Two serious updates on how climate change is impacting two continents.
Climate Change and the End of Australia
Want to know what global warming has in store for us? Just go to Australia, where rivers are drying up, reefs are dying, and fires and floods are ravaging the continent
By Jeff Goodell
October 3, 2011 5:43 PM ET
floodwaters environment disaster australia rolling stone 1141
The floodwaters of the Castlereagh River surround the township of Coonamble in Central West NSW.
Wolter Peeters/The Sydney Morning Herald/Fairfax Media via Getty Images
It's near midnight, and I'm holed up in a rickety hotel in Proserpine, a whistle-stop town on the northeast coast of Australia. Yasi, a Category 5 hurricane with 200-mile-per-hour winds that's already been dubbed "The Mother of All Catastrophes" by excitable Aussie tabloids, is just a few hundred miles offshore. When the eye of the storm hits, forecasters predict, it will be the worst ever to batter the east coast of Australia.
I have come to Australia to see what a global-warming future holds for this most vulnerable of nations, and Mother Nature has been happy to oblige: Over the course of just a few weeks, the continent has been hit by a record heat wave, a crippling drought, bush fires, floods that swamped an area the size of France and Germany combined, even a plague of locusts. "In many ways, it is a disaster of biblical proportions," Andrew Fraser, the Queensland state treasurer, told reporters. He was talking about the floods in his region, but the sense that Australia – which maintains one of the highest per-capita carbon footprints on the planet – has summoned up the wrath of the climate gods is everywhere. "Australia is the canary in the coal mine," says David Karoly, a top climate researcher at the University of Melbourne. "What is happening in Australia now is similar to what we can expect to see in other places in the future."
As Yasi bears down on the coast, the massive storm seems to embody the not-quite-conscious fears of Australians that their country may be doomed by global warming. This year's disasters, in fact, are only the latest installment in an ongoing series of climate-related crises. In 2009, wildfires in Australia torched more than a million acres and killed 173 people. The Murray-Darling Basin, which serves as the country's breadbasket, has suffered a decades-long drought, and what water is left is becoming increasingly salty and unusable, raising the question of whether Australia, long a major food exporter, will be able to feed itself in the coming decades. The oceans are getting warmer and more acidic, leading to the all-but-certain death of the Great Barrier Reef within 40 years. Homes along the Gold Coast are being swept away, koala bears face extinction in the wild, and farmers, their crops shriveled by drought, are shooting themselves in despair.
With Yasi approaching fast, disaster preparations are fully under way. At the airport, the Australian Defense Force is racing to load emergency supplies into Black Hawk and Chinook helicopters. Entire cities have shut down, their streets nearly empty as I drive north, toward the center of the storm, through sugar plantations and ranch land. Dead kangaroos sprawl by the side of the road, the victims of motorists fleeing the storm.
With the winds hitting 80 miles per hour, I'm forced to stop in Proserpine, where the windows are taped and sandbags are piled in front of doors. Palm trees are bent horizontal in the wind, and the shingles of a nearby roof blow off and shoot into the darkness. It's as if civilization is being dismantled one shingle at a time.
"Welcome to Australia, the petri dish of climate change," an Aussie friend e-mailed me the day before. "Stay safe."
In the past year – one of the hottest on record – extreme weather has battered almost every corner of the planet. There have been devastating droughts in China and India, unprecedented floods and wildfires in the United States, and near-record ice melts in the Arctic. Yet the prosperous nations of the world have failed to take action to reduce the risk of climate change, in part because people in prosperous nations think they're invulnerable. They're under the misapprehension that, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Tom Schelling puts it, "Global warming is a problem that is going to primarily affect future generations of poor people." To see how foolish this reasoning is, one need only look at Australia, a prosperous nation that also happens to be right in the cross hairs of global warming. "Sadly, it's probably too late to save much of it," says Joe Romm, a leading climate advocate who served as assistant energy secretary in the Clinton administration.
This is not to say that the entire continent will sink beneath the waves anytime soon. What is likely to vanish – or be transformed beyond recognition – are many of the things we think of when we think of Australia: the barrier reef, the koalas, the sense of the country as a land of almost limitless natural resources. Instead, Australia is likely to become hotter, drier and poorer, fractured by increasing tensions over access to water, food and energy as its major cities are engulfed by the rising seas.
To climate scientists, it's no surprise that Australia would feel the effects of climate change so strongly, in part because it has one of the world's most variable climates. "One effect of increasing greenhouse-gas levels in the atmosphere is to amplify existing climate signals," says Karoly. "Regions that are dry get drier, and regions that are wet get wetter. If you have a place like Australia that is already extreme, those extremes just get more pronounced." Adding to Australia's vulnerability is its close connection with the sea. Australia is the only island continent on the planet, which means that changes caused by planet-warming pollution – warmer seas, which can drive stronger storms, and more acidic oceans, which wreak havoc on the food chain – are even more deadly here.
How bad could it get? A recent study by MIT projects that without "rapid and massive action" to cut carbon pollution, the Earth's temperature could soar by nine degrees this century. "There are no analogies in human history for a temperature jump of that size in such a short time period," says Tony McMichael, an epidemiologist at Australian National University. The few times in human history when temperatures fell by seven degrees, he points out, the sudden shift likely triggered a bubonic plague in Europe, caused the abrupt collapse of the Moche civilization in Peru and reduced the entire human race to as few as 1,000 breeding pairs after a volcanic eruption blocked out the sun some 73,000 years ago. "We think that because we are a technologically sophisticated society, we are less vulnerable to these kinds of dramatic shifts in climate," McMichael says. "But in some ways, because of the interconnectedness of our world, we are more vulnerable."
With nine degrees of warming, computer models project that Australia will look like a disaster movie. Habitats for most vertebrates will vanish. Water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin will fall by half, severely curtailing food production. Rising sea levels will wipe out large parts of major cities and cause hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage to coastal homes and roads. The Great Barrier Reef will be reduced to a pile of purple bacterial slime. Thousands of people will die from heat waves and other extreme weather events, as well as mosquito-borne infections like dengue fever. Depression and suicide will become even more common among displaced farmers and Aborigines. Dr. James Ross, medical director for Australia's Remote Area Health Corps, calls climate change "the number-one challenge for human health in the 21st century."
And all this doesn't even hint at the political complexities Australia will face in a hotter world, including an influx of refugees from poorer climate-ravaged nations. ("If you want to understand Australian politics," says Anthony Kitchener, an Australian entrepreneur, "the first thing you have to understand is our fear of yellow hordes from the north.") Then there are the economic costs. The Queensland floods earlier this year caused $30 billion in damage and forced the government to implement a $1.8 billion "flood tax" to help pay for reconstruction. As temperatures rise, so will the price tag. "We can't afford to spend 10 percent of our GDP building sea walls and trying to adapt to climate change," says Ian Goodwin, a climate scientist at Macquarie University in Sydney.
