage we have done is too far gone to change. Frankly, there is only one way to find out if human action can stop/slow global climate change, and considering the other benefits that will come from doing those things, I think we should go for it.

The bit where we're pumping far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all volcanic activity does (http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html) pretty much ruins any chance of volcanoes being the cause of the current change in climate.
... aye it doesn't stop volcanoes playing a role in what goes on though.
Unless I missed it, we didn't get hit by an asteroid recently, so it's not that.
Plenty of shit gets burnt up in the atmosphere, that has to affect something.
Variations in the distance between the sun and the earth have a negligible effect upon temperatures (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=331), so it's not that.
Fair enough.
We're down to humans being the primary contributor to current warming trends
What about shit in the sea?
the sun suddenly started outputting a lot more energy than it normally does for no apparent reason.
Yeah we just had fucking snow on Mars. That suggests that our solar system is getting warmer in general, no? That due to our landers burning too much petrol?
The Medieval Warm Period was limited to Europe and the eastern seaboard of the United States. It was strictly a local phenomenon, not a global one.
Right. In which case the Merovingians, Moors etc. must have really had a hardon for burning hydrocarbons.

You may want to peek at the red line.
Alright if we're only taking the red line, 1000 AD. William the Conqueror invade with a masive flotilla of paddle-boats, actually producing more greenhouse gasses than we did in 2000AD?

you're missing the point; the lines agree much more in the last century or so than they did in the rst of the graph.

you're missing the point; the lines agree much more in the last century or so than they did in the rst of the graph.
They all have relatively the same pattern, which suggests "some-lots" then "not much", then "some-lots". You can't honestly be trying to claim that people were polluting as much in 1000ish AD as they were in the 20th century.

... aye it doesn't stop volcanoes playing a role in what goes on though.
In some climate change, yes. In this current trend, their contribution is so small that it can be safely ignored.

Plenty of shit gets burnt up in the atmosphere, that has to affect something.
There's not that much of it, and if it did anything it'd probably lower temperatures.

What about shit in the sea?
What about it?

Yeah we just had fucking snow on Mars. That suggests that our solar system is getting warmer in general, no? That due to our landers burning too much petrol?
Snow on Mars isn't new.

Right. In which case the Merovingians, Moors etc. must have really had a hardon for burning hydrocarbons.

Burning fuel would have a global effect, not a local one. Please, please educate yourself on this. You're making yourself look very silly.

Burning fuel would have a global effect, not a local one. Please, please educate yourself on this. You're making yourself look very silly.
Uhu... so what is the cause of the Medieval Warm Period, then?

They all have relatively the same pattern, which suggests "some-lots" then "not much", then "some-lots". You can't honestly be trying to claim that people were polluting as much in 1000ish AD as they were in the 20th century.

I'm not the one claiming that, because they weren't -- once again, SOME lines increase sharply in that area, but others are relatively flat or even decrease -- whereas in the past century, save for the two world wars, ALL of them sharply increase.

Yootopia, completely unrelated to this thread, but something that has been bugging me BIG TIME. It's 'uhuh', not uhu!! Well, ok, there is no correct spelling, but uhu just looks... wrong.

I'm not the one claiming that, because they weren't -- once again, SOME lines increase sharply in that area, but others are relatively flat or even decrease -- whereas in the past century, save for the two world wars, ALL of them sharply increase.
Right, so is this "Humans cause all (or at least 90%) of global warming, but only lately" or what?

Uhu... so what is the cause of the Medieval Warm Period, then?

I don't know. If I'm remembering correctly, the best current hypothesis is changes in the Gulf Stream.

Yootopia, completely unrelated to this thread, but something that has been bugging me BIG TIME. It's 'uhuh', not uhu!! Well, ok, there is no correct spelling, but uhu just looks... wrong.
Eh I'm spelling it pretty phonetically.

I don't know. If I'm remembering correctly, the best current hypothesis is changes in the Gulf Stream.
Sounds likely enough to me.

I'm not the one claiming that, because they weren't -- once again, SOME lines increase sharply in that area, but others are relatively flat or even decrease -- whereas in the past century, save for the two world wars, ALL of them sharply increase.
"The recent trend suggests that we're causing it, if you ignore two of periods in this century where industrialization was at a peak."
Yootopia, completely unrelated to this thread, but something that has been bugging me BIG TIME. It's 'uhuh', not uhu!! Well, ok, there is no correct spelling, but uhu just looks... wrong.
Uhu sounds more like a chuckle/grunt/sarcastic laugh.