With so much at risk, you might expect Australia to be at the forefront of the clean-energy revolution and the international effort to cut carbon pollution. After all, the continent's vast, empty deserts were practically designed for solar-power installations. And unlike the U.S. Congress, the Australian Parliament did ratify the Kyoto Protocol, pledging to cut carbon emissions by 60 percent by 2050. But it was an empty gesture. Australia remains deeply addicted to coal, which not only provides 80 percent of its electricity but serves as its leading export. Perhaps more than any other nation on earth, Australia is trapped by the devil's bargain of fossil fuels: In the short term, the health of the nation's economy depends on burning coal. But in the long term, the survival of its people depends on quitting coal. Australia's year of extreme weather has reawakened calls for a tax on carbon pollution, but it is far from clear that the initiative will pass, or, in the big picture, whether it will matter much. "What we are ultimately talking about is how climate change is destabilizing one of the most advanced nations on the planet," says Paul Gilding, an Australian climate adviser and author of The Great Disruption. "If Australia is vulnerable, everyone is vulnerable."
The morning after Yasi, I emerge from my hotel to find a few broken windows and downed trees. The flooding isn't as bad as had been feared, but the hurricane has still turned the region upside down: roofs blown off houses, trees down, sailboats in the streets, traffic backed up for miles. "This is bringing a world of hurt to people," one trucker tells me as we wait in line for the road to open.
In the following days, there is much speculation in the Aussie press about whether or not Yasi was "caused" by global warming. Most media outlets gloss over the complexities of the science – an unsurprising omission, given that Australia is home to Rupert Murdoch's media empire – and instead reassure readers that hurricanes have been hitting Queensland for thousands of years. One of the major drivers of the storm, they insist, was a particularly strong La Niña weather pattern in the Pacific.
We continue our week-long coverage from the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 17, in Durban, where negotiators from more than 190 nations are in their final week of key talks on fighting climate change. The future of the Kyoto Protocol is in doubt, as is the formation of a new Green Climate Fund. With the talks taking place in South Africa, special interest is being paid to how the continent of Africa is already being heavily impacted by the climate crisis. We speak to Nigerian environmentalist Nnimmo Bassey, executive director of Environmental Rights Action in Nigeria and chair of Friends of the Earth International. He is author of the new book, "To Cook a Continent: Destructive Extraction and Climate Crisis in Africa." "We’re seeing a situation where the negotiation is being carried out on a big platform of hypocrisy, a lack of seriousness, a lack of recognition that Africa is so heavily impacted," Bassey says. "For every one-degree Celsius change in temperature, Africa is impacted at a heightened level. So this is very much to be condemned." [includes rush transcript]
Earth Likely to Become Increasingly Hostile to Agriculture
Drought frequency is expected to triple in the next 100 years. The resulting variability and stress for farmers could prove regionally disabling without new policy
By Douglas Fischer and DailyClimate.org | December 6, 2011 |
SAN FRANCISCO - To get a glimpse of the future, look to East Africa today.
The Horn of Africa is in the midst of its worst drought in 60 years: Crop failures have left up to 10 million at risk of famine; social order has broken down in Somalia, with thousands of refugees streaming into Kenya; British Aid alone is feeding 2.4 million people across the region.
That's a taste of what's to come, say scientists mapping the impact of a warming planet on agriculture and civilization.
"We think we're going to have continued dryness, at least for the next 10 or 15 years, over East Africa," said Chris Funk, a geographer at the U.S. Geological Society and founding member of the Climate Hazard Group at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Funk and other experts at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco cautioned that East Africa is just one example. Many recent events - discoveries from sediment cores in New York, drought in Australia and the western United States, data from increasingly sophisticated computer models - lead to a conclusion that the weather driving many of the globe's great breadbaskets will become hotter, drier and more unpredictable.
Even the northeastern United States - a region normally omitted from any serious talk about domestic drought - is at risk, said Dorothy Peteet, a senior research scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
A series of sediment cores drilled from New York marshes confirm that mega droughts can grip the region: One spanned from 850 to 1350 A.D., Peteet said. And shorter, more intense droughts have driven sea water far up the Hudson River, past towns such as Poughkeepsie that depend on the river for drinking supplies.
"We're just beginning to map the extent, but we know it was pervasive," she said. "There are hints of drought all the way up to Maine."
Of course, climate change can't be blamed for all the food shortages and social unrest, several researchers cautioned. Landscape changes such as deforestation can trigger droughts, while policy choices exacerbate impacts.
Some hard-hit African countries have the highest growth rates on the planet, and gains in agricultural productivity simply have not kept up with those extra mouths. Per capita cereal production, for instance, peaked worldwide in the mid-1980s, Funk said, and is decreasing everywhere. But no place on the globe is decreasing faster than East Africa.
Simple policy decisions can blunt a crisis. Malawi, in southeastern Africa, gave farmers bags of seed and fertilizer and saw food prices fall and the percentage of its population classified as undernourished drop by almost half over a decade, Funk added. Kenya, in contrast, saw its policies stagnate; prices and malnourishment rates both rose.
Meanwhile, researchers probing the climate in pre-Columbian Central America figure that widespread deforestation had a hand in the droughts thought to have toppled the Mayan, Toltec and Aztec civilizations.
More than 1,000 years ago, "significant deforestation" throughout Central America suppressed rainfall upwards of 20 percent and warmed the region 0.5ºC, said Benjamin Cook, a NASA climatologist.
The forest - and local moisture - rebounded with the population crash that followed European contact, he added. But today the region is even more denuded than during its pre-Colombian peak.
But with the frequency of droughts expected to triple in the next 100 years, researchers fear the resulting variability and stress to agriculture and civilization could prove destabilizing for many regions.
The Kyoto Accord was a farce from day one... It left out the biggest polluters on the planet and was nothing but a knee-jerk reaction by politicians to garner political point-scoring back home. Truely implimenting what Kyoto called for would have bankrupted most of the countries who foolishly signed on.
Climate change has happend throughout our planet's history - it's nothing new. Greenhouse gases aren't some purely human invention and while we're a big source, we're not the only one.
Sure humans are doing a great job screwing things up big time! But eventually the planet will heal itself like it always has...
BrassScorpion wrote:Two serious updates on how climate change is impacting two continents.
Climate Change and the End of Australia
Want to know what global warming has in store for us? Just go to Australia, where rivers are drying up, reefs are dying, and fires and floods are ravaging the continent
"What is happening in Australia now is similar to what we can expect to see in other places in the future."
Australia is likely to become hotter, drier and poorer, fractured by increasing tensions over access to water, food and gasoline as its major cities are engulfed by the rising tide of barbarism.
To climate scientists, it's no surprise that Australia would feel the effects of climate change so strongly, in part because it has one of the world's most variable climates, and in part because they had just got done watching the Mel Gibson 'Road Warrior' trilogy.
Easy E wrote:Whether Global Warming is real or not, can we at least all agree that it is not a good idea to pump a bunch of crap into the air we breath?
You won't even get that concession because it would sound like there is a middle ground or that the atmosphere fething exists.
You do know what you're exhaling - in effect breathing - is that "crap."
Its ok. When the oil runs out, evrything will be fine and the hippy tree huggers will be happy. Of course we won't know it because all their cool gadgets will useless and they will be eaten by small dogs shortly thereafter.