Uhu sounds more like a chuckle/grunt/sarcastic laugh.
Personally, to me, "uhuh" looks like something out of a Grease lyrics sheet. Anyway, this is utterly irrelevant.

Once again, a thousand years ago humans did not have the technology to cause the global warming they do now, deliberately or accidentally.

Eh I'm spelling it pretty phonetically.

Well to me, uhuh is just huh with 'u' behind it.

Once again, a thousand years ago humans did not have the technology to cause the global warming they do now, deliberately or accidentally.

I think that is the absolute exact point yoot is trying to make.

Didn't they also find the ozone depletion over Australia was caused by farty sheep?

I would say we are significant factor but not the only factor and it makes sense to do as much as possible to prevent. If it means reducing our carbon footprint then so be it. I don't think there are too many problems on this earth that if we set our minds to we could not solve or drastically improve, all it takes is the will and a little action.

Once again, a thousand years ago humans did not have the technology to cause the global warming they do now, deliberately or accidentally.
Right, so eh what is your argument?
Well to me, uhuh is just huh with 'u' behind it.
Uhuh - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blcvkFqeKac

"The recent trend suggests that we're causing it, if you ignore two of periods in this century where industrialization was at a peak."

Since I don't see your reasoning, please point out the times where you think humans were producing more pollution than they did in the 1900's.

I think that is the absolute exact point yoot is trying to make.

...probably not, seeing as it'd prove that humans are reponsible for the vast majority of the global warming.

...probably not, seeing as it'd prove that humans are reponsible for the vast majority of the global warming.
Err wtf are you talking about?

Your graph shows, in every study, that the earth was warmer in 1000ish AD than it was until 1900AD, which kind of misses out a lot of what humanity did in the 19th and all...

No, it shows that natural heating/cooling were on par with (or even stronger than) human heating until ~1900, when suddenly human pollution has a far greater effect than natural causes.

...probably not, seeing as it'd prove that humans are reponsible for the vast majority of the global warming.

Well it seems to me that he is arguing that because there was high warming in the 900s, despite there being no human pollution, it would make it faulty to assume that humans have to be the only thing causing the warming now, when there can be evidently natural causes.

No, it shows that natural heating/cooling were on par with (or even stronger than) human heating until ~1900, when suddenly human pollution has a far greater effect than natural causes.
Yeah which somewhat kicks your "humans are responsible for it all" thing in the face.

The change in warming to coolling around 1000 is gradual, however (and there are noticable warms during the cooling while noticable cools during the warming), while the change around 1900 is abrupt and gives a hundred years of STRONG warming where the only two cools are both fairly small and both happen at the times when a lot of would-be factory workers are too busy shooting each other.

The change in warming to coolling around 1000 is gradual, however (and there are noticable warms during the cooling while noticable cools during the warming)
... yeah but how does this affect your theory?
while the change around 1900 is abrupt and gives a hundred years of STRONG warming wherethe only two cools are both fairly small and both happen at the times when a lot of would-be factory workers are too busy shooting each other.
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c9453.pdf

Read it and weep.

The change in warming to coolling around 1000 is gradual, however (and there are noticable warms during the cooling while noticable cools during the warming), while the change around 1900 is abrupt and gives a hundred years of STRONG warming where the only two cools are both fairly small and both happen at the times when a lot of would-be factory workers are too busy shooting each other.

*sigh* This is what I was talking about. They weren't busy shooting at each other they were busy making weapons TO FUCKING SHOOT AT EACH OTHER! (Sorry, that one's been building all day)

Industrialization was not at some predetermined low, it was incredibly high! Not to mention probably the decomposition and all that contributing to CO2 counts.

... yeah but how does this affect your theory?

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c9453.pdf

Read it and weep.

I glanced through it, and it seems to fixate on the US, which did not have trenches carved through otherwise useful lands, did not have occupations interfering with everything, did not have multiple daily violations of godwin's law, etc. Yes, the US did get stronger, but I have a hunch that that's the exception not the rule.