You do know what you're exhaling - in effect breathing - is that "crap."
Are you aware that the stuff you breathe out is actually poisonous? No? Well then put a plastic bag over your head. You'll be fine. Go ahead and try it at home.
You do know what you're exhaling - in effect breathing - is that "crap."
Are you aware that the stuff you breathe out is actually poisonous? No? Well then put a plastic bag over your head. You'll be fine. Go ahead and try it at home.
You are my hero. But you'll never win arguing with the extreme right, facts and science don't matter, only how they "feel". The idea that something that is tolerable in certain quantities and catastrophic or deadly in excess is lost on that audience.
Yes, CO2 is what we breath out, and it is what trees breath in. A great system, until you are putting out more human breath waste then the trees can absorb Fraz. Then it becomes dangerous to the whole system we need to live.
Plus, let's not pretend that we are ONLY pumping out CO2 into the air that we breath.
Again, can we all agree that making the very air we need to breath less safe to inhale is a bad idea?
You do know what you're exhaling - in effect breathing - is that "crap."
Are you aware that the stuff you breathe out is actually poisonous? No? Well then put a plastic bag over your head. You'll be fine. Go ahead and try it at home.
You are my hero. But you'll never win arguing with the extreme right, facts and science don't matter, only how they "feel". The idea that something that is tolerable in certain quantities and catastrophic or deadly in excess is lost on that audience.
And the extreme left would have us believe that global warming is caused purely by humans and we're all going to die if we don't stop... (total BS considering the last couple ice ages have been naturally occuring events)
Point is, our lovely little planet has endured near-extinction in the past and life has found a way to always carry on. Humans survived the last ice age, I'm sure that come another ice age, a percentage of us will survive again. (and likely go on to make the same stupid feth-ups yet again!)
The only way we'll truely off ourselves completely is if we're dumb enough to start a worldwide nuclear armageddon or a massive asteroid wipes us all out!
You do know what you're exhaling - in effect breathing - is that "crap."
Are you aware that the stuff you breathe out is actually poisonous? No? Well then put a plastic bag over your head. You'll be fine. Go ahead and try it at home.
You are my hero. But you'll never win arguing with the extreme right, facts and science don't matter, only how they "feel". The idea that something that is tolerable in certain quantities and catastrophic or deadly in excess is lost on that audience.
And the extreme left would have us believe that global warming is caused purely by humans and we're all going to die if we don't stop... (total BS considering the last couple ice ages have been naturally occuring events)
Point is, our lovely little planet has endured near-extinction in the past and life has found a way to always carry on. Humans survived the last ice age, I'm sure that come another ice age, a percentage of us will survive again. (and likely go on to make the same stupid feth-ups yet again!)
The only way we'll truely off ourselves completely is if we're dumb enough to start a worldwide nuclear armageddon or a massive asteroid wipes us all out!
Can we all agree that making the very air we need to breath less safe to inhale is a bad idea?
And the extreme left would have us believe that global warming is caused purely by humans and we're all going to die if we don't stop... (total BS considering the last couple ice ages have been naturally occuring events)
They also took thousands of years, not 100. The human race also nearly went extinct during the last one and wasn't utterly dependent on weather cycles for agriculture to feed the entire planet. Please just stop, you have absolutely no conception of climate history and vague similarities between pre historic ice ages and current climate change does not invalidate the opinions of 95% of all scientists just because you fething want it to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:
Experiment 626 wrote:
BrassScorpion wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
You do know what you're exhaling - in effect breathing - is that "crap."
Are you aware that the stuff you breathe out is actually poisonous? No? Well then put a plastic bag over your head. You'll be fine. Go ahead and try it at home.
You are my hero. But you'll never win arguing with the extreme right, facts and science don't matter, only how they "feel". The idea that something that is tolerable in certain quantities and catastrophic or deadly in excess is lost on that audience.
And the extreme left would have us believe that global warming is caused purely by humans and we're all going to die if we don't stop... (total BS considering the last couple ice ages have been naturally occuring events)
Point is, our lovely little planet has endured near-extinction in the past and life has found a way to always carry on. Humans survived the last ice age, I'm sure that come another ice age, a percentage of us will survive again. (and likely go on to make the same stupid feth-ups yet again!)
The only way we'll truely off ourselves completely is if we're dumb enough to start a worldwide nuclear armageddon or a massive asteroid wipes us all out!
Can we all agree that making the very air we need to breath less safe to inhale is a bad idea?
So, is that a NO then?
The answer will always be no. They have no idea what they are talking about so finding a middle ground won't work. Welcome to the climate "debate". It's worse then the evolution one.
Whether Global Warming is real or not, can we at least all agree that it is not a good idea to pump a bunch of crap into the air we breath?
Spot on my man, spot on!
They also took thousands of years, not 100. The human race also nearly went extinct during the last one and wasn't utterly dependent on weather cycles for agriculture to feed the entire planet. Please just stop, you have absolutely no conception of climate history and vague similarities between pre historic ice ages and current climate change does not invalidate the opinions of 95% of all scientists just because you fething want it to.
And you have? Please show me your credentials or just hold your breath because you know, you are polluting the earth with your exhaled CO2.
The answer will always be no. They have no idea what they are talking about so finding a middle ground won't work.
Again and the extreme left have?
Insert the word "green" in front of quick silver and they will gakking drink it because it´s "healthy".
30,000 Scientists are charging Al Gore with fraud in Global Warming Scam, 9000 of which are PHD researchers. None are a part of the goverment paid biased climate panel but I guess they must all be evil rightwing extremists who hate plants and animals and who refuse to believe in the utter bullgak Gore lied about.
How unfair of you Pyriel, those 30,000 scientists are lying. The ice caps are melting, new York will soon be underwater.
Shh, dont tell the rest, our evil plans of making the worlds biggest swimming pool must not be exposed before the average temperature has gotten up by at least 50 degrees and all the ide bears have died horrible deaths.
Easy E wrote:Yes, CO2 is what we breath out, and it is what trees breath in. A great system, until you are putting out more human breath waste then the trees can absorb Fraz. Then it becomes dangerous to the whole system we need to live.
Plus, let's not pretend that we are ONLY pumping out CO2 into the air that we breath.
Again, can we all agree that making the very air we need to breath less safe to inhale is a bad idea?
So what you're really arguing is that we need to exterminate humanity until we get it in line with tree output?
Whether Global Warming is real or not, can we at least all agree that it is not a good idea to pump a bunch of crap into the air we breath?
Spot on my man, spot on!
They also took thousands of years, not 100. The human race also nearly went extinct during the last one and wasn't utterly dependent on weather cycles for agriculture to feed the entire planet. Please just stop, you have absolutely no conception of climate history and vague similarities between pre historic ice ages and current climate change does not invalidate the opinions of 95% of all scientists just because you fething want it to.
And you have? Please show me your credentials or just hold your breath because you know, you are polluting the earth with your exhaled CO2.
The answer will always be no. They have no idea what they are talking about so finding a middle ground won't work.
Again and the extreme left have? Insert the word "green" in front of quick silver and they will gakking drink it because it´s "healthy".
30,000 Scientists are charging Al Gore with fraud in Global Warming Scam, 9000 of which are PHD researchers. None are a part of the goverment paid biased climate panel but I guess they must all be evil rightwing extremists who hate plants and animals and who refuse to believe in the utter bullgak Gore lied about.
You do realize that two years later that never happened and that most of the scientists were found to be either fake names on paper or people holding degrees in unrelated fields and who were for the most part not even working in those fields? Of course you don't, you somehow managed to pull out a time machine to a fox news talking point where they made gak up and pushed a story the memo told them to until it was unpopular. Fast forward two years the whole thing was a scam.
Easy E wrote:Yes, CO2 is what we breath out, and it is what trees breath in. A great system, until you are putting out more human breath waste then the trees can absorb Fraz. Then it becomes dangerous to the whole system we need to live.
Plus, let's not pretend that we are ONLY pumping out CO2 into the air that we breath.
Again, can we all agree that making the very air we need to breath less safe to inhale is a bad idea?
So what you're really arguing is that we need to exterminate humanity until we get it in line with tree output?
Are you guys denying that global warming is happening or are you denying that it's caused by humans? Or mostly caused by humans?
Because denying that it's happening...that's...well, wrong. The others, are okay as disagreements I suppose. But don't dispute the first.
I´m saying this:
Why is it wrong?
Where were you when they had the mini ice age in London some hundreds years ago? Was that also human caused warming or cooling? What did you say? It passed and was natural? hmm...
You do realize that two years later that never happened and that most of the scientists were found to be either fake names on paper or people holding degrees in unrelated fields and who were for the most part not even working in those fields? Of course you don't, you somehow managed to pull out a time machine to a fox news talking point where they made gak up and pushed a story the memo told them to until it was unpopular. Fast forward two years the whole thing was a scam.
Emails being repeatedly manipulated in the global warming camp to exaggerate the warming and push the warming agenda?
There has been like what, two such scandals so far?
Easy E wrote:Yes, CO2 is what we breath out, and it is what trees breath in. A great system, until you are putting out more human breath waste then the trees can absorb Fraz. Then it becomes dangerous to the whole system we need to live.
Plus, let's not pretend that we are ONLY pumping out CO2 into the air that we breath.
Again, can we all agree that making the very air we need to breath less safe to inhale is a bad idea?
So what you're really arguing is that we need to exterminate humanity until we get it in line with tree output?
Alls fair in love war and global warming.
Well, if its being argued that if we don't do something moether nature will change such that large numbers of humans will be killed off, isn't Mother Nature already taking care of the problem? Or is the argument that we need to get ahead of Mother Nature and beat it to the punch? I believe certain guys in the Twentieth Century tried to help that process along already...
Are you guys denying that global warming is happening or are you denying that it's caused by humans? Or mostly caused by humans?
Because denying that it's happening...that's...well, wrong. The others, are okay as disagreements I suppose. But don't dispute the first.
I´m saying this:
Why is it wrong?
Where were you when they had the mini ice age in London some hundreds years ago? Was that also human caused warming or cooling? What did you say? It passed and was natural? hmm...
You do realize that two years later that never happened and that most of the scientists were found to be either fake names on paper or people holding degrees in unrelated fields and who were for the most part not even working in those fields? Of course you don't, you somehow managed to pull out a time machine to a fox news talking point where they made gak up and pushed a story the memo told them to until it was unpopular. Fast forward two years the whole thing was a scam.
Emails being repeatedly manipulated in the global warming camp to exaggerate the warming and push the warming agenda?
There has been like what, two such scandals so far?
You didn't understand what I was saying. If you read my post again, you'll realise I don't dispute that global warming can happen entirely "naturally".
Emails being repeatedly manipulated in the global warming camp to exaggerate the warming and push the warming agenda? There has been like what, two such scandals so far?
Sooo.... Now the 30 thousand thing is gone? Just like that? In addition climategate was also proven to be nonesense and neocon bs. With the vast majority of it made out of out of context quotes and the questionable emails in question were like one out in a hundred thousand. This is the climate debate. It doesn't exist. Why would you ever bother to ask my credentials when you ignore the scientists with actual credentials and just listen to fething Hannity?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:Yes, CO2 is what we breath out, and it is what trees breath in. A great system, until you are putting out more human breath waste then the trees can absorb Fraz. Then it becomes dangerous to the whole system we need to live.
Plus, let's not pretend that we are ONLY pumping out CO2 into the air that we breath.
Again, can we all agree that making the very air we need to breath less safe to inhale is a bad idea?
So what you're really arguing is that we need to exterminate humanity until we get it in line with tree output?
Alls fair in love war and global warming.
Well, if its being argued that if we don't do something moether nature will change such that large numbers of humans will be killed off, isn't Mother Nature already taking care of the problem? Or is the argument that we need to get ahead of Mother Nature and beat it to the punch? I believe certain guys in the Twentieth Century tried to help that process along already...
I love how fethed we all are because this is what passes for good debate and conversation to you. Claiming someone just wants a good old culling when all hes trying to establish is the admittance that its bad to pump poisonous gak into the air that we breathe.
I love any scientific debate where political orientation is highly correlated with what side a person is on. You usually get really good science that way.
Anyways, the question isn't "how much did humans cause climate change", or even "is there climate change at all."
The only question worth answering is "can humans prevent further climate change."
The rest is great for writing the history books, but if we want to preserve the way of life in many parts of the world, we might want to think about ways we can either stop climate change, or mitigate the consequences of it.
So, scientists that present findings that show how human activity caused climate change are also the ones that can tell us how to slow it down, while scientists that argue that it's completely natural are basically telling us to hunker down and take it.
Polonius wrote:The only question worth answering is "can humans prevent further climate change."
No it's not, because that presumes that climate change is necessarily a bad thing.
Given that most of the alarmist theories about climate change are simply scare-mongering for political purposes, trying to prevent climate change may be a worse option than trying to adapt to climate change.
No it's not, because that presumes that climate change is necessarily a bad thing.
Given that the socio economic model the planet is based on is largely built around the standards of climate common in the last 200 years, and given the fact that rapid environmental changes to that climate have, in the past, produced almost universally detrimental results; one can safely assume that human accelerated climate change that develops and peaks in less then a century is going to cause detrimental results.
The presumption that climate change "is bad' is based on past experience with non standard weather patterns and scientific models predicting the results of global warming on global climatological systems. They're not voodoo witchery assumptions made while high.
Fine, I suppose my question presupposes that climate change is bad. I think that even given the positives climate change may have (the great lakes region would be delightful +5 degrees), the transactional costs are enormous.
Regardless, I'll happily suggest a two step question: is climate change likely to be harmful? And if so, can it be prevented?
Experiment 626 wrote:The Kyoto Accord was a farce from day one... It left out the biggest polluters on the planet and was nothing but a knee-jerk reaction by politicians to garner political point-scoring back home. Truely implimenting what Kyoto called for would have bankrupted most of the countries who foolishly signed on.