*sigh* This is what I was talking about. They weren't busy shooting at each other they were busy making weapons TO FUCKING SHOOT AT EACH OTHER! (Sorry, that one's been building all day)

Industrialization was not at some predetermined low, it was incredibly high! Not to mention probably the decomposition and all that contributing to CO2 counts.

Last I checked, they did not have the technology for someone to both be creating stuff in a factory and using it in battle hundreds or thousands of miles away. From Paris to Moscow, virtually all the land was disrupted by being occupied by either the axis or the allies; are you suggesting that the occupation (and aftermath) of half of europe was so mild that the US's growth overshadowed it?

global warming is real. We should take steps to slow down Co2 production, but nothing to stop the economy about.

Well it seems to me that he is arguing that because there was high warming in the 900s, despite there being no human pollution, it would make it faulty to assume that humans have to be the only thing causing the warming now, when there can be evidently natural causes.

though this would of course rely on us not having, you know, checked

Here's the real question: Is Co2 the main factor in climate change?

Ask these guys (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)

Here's the real question: Is Co2 the main factor in climate change?

yes, in that it is the major driver of the current anthropogenic warming

Ask these guys (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)

how about we don't, since their intention is to mislead.

Let's ask what these (http://www.petitionproject.org/) 31,000 scientists think about the effect of greenhouse gasses.

Let's ask what these (http://www.petitionproject.org/) 31,000 scientists think about the effect of greenhouse gasses.

try harder

Quick! everyone. Prepare your ultra-magic tents that can resist the ice-age that will only be around for a few days.

how about we don't, since their intention is to mislead.

It's easy to reject what you don't want to believe. Has everyone in this thread seriously researched both sides of the 'global warming' argument? I don't begrudge anyone that has really truly researched both sides and keep the opinion that global warming is man made, but to those that just believe the first thing said about this issue: learn your facts:)

try harder

I'm just posting some results that pop up on the first page of major search engines when you search for "the truth about global warming". People should look deeper than that, but this information is that easy to find.

here's another site: http://www.warmingscaretactics.com. They even have a 'facts' portion. :)

I'm just posting some results that pop up on the first page of major search engines when you search for "the truth about global warming". People should look deeper than that, but this information is that easy to find.

here's another site: http://www.warmingscaretactics.com. They even have a 'facts' portion. :)

post from peer reviewed journals

Here's (http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html) a few good 'ol peer reviewed articles about the subject. Enjoy. Once again, this is from the first page of results from a major search engine. Just type in "peer reviewed journals global warming".

If you have some more time, here's (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8) some more 'light' reading.

post from peer reviewed journals

Thank you for reminding me. We all appreciate when good solid articles are used.

Here's (http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html) a few good 'ol peer reviewed articles about the subject. Enjoy. Once again, this is from the first page of results from a major search engine. Just type in "peer reviewed journals global warming".

haha, awesome

Peer-Review Papers Skeptical of "Man-Made" Global Warming:
...
A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate(Science, Vol. 294. no. 5546, pp. 1431 - 1433, 16 November 2001)- Richard A. Kerr

somebody didn't even read the abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/294/5546/1431b), let alone know who richard kerr is.

I hate how political this has become. There are two issues here and people tend to confuse them by blind 'politics as usual' and thus bind them together as one.

There is taking care of our enviornment in terms of, reducing air pollution to make our cities' air more healthy, cleaning up our rivers so that they are not polluted, not littering (or in Europe dropping your ciggs on the street :rolleyes: ), replacing cut down trees and planting more trees in areas lacking them (Israel is the king of this . . . they can offer a few tips here) and just, in general, making sure that air/land/water quality is high as it is a commodity we all share and benefit from, when it's in good condition, and suffer from, when it's polluted.

Then there is global climate change, which is a natural process that is obviously accelerated by the industralization of the 1st world and the continuing industralization of the developing world. This is just something that we as humans will have to deal with, as nobody is going to tell industrializing countries to halt or slow down their industrialization, or to use more expensive means to do it (while their populations remain in poverty and their governments have limited funds already) simply because we are worried about global warming, and even if we did, the industrializing world wouldn't listen.

Thus, the best thing we can do is realize that:

1. Enviornmental hygiene is a common goal and is not a matter of left or right, but a matter of respect for our planet and our cities/lands as inhabitants of the earth.