No, it wouldn't have bankrupted anyone involved. A commitment to slow the increase in emmissions can't 'bankrupt' anyone. That just makes no sense, and is just empty political rhetoric.
Climate change has happend throughout our planet's history - it's nothing new.
Climate change has never occurred at the rate we've seen the last few decades, because the natural release of greenhouses gases has never matched the steady, constant release we've seen from industry.
Greenhouse gases aren't some purely human invention and while we're a big source, we're not the only one.
Sure humans are doing a great job screwing things up big time! But eventually the planet will heal itself like it always has...
Who gives a flying feth about the magical ability of the planet to keep on trucking?! We live here. What matters is ensuring this planet remains well suited to us.
Simply put, it would cost far more money to adapt to climate change, than it would to curb emmissions. That's it, beginning and end of the story. The clear, efficient option is to control emmissions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Experiment 626 wrote:And the extreme left would have us believe that global warming is caused purely by humans and we're all going to die if we don't stop... (total BS considering the last couple ice ages have been naturally occuring events)
No-one is pretending that there isn't gradual change in planet temperature that can be measured over hundreds of thousands of years. It's just that we're simply
Point is, our lovely little planet has endured near-extinction in the past and life has found a way to always carry on. Humans survived the last ice age, I'm sure that come another ice age, a percentage of us will survive again. The only way we'll truely off ourselves completely is if we're dumb enough to start a worldwide nuclear armageddon or a massive asteroid wipes us all out!
Stop it with the armageddon rhetoric. It's got nothing to do with anything.
Here's the simple, straight up facts of the situation. We can spend about 3% of worldwide GDP today to cap emmissions and roll back what we've already done. Or thirty years from now we can spend between 20 and 40% of worldwide GDP adapting to climate change. Pick one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:Also, CO2 is hardly the worst greenhouse gas out there. Methane is a lot worse.
It isn't just the effect of an individual particle, it's the amount of the gas in the atmosphere.
But yes, a long term solution would also have to account for methane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyriel- wrote:30,000 Scientists are charging Al Gore with fraud in Global Warming Scam, 9000 of which are PHD researchers. None are a part of the goverment paid biased climate panel but I guess they must all be evil rightwing extremists who hate plants and animals and who refuse to believe in the utter bullgak Gore lied about.
How many of those 30,000 scientists are active in the field of climate change? Is the number less than 1?
And this fantasy about duplicitous scientists sneakily making up research to please their government masters just needs to die. It's fething stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:So what you're really arguing is that we need to exterminate humanity until we get it in line with tree output?
No, we need to focus on rational, science based approaches that understand, for instance, that human carbon dioxide production is easily controllable as long as we make industry neutral.
Mind you, looking at the quality of 'debate' in this thread, I'd say getting everyone to agree to a reasoned, science based approach is significantly less likely than getting everyone to agree to kill themselves, so there's that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyriel- wrote:I´m saying this:
Why is it wrong?
Because 97% of climatoligists active in the field state that climate change is happening and is caused by man.
Where were you when they had the mini ice age in London some hundreds years ago? Was that also human caused warming or cooling? What did you say? It passed and was natural? hmm...
The idea that human released carbon gases is causing a rate of warming at a high rate does not ignore the idea that warming and cooling periods have occurred before.
Emails being repeatedly manipulated in the global warming camp to exaggerate the warming and push the warming agenda?
There has been like what, two such scandals so far?
There were scandals in which the emails of climate change scientists were hacked. And then there was pretend scandal where people kept talking about the word 'trick' as though it meant there was a vast conspiracy, when it was actually just a way to clarify the data in a graph in a minor study.
Investigations into the emails found no fraud or deception took place. Somehow the 'liberal media' failed to report on that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:No it's not, because that presumes that climate change is necessarily a bad thing.
The economic infrastructure we've built over hundreds of years, up to an including where we've placed our cities, is dependant on pre-existing weather patterns. Moving or adapting this infrastructure would cost many, many trillions of dollars.
So the only possible answer to 'is climate change a bad thing?' is 'yes, of course it fething is, what the hell kind of question is that?'
Given that most of the alarmist theories about climate change are simply scare-mongering for political purposes, trying to prevent climate change may be a worse option than trying to adapt to climate change.
And the Stern Report gave an emphatically clear answer to that question. The cost of adapting is far greater than the cost of reducing emissions.
I notice that almost all of the people who deny climate change are American republicans so I'll ask this, and it's a genuine question because i can't be arsed Google sifting on my phone ...
Has denying climate change got anything to do with Jesus?
mattyrm wrote: I notice that almost all of the people who deny climate change are American republicans so I'll ask this, and it's a genuine question because i can't be arsed Google sifting on my phone ...
Has denying climate change got anything to do with Jesus?
I read an interesting piece a while ago, that argued that indirectly it does.
Basically it goes back to the christian reaction against evolution. Thing is, when you have to argue against the mountain of evidence behind evolution, you end up arguing against the character of those people who produced it. So scientists stop being everyday people studying physical phenomena and producing explanations that best explain the observations, they become atheists driven by atheist agenda to interpret all findings to support their godless view of the universe.
Being around people who believe that, or at least don't reject it as the ludicrous nonsense it is has an effect on people, even if they don't buy into a literal, young earth no evolution view of the world, it's likely to have some effect on their faith in science.
It's interesting to see how it's spilled out into a general anti-science set of values. You can find fundamentalist websites railing against quantum physics and relativity, and all kinds of other things that don't even slightly go against anything claimed in the bible.
So when 97% of climate scientists active in the field believe climate change is real and that it is caused by man, well that should be enough to persuade just about everyone, but if you've been knee deep in anti-science rhetoric since you were a kid...
Sebster, I admire your tenacity in repeatedly acting as the shining force of reason in these topics whenever they crop up. But, to be honest, no matter what mountain of evidence that is presented regarding climate change, it is always going to be some left-wing hippy scam to neuter the Great American people, politically motivated to scupper the efforts of Hard Working Americans.
To be honest I think you are beating your head against a wall.
mattyrm wrote: I notice that almost all of the people who deny climate change are American republicans so I'll ask this, and it's a genuine question because i can't be arsed Google sifting on my phone ...
Has denying climate change got anything to do with Jesus?
What an amazingly asinine question.
What you should have asked is, does this have anything to do with the Great Pasta Being? All Pastlings are naturally leery of warm humid environments...
mattyrm wrote: I notice that almost all of the people who deny climate change are American republicans so I'll ask this, and it's a genuine question because i can't be arsed Google sifting on my phone ...
Has denying climate change got anything to do with Jesus?
What an amazingly asinine question.
Sadly Frazz it is the exact opposite of a stupid question, as Im home from work now, and a ten minute read via google can give you the facts.
In a nutshell, if you deny evolution you deny that climate change occurs. 99% of the time the two go hand in hand. It is a blend of two equally ridiculous ideals, the first one being a distrust of Science because "Its all a conspiracy by the Scientists!" and the second one being "We don't need to worry about the climate, because God looks after the world for us"
Oh and also an alarming amount of American Christians seem to think that even if it IS fething the world up, It doesn't matter because the rapture is long overdue anyway.
Thus, Matty has his hypothesis triumphantly vindicated and Is by default the king of logic and reason.
mattyrm wrote: I notice that almost all of the people who deny climate change are American republicans so I'll ask this, and it's a genuine question because i can't be arsed Google sifting on my phone ...
Has denying climate change got anything to do with Jesus?
What an amazingly asinine question.
Sadly Frazz it is the exact opposite of a stupid question, as Im home from work now, and a ten minute read via google can give you the facts.
In a nutshell, if you deny evolution you deny that climate change occurs. 99% of the time the two go hand in hand. It is a blend of two equally ridiculous ideals, the first one being a distrust of Science because "Its all a conspiracy by the Scientists!" and the second one being "We don't need to worry about the climate, because God looks after the world for us"
Oh and also an alarming amount of American Christians seem to think that even if it IS fething the world up, It doesn't matter because the rapture is long overdue anyway.
Thus, Matty has his hypothesis triumphantly vindicated and Is by default the king of logic and reason.
Huzzah!
Again, your ignorance is showing. Its not the Christians, its the Pastafarians. I thought you would have figured that out by now.
mattyrm wrote: I notice that almost all of the people who deny climate change are American republicans so I'll ask this, and it's a genuine question because i can't be arsed Google sifting on my phone ...
Has denying climate change got anything to do with Jesus?
What an amazingly asinine question.
Sadly Frazz it is the exact opposite of a stupid question, as Im home from work now, and a ten minute read via google can give you the facts.
In a nutshell, if you deny evolution you deny that climate change occurs. 99% of the time the two go hand in hand. It is a blend of two equally ridiculous ideals, the first one being a distrust of Science because "Its all a conspiracy by the Scientists!" and the second one being "We don't need to worry about the climate, because God looks after the world for us"
Oh and also an alarming amount of American Christians seem to think that even if it IS fething the world up, It doesn't matter because the rapture is long overdue anyway.
Thus, Matty has his hypothesis triumphantly vindicated and Is by default the king of logic and reason.
Huzzah!
Again, your ignorance is showing. Its not the Christians, its the Pastafarians. I thought you would have figured that out by now.
Indeed Frazz, there are people who disbelieve in climate change from every walk of life, but the fact remains.
Not all climate change deniers are evolution denying Christians, but (almost) all Evolution denying Christians also deny climate change.
And what's with the Pastafarian thing anyway? It isn't funny, and it never was!
Oh I think it is. You would to, if you're the drunk Matty we all know and love. Hey, its 5.30 in LA, time for a beer!
I don't deny climate change. The climate has been changing constantly since, well the universe decided to create itself. Can we do anything about it?
1. Why?
2. Which way is it going? When I was younger we were worried about global cooling. Younger still I was worried about really big cats and hyenadons, but thats another tale.
3. How much will it cost?
I be highly irate if they say no more charcoal burning for the grill.....highly irate....I have to smoke five cigerettes to calm down because I'm highly irate
It's important to realize the difference between evolution and climate change though. Just because the same people oppose it doesn't mean you should assume they are both equally established.
Evolution, meaning the idea that natural selection is what creates new species, has been pretty firmly established within biology for about 100 years. There are a few outliers, but the vast bulk of researchers accept macro-evolution as the defining theory of modern biology (the paradigm, if you wil).
Climate change is very different. Nobody argues that climate can't change: we have records that show that it does. At this point, few people argue that the climate is changing (although some still do). That's all pretty established.
What's far less established are the details: do Greenhouse gases even increase global temperatures? To what extent does human action affect climate change? How fast is the climate changing anyway?
So, compare this to evolution, which is a central theory. Climate change is a combination of two theories, one mostly accepted (that Greenhouse gases increase temperatures) and one with broad, but not uniform, support (that human actions are increasing the greenhouse gases). To compare this to biology, this isn't like evolution as a mechanism. It's more like arguing if the Panda is bear or a racoon (a decision that flipped twice in the late 20th century).
Now, a nuanced observer would note that unlike in biology, there is money to be made picking a side in the Climate Change debate for scientists. The energy industry funds many studies. OTOH, there is a lot of government money, as well as publicity, for finding better or more alarming data to suggest that the world is ending.
Well on the one end you get "recycle your plastic grocery bags because its green!" to "there's too many people!!!"
To wing buts who want to eliminate all current power generation and use magical fairy dust er green energy.
Even if you don't believe in climate change (being accelerated by pollution of our atmosphere) you should be supportive of more environmentally sound methods of obtaining energy etc.
What will be the harm if climate change is proved wrong? We will have greener energy, pollution levels will be lower etc.
What if it's proved right and we have done nothing or the bare minimum?
Surely it's more economically/socially viable to assume the worst, rather than hope for the best?
Common sense tells me that we must be seriously affecting the planet, I mean, ignoring all the Science.
If you turn your car on and sit in your garage with a hose in the window, your dead inside ten minutes.
How can a BILLION cars driving all over the place NOT feth things up?! And that's cars alone, when you add in heavy industry, planes and everything else, plus the fact the population has exploded, surely that's gotta be fething the worlds gak up!
I dont think we can reverse global warming by cutting back on emissions. Its never going to happen. China will carry on building more coal powerstations every week, (which they use a lot of to build our equipment) and we have no right to tell them to stop as we've been doing it for a hundreds of years.
We need to develop some process to remove methane and CO2 and water-vapor from the air or some other method if the temperature is to be controlled.
The world is warming naturally anyway I don't know how much is influenced by humans but the ice shelves are normally not as big as they are now, we're still coming out of an ice age. Antartica used to be tropical climate for example.
I'd like to know how quickly we've accelerated global warming, if we were able to control temperature would it be ethical to keep the global temperature to a set level or allow it to change as it would naturally given the effect it would have on life? Some animals die out because they cant adapt quickly enough to enviormental changes
Even if you don't believe in climate change (being accelerated by pollution of our atmosphere) you should be supportive of more environmentally sound methods of obtaining energy etc.
***That’s an incomplete statement and in essence, the whole problem. It depends on the cost doesn’t it. I want economically sound methods. Strangely, when nuclear, natural gas, and clean coal are cited, the tree huggers freak out. When windmills are built en masse the tree huggers freak out. We can’t build hydroelectric dams because tree huggers freak out. So where does it come from?
What will be the harm if climate change is proved wrong? We will have greener energy, pollution levels will be lower etc.
***The cost of all that regulation. Entire industries destroyed.
What if it's proved right and we have done nothing or the bare minimum?
***Won’t matter. 1. We’ll all be dead. 2. We can’t do anything about it anyway. 3. Whats wrong with it in the first place?
Surely it's more economically/socially viable to assume the worst, rather than hope for the best?
***While I am down with assuming the worst, you have to plan appropriately. Just because a meteor might crash through this window and take me out, doesn’t mean I should quit my job so I can stay away from the window.