2. We are not going to stop global warming. The best we can do is work together to meet global climate change on our two feet bracing for whatever hits us. Reducing pollution, emissions and moving to cleaner energies will make our world cleaner, but it will not halt climate change.

3. We need to repare for the influx of Dutch refugees. :p

It's obvious that global warming is caused by man, more accurately, the lack of man.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/FSM_Pirates.png

Let us finally put an end to this ridiculous debate.

Climate change, that is.

According to a new report (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090402/ap_on_sc/sci_sea_ice), the Arctic ice could be melting at a much faster rate than was previously estimated.

So, what say you NSG? Is this a genuine threat, or baseless alarmism? If the former, to what extent does anthropogenic activity play a role? What, if anything can be done? What should be done?

Discuss.

Climate change is Earth's perpetual state. There are numerous causes and multiple sources of those causes. One source of one cause(CO2) is humanity. Climatologists(and numerous other unqualified scientists and non-scientists) study these causes and sources and it appears that human industrial activity being relatively recent, is having an effect on climate that can't be accurately quantified because there has never been any activity like it in Earth's past.

But in my opinion, Climate Change is an extremely overhyped aspect of environmentalism. I am not convinced that passive measures like reducing CO2 emissions at this point will change climatic conditions in the future in a Predictable way. The key word is predictable. I suspect that similarly to accurately predicting short-term weather beyond a few days becomes impossible, so does long-term climatic trends. I have no confidence that we have the depth of data necessary to accurately predict climate beyond a few decades. I further suspect that all the CO2 reduction in the world won't change the fact that we don't know enough to know what Climate will do that far in the future.

However the secondary benefits of the technologies and proposals to reduce CO2 production are tremendous and unfortunately buried under the "Global Warming" hype. I wish we could return to a more well rounded environmental message instead of these scare tactics. Suffice to say, I support every technology for reducing our CO2 production because clean renewable energy, cleaner air, cleaner water and reduced reliance on oil are all worthwhile environmental goals.

Finally, I do NOT support active measures to alter climatic trends. Some of the proposals to 'cool' the planet with aerosols, sun shades and even atmospheric Co2 scrubbers fill me with apocalyptic visions because if there's one thing less predictable than a chaotic system, it's trying to control it. The Earth can do that just fine on its own. And if the climate gets a little uncomfortable for us in the meantime, then tough titty to us. If we're so damned awesome, we'll adapt. We have before.

Lol. I agree. Whether or not we really do have an impact on climate change, is it a bad thing to be more efficient and less polluting? I don't thinks so.

So what you're saying Tarantum is that we can train the incoming dutch as pirates and end global warming! Genius!

I don't think the Dutch would make good pirates, what with their wooden shoes and all.

Climate change is Earth's perpetual state. There are numerous causes and multiple sources of those causes. One source of one cause(CO2) is humanity. Climatologists(and numerous other unqualified scientists and non-scientists) study these causes and sources and it appears that human industrial activity being relatively recent, is having an effect on climate that can't be accurately quantified because there has never been any activity like it in Earth's past.

But in my opinion, Climate Change is an extremely overhyped aspect of environmentalism. I am not convinced that passive measures like reducing CO2 emissions at this point will not change climatic conditions in the future in a Predictable way. The key word is predictable. I suspect that similarly to accurately predicting short-term weather beyond a few days becomes impossible, so does long-term climatic trends. I have no confidence that we have the depth of data necessary to accurately predict climate beyond a few decades. I further suspect that all the CO2 reduction in the world will change the fact that we don't know enough to know what Climate will do that far in the future.

However the secondary benefits of the technologies and proposals to reduce CO2 production are tremendous and unfortunately buried under the "Global Warming" hype. I wish we could return to a more well rounded environmental message instead of these scare tactics. Suffice to say, I support every technology for reducing our CO2 production because clean renewable energy, cleaner air, cleaner water and reduced reliance on oil are all worthwhile environmental goals.

Finally, I do NOT support active measures to alter climatic trends. Some of the proposals to 'cool' the planet with aerosols, sun shades and even atmospheric Co2 scrubbers fill me with apocalyptic visions because if there's one thing less predictable than chaotic system, it's trying to control it. The Earth can do that just fine on our own. And if the climate gets a little uncomfortable for us in the meantime, then tough titty to us. If we're so damned awesome, we'll adapt. We have before.
Stoned.