Easy E wrote:Yes, CO2 is what we breath out, and it is what trees breath in. A great system, until you are putting out more human breath waste then the trees can absorb Fraz. Then it becomes dangerous to the whole system we need to live.
Plus, let's not pretend that we are ONLY pumping out CO2 into the air that we breath.
Again, can we all agree that making the very air we need to breath less safe to inhale is a bad idea?
So what you're really arguing is that we need to exterminate humanity until we get it in line with tree output?
Call me Hugo Drax.
Perhaps, I'm arguing we need to get these lazy, abstinent trees to start getting it on more. Then videotape it and sell it to tree huggers.
On a different note, you know there is no possible way things other than people are giving off CO2, and there are no other unhealthy gases that humans can't breathe being put in the air in large quantities by humans.
This isn't even about global warming for me,. It's like putting your car in the garage, leaving it running and sitting in it. What eventually happens to the the driver if they don't get out? I don't want that happening to the human race. Call me crazy, but racial suicide isn't my gig.
Frazzled wrote:Even if you don't believe in climate change (being accelerated by pollution of our atmosphere) you should be supportive of more environmentally sound methods of obtaining energy etc.
***That’s an incomplete statement and in essence, the whole problem. It depends on the cost doesn’t it. I want economically sound methods. Strangely, when nuclear, natural gas, and clean coal are cited, the tree huggers freak out. When windmills are built en masse the tree huggers freak out. We can’t build hydroelectric dams because tree huggers freak out. So where does it come from?
Nuclear probably, they freak out at pretty much anything that appears to hurt the planet.
So the choice becomes something that works or a mass chant from them with incense. The latter avoiding their complaints the former doing more to resolve an issue besides jamming your fingers in your ears and hoping for the best.
Frazzled wrote:Even if you don't believe in climate change (being accelerated by pollution of our atmosphere) you should be supportive of more environmentally sound methods of obtaining energy etc.
***That’s an incomplete statement and in essence, the whole problem. It depends on the cost doesn’t it. I want economically sound methods. Strangely, when nuclear, natural gas, and clean coal are cited, the tree huggers freak out. When windmills are built en masse the tree huggers freak out. We can’t build hydroelectric dams because tree huggers freak out. So where does it come from?
Nuclear probably, they freak out at pretty much anything that appears to hurt the planet.
So the choice becomes something that works or a mass chant from them with incense. The latter avoiding their complaints the former doing more to resolve an issue besides jamming your fingers in your ears and hoping for the best.
Frazzled wrote:Even if you don't believe in climate change (being accelerated by pollution of our atmosphere) you should be supportive of more environmentally sound methods of obtaining energy etc.
***That’s an incomplete statement and in essence, the whole problem. It depends on the cost doesn’t it. I want economically sound methods. Strangely, when nuclear, natural gas, and clean coal are cited, the tree huggers freak out. When windmills are built en masse the tree huggers freak out. We can’t build hydroelectric dams because tree huggers freak out. So where does it come from?
Nuclear probably, they freak out at pretty much anything that appears to hurt the planet.
So the choice becomes something that works or a mass chant from them with incense. The latter avoiding their complaints the former doing more to resolve an issue besides jamming your fingers in your ears and hoping for the best.
Wait, how can anything hurt the planet?
Again, whats the magical mystery power source?
It's a living thing man, mother nature. Gaia will power the world through peace chants and love.
I'm still waiting for someone to bring up the intense solar cycle we are currently in. Blame Ra.
On the bright side when we do figure out how to clean our planet maybe it will lead to terraforming techniques needed for colonizing other planets, now if we can just figure out how to get to one.
You should see the possibility of climate change as an incentive to get the 'renewable energy' ball rolling.
Solar, Wind, Hyrdo (both dams and coastal) all offer vast opportunities to be explored.
The cost may be high now, but costs for new technology always comes down over time. Hydroelectric dams are pretty well established on a technological level.
Medium of Death wrote:When fossil fuels run out you're gakked anyway.
You should see the possibility of climate change as an incentive to get the 'renewable energy' ball rolling.
Solar, Wind, Hyrdo (both dams and coastal) all offer vast opportunities to be explored.
The cost may be high now, but costs for new technology always comes down over time. Hydroelectric dams are pretty well established on a technological level.
They're great, but not enough to power even a portion of current usage, not including future growth. Thats the problem.
I don't know the hydro power in the US is antiquated, instead of putting money into that it's frequently squandered, you know into electronic sports cars and stuff.
Solar collection will become more efficient eventually, I don't know if wind power will ever really take off, it's fething noisy as all get out and takes a lot of space.
BUT all that aside, renewable energy has a future as a growing component of power generation. Between more efficient power generation, and more efficient power use renewable energy, nuke power, maybe cold fusion could replace fossil fuel use.
Easy E wrote:I see it as a combination of moving towards renewable energy supplies AND making exist things more efficient. It is not one or the other, but both.
Think of the new potential markets? It's a capitalist wet dream... unless you are an all ready established big energy player.
Which doesn't do .
Average energy use in the US alone grows more than 2% annually. If you made everything magically 50% more efficient you just delayed the growth need, and that doesn't count the costs associated with that. That further doesn't count the NIMBY ism. You have people protesting windmills and solar setups now for harming the environment. What renewable can you do?
That doesn't count the real drivers of course-developing economies.
Average energy use in the US alone grows more than 2% annually. If you made everything magically 50% more efficient you just delayed the growth need, and that doesn't count the costs associated with that. That further doesn't count the NIMBY ism. You have people protesting windmills and solar setups now for harming the environment. What renewable can you do?
That doesn't count the real drivers of course-developing economies.
It's not just about making everything more efficient in use, the efficiency of conversion is important too. I may not have been clear enough. If power use becomes more efficient ( historically every subsequent generation of electronic device is) and the efficiency to convert energy sources into power increases the two of them together could reduce the deficit between renewable power production and power demand. But renewable power has no conceivable chance to completely meet those needs with technology today and whats under research. The percentage of renewable energy could rise significant but would still need other forms of power generation, like nuclear power to supplement, or form the larger share. Preferably a clean source of power like theoretical cold fusion could fill the gap for both renewable energy and large generation. In the end I'll be long dead before renewable sources make up a majority of power generation.
Average energy use in the US alone grows more than 2% annually. If you made everything magically 50% more efficient you just delayed the growth need, and that doesn't count the costs associated with that. That further doesn't count the NIMBY ism. You have people protesting windmills and solar setups now for harming the environment. What renewable can you do?
That doesn't count the real drivers of course-developing economies.
It's not just about making everything more efficient in use, the efficiency of conversion is important too. I may not have been clear enough. If power use becomes more efficient ( historically every subsequent generation of electronic device is) and the efficiency to convert energy sources into power increases the two of them together could reduce the deficit between renewable power production and power demand. But renewable power has no conceivable chance to completely meet those needs with technology today and whats under research. The percentage of renewable energy could rise significant but would still need other forms of power generation, like nuclear power to supplement, or form the larger share. Preferably a clean source of power like theoretical cold fusion could fill the gap for both renewable energy and large generation. In the end I'll be long dead before renewable sources make up a majority of power generation.