Edit: I meant to type "agreed". No idea why I would type stoned. I'm sober as a bird.

We have to try...... for the environment!

I think it would be nice to have extra "flotation devices". They may get sunk, but they won't drown. That way the number of pirates stays 'afloat'!

Stoned.

http://rumblepack.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/dude-wait-what.jpg

We have to try...... for the environment!

I think it would be nice to have extra "flotation devices". They may get sunk, but they won't drown. That way the number of pirates stays 'afloat'!

Ok, I will allow the Dutch to assist us, but they must all grow long beards and speak some bastardized form of English.

http://rumblepack.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/dude-wait-what.jpg

Lol, seriously. That was très bizarre. :p

Classic human insolence.As is religion, yet you don't seem to find enough agnostics and atheists where it really matters - for example, on boards of influence where political appointees make their mark.

How's about the volcanoes of the worldLike Mt. Redoubt? Is this a question or do you have some kind of data to back this up?
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/stop-the-volcan
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_volcanoes_cause_global_warming
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000719111045.htm
the effect of our proximity to the sunhttp://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

asteroids and shit messing with the atmosphere?Teehee. What "shit" would that be?

How's Desperate Measures doing these days, anyway?

The bit where we're pumping far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all volcanic activity does (http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html) pretty much ruins any chance of volcanoes being the cause of the current change in climate. Unless I missed it, we didn't get hit by an asteroid recently, so it's not that. Variations in the distance between the sun and the earth have a negligible effect upon temperatures (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=331), so it's not that. We're down to humans being the primary contributor to current warming trends, or that the sun suddenly started outputting a lot more energy than it normally does for no apparent reason.Yeah, something like this.

And here come some more politics into it. Let's let religion out of it and talk fact, which is that soon some form of semi-english speaking dutch will come to America as pirates and save the world!

At the end of the day, is it more important to prepare for tomorrow, or argue about the problems of today?

G'night everyone, you've been a great crowd.

Uhu... so what is the cause of the Medieval Warm Period, then?Excessive flatus release as a result of livestock being flung from castle walls.
:rolleyes:

Lol, seriously. That was très bizarre. :p

Parlez-vous français?

And here come some more politics into it.
No, no .... inexorably linked. Think about it.
:(

EDIT:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871985916184973.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Parlez-vous français?
Bien sûr je parle français -- ne me doute pas! Que penses-tu? Tu trouves que c'est un jeux, ici? Bah... parlons français à TAI car il ne le parle pas!?!? Uhh non . . . essaye encore!

. . . et ne me vouvouye pas -- je trouvais qu'on était des amis ici. ;)

Bien sûr je parle français -- ne me doute pas! Que penses-tu? Tu trouves que c'est un jeux, ici? Bah... parlons français à TAI car il ne le parle pas!?!? Uhh non . . . essaye encore!

. . . et ne me vouvouye pas -- je trouvais qu'on était des amis ici. ;)

Vous irritez la Madame Nees.

Stoned.

Edit: I meant to type "agreed". No idea why I would type stoned. I'm sober as a bird.

Did someone on TV say "stoned," or did you hear someone in the same room say it? It happens to me. If I'm in the middle of typing something and someone says something, I'll sometimes type what they said. lol

Vous irritez la Madame Nees.
M'en fiche. C'est pas mon problème . . .

Did someone on TV say "stoned," or did you hear someone in the same room say it? It happens to me. If I'm in the middle of typing something and someone says something, I'll sometimes type what they said. lol

Actually, I suspect he was stunned by such lucidity from me. Usually I just push people into mud.

*pushes you into mud*

See?

Did someone on TV say "stoned," or did you hear someone in the same room say it? It happens to me. If I'm in the middle of typing something and someone says something, I'll sometimes type what they said. lol

Someone in the other room may have been saying that, now that I think about it. :D

Actually, I suspect he was stunned by such lucidity from me. Usually I just push people into mud.

*pushes you into mud*

See?
And it was probably a typo as I meant to type "stunned", but instead typed "stoned" . . .


hmmm . . . . either scenario works, really :p

Actually, I suspect he was stunned by such lucidity from me. Usually I just push people into mud.

*pushes you into mud*

See?

*grabs your leg, pulls you in, too*

Someone in the other room may have been saying that, now that I think about it. :D

That would do it. :tongue:

M'en fiche. C'est pas mon problème . . .

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/3/19/128819876476938828.jpg

*grabs your leg, pulls you in, too*


Yay! *plays in mud*

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/3/19/128819876476938828.jpg

LOL!

Yay! *plays in mud*

*tosses a bunch of tacos at LG, runs*

ok, i may not be entirely determinable at this point how long it will take for the momentum to die down once we stop pushing, but we're absolutely loonie not to stop pushing. expecially whan all we have to do to stop pushing it so use ways of generating energy and propelling transportation that don't involve burning anything. and WE HAVE THOSE WAYS. its not pie in the sky waiting for future developments. those will come along and make it better yet if we impliment them when they do. but we don't have to wait. all the 'clean(er)' ways in combination can do everything all the dirty(er) ways, also in combination, are giving us now. and i'm talking about cleaner ways that are proven, some for decades others for centuries and some even millinea.

i sould propbably not have to name them by now. i would hope.

solar = decades
hydro = centuries
wind = millinea
geothermal = decades
tide and wave = decades

fusion and hydrogen are future

fission only as peek suplimental.

of course the other part of the equasion is so many of us.
i know all this is old news, or it ought to be.
but making everything be about money and trying to impress each other is creating all the wrong incentives in all the wrong directions.

now if we can invent viagra, i see no logic that says we can't invent something that lowers fertility without having to lower libido.

Classic human insolence.

"Haw without us around there wouldn't be global warming".

How's about the volcanoes of the world, the effect of our proximity to the sun, asteroids and shit messing with the atmosphere? How's about the varying climatological conditions from when we weren't around?

Yeah, we probably affect it a bit. But I seriously doubt that we're the root cause of this pish, and that we are going to be able to stop it. That's just arrogant rubbish.

This, a billion time this.

I voted #6, mainly caused by humans and can be stopped.

"Can be stopped" is very ambiguous, though.

We can stop increasing emissions. That can be done with a carbon trading scheme, helped by ethical choices by consumers. And hopefully, trumped with future technology of cheap emission-free energy.

I suspect we will still find reasons to mine fossil carbon, and that carbon will still find its way into the biosphere. But emission-free energy would break the back of the problem. With it, we could reduce emissions with continuing economic growth.

To "stop climate change" though might be a taller order. Does that mean counteracting the effects of carbon already released? If we focus on climate as regards ourselves (productivity of farmland, predictability of natural disasters, sea levels ... the issues which are waved in our faces as reasons to care about climate change) ... and do "whatever it takes" to control climate in those terms, we will have a vastly greater effect on nature and with even less understanding of the long term effects.

We've been the climate equivalent of a bad volcanic period, but we did it in ignorance. We were trying to smelt iron or trade some commodities. Determining the ideal world climate and engineering it so is a big step beyond such innocence. Solar toupees, engineered plants to sequester carbon into inert bricks, an air-conditioner for our planet ... our ingenuity is a direct threat to all life on earth, were we to turn it to such arbitrary ends.

We could do it, control the worldwide climate. Control local weather, so it only rains at night and it is never too windy. But I don't think we should.

I think we have changed the climate. We may have triggered climate change which would require far more work to reverse than that which caused it. We may have a future with no ice and corresponding sea-level rises, a future with deserts in the foodbowls, a future where no fence can protect wilderness from our engineered life-forms.

We should just take our lumps. If "stopping" climate change means another century of short-term solutions to immediately perceived problems, then no, let's not.

This, a billion time this.

In your billionfold agreement, surely you could qualify the "and shit" part of Yootopia's case?

How's about the volcanoes of the world, the effect of our proximity to the sun, asteroids and shit messing with the atmosphere? How's about the varying climatological conditions from when we weren't around?

That pretty much the same as it has been over the last 2000 years. The only things that show a clear difference over the same timeframe as global warming are human activity & solar activity (Sunspots), but it's unclear which, if either, is most responsable.

Interesting. The Lost City of the Lost Continent of Atlantis will be discovered under all that ice.