To be clear I am ok with economical "renewable" sources. I just don't think they're going to be material going forward, especially in light of increased resistance by eco groups to them. If you can't build it, they won't come.
I don't think "cold" fusion is ever likely. But "hot" fusion is being investigated in many locations and will provide a safe (ish) and clean (ish) source of energy once they get it working.
Nuclear fission is a decent energy source, the waste is an issue but it's not an insurmountable one. There's a lot of hysteria over it, I always feel.
I think Nuclear power is going to become more likely in the near future. I don't see a massive need for it in the UK/Ireland.
We are pretty much sorted for renewables. Nuclear to supplement is a fantastic idea, Japan and Chernobyl may scare people away from it, but those are very unlikely events. Perhaps if the stations were planned more appropriately in Japan this wouldn't have happened. As for Chernobyl, was that not more to do with bad practice? (Hell we could just pave the area over and use it as the worlds Nuclear dump, give Ukraine a nice wee income boost ...)
Nuclear isn't the final answer either however, Uranium is a finite resource.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power are the way forward... although they are prone to damage from celestial objects, damaged satellites and potentially attack from hostile nations. The cost is inhibitive at the moment, but it's an interesting an a very Sci-fi idea.
Carbon capture is for coal/gas burning power stations but requires a portion of the stations generated energy in order to capture the carbon dioxide, thus forcing you to burn more coal/gas/oil to produce a similar amount of energy. The plus side is, you don't get it going into the environment and by forcing this gas back into oil/gas wells you push more usable materials to the surface.
Da Boss wrote:I don't think "cold" fusion is ever likely. But "hot" fusion is being investigated in many locations and will provide a safe (ish) and clean (ish) source of energy once they get it working.
Nuclear fission is a decent energy source, the waste is an issue but it's not an insurmountable one. There's a lot of hysteria over it, I always feel.
The problem of course that could leak over (pardon the pun) is the regulatory requirements are so high that they are not feasible, if they can garner actual regulatory approval at all.
Medium of Death wrote:I think Nuclear power is going to become more likely in the near future. I don't see a massive need for it in the UK/Ireland.
We are pretty much sorted for renewables. Nuclear to supplement is a fantastic idea, Japan and Chernobyl may scare people away from it, but those are very unlikely events. Perhaps if the stations were planned more appropriately in Japan this wouldn't have happened. As for Chernobyl, was that not more to do with bad practice?
Nuclear isn't the final answer either however, Uranium is a finite resource.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power are the way forward... although they are prone to damage from celestial objects, damaged satellites and potentially attack from hostile nations. The cost is inhibitive at the moment, but it's an interesting an a very Sci-fi idea.
Carbon capture is for coal/gas burning power stations but requires a portion of the stations generated energy in order to capture the carbon dioxide, thus forcing you to burn more coal/gas/oil to produce a similar amount of energy. The plus side is, you don't get it going into the environment and by forcing this gas back into oil/gas wells you push more usable materials to the surface.
And the Chernobyl and Fuskishima reactors were the older style, the better one is pebblebed i think, they're becoming a lot more common and don't have as many problems as regular reactors
Easy E wrote:I see it as a combination of moving towards renewable energy supplies AND making exist things more efficient. It is not one or the other, but both.
Think of the new potential markets? It's a capitalist wet dream... unless you are an all ready established big energy player.
Which doesn't do .
So of course the answer from Fraz is.... do nothing! Everything will work out magically, just like Gaia prayers and fairy dust will solve air pollution.
Easy E wrote:I see it as a combination of moving towards renewable energy supplies AND making exist things more efficient. It is not one or the other, but both.
Think of the new potential markets? It's a capitalist wet dream... unless you are an all ready established big energy player.
Which doesn't do .
So of course the answer from Fraz is.... do nothing! Everything will work out magically, just like Gaia prayers and fairy dust will solve air pollution.
Not quite. I believe the "lets just get more efficient until energy magically appears" is more your bailiwick. I'm saying thats not enough to materially do anything, even assuming you'd be permitted to go full bore.
See if I'm tracking on what Fraz aka Fonsi with weiner dog is saying.
The nuclear plants we establish already are heavily regulated in the US. We all know that also the downside to our reacters are the "rods". Just that we have develope/establish regulation to what we already know. SO if we throw in the pebble bed reacter its a whole new ball game with a different energy technology. Besides its cheaper for us if Germany kicks off a pebble bed reacter and establish its safety regulation on them. Germany EPA is Satan compare to ours...well thats my take so far...need more coffee
Jihadin wrote:See if I'm tracking on what Fraz aka Fonsi with weiner dog is saying.
The nuclear plants we establish already are heavily regulated in the US. We all know that also the downside to our reacters are the "rods". Just that we have develope/establish regulation to what we already know. SO if we throw in the pebble bed reacter its a whole new ball game with a different energy technology. Besides its cheaper for us if Germany kicks off a pebble bed reacter and establish its safety regulation on them. Germany EPA is Satan compare to ours...well thats my take so far...need more coffee
I'm saying
1. I'm all for economical solar, wind, hydro, and unicorn dust.
2. I'm all for fusion.
3. I am all for fission.
4. I am all for cheap gas
5. I am all for clean coal.
Energy is energy to me.
But. #1 will never meet all our current energy needs, much less growth, much less the rest of the world. This is further exacerbated by enviro protestors of their own green tech.
And #2 I'd bet good money the regulatory safety requirements will make fusion cost prohibitive, if they are even permitted. Is it logical-no. But logic has nothing to do with it.
Easy E wrote:So, if it will never meet need... fine.
What is wrong with doing as much as we can to reduce the amount of gak put into the air we all breath?
Can only perfect solutions (or steps) get implemented?
Did you just miss the above?!?!?!?!!?!?!? I'll restate:
I'm saying
1. I'm all for economical solar, wind, hydro, and unicorn dust.
2. I'm all for fusion.
3. I am all for fission.
4. I am all for cheap gas
5. I am all for clean coal.
Energy is energy to me.
You do know what you're exhaling - in effect breathing - is that "crap."
Are you aware that the stuff you breathe out is actually poisonous? No? Well then put a plastic bag over your head. You'll be fine. Go ahead and try it at home.
Shuma why are you yelling at Frazzled when you're agreeing with him?
mattyrm wrote: I notice that almost all of the people who deny climate change are American republicans so I'll ask this, and it's a genuine question because i can't be arsed Google sifting on my phone ...
Has denying climate change got anything to do with Jesus?
Matt, I love ya like a brother and have buckets of respect for you, but what has believing in Jesus got to do with denying climate change? If you are saying religion is keeping people from doing anything about global warming, I would say it's a more valid point to say that science, which produced factories, cars, planes, atomic bombs, etc. Is to blame for the state of the current enviornmental issues.
mattyrm wrote: I notice that almost all of the people who deny climate change are American republicans so I'll ask this, and it's a genuine question because i can't be arsed Google sifting on my phone ...
Has denying climate change got anything to do with Jesus?
Matt, I love ya like a brother and have buckets of respect for you, but what has believing in Jesus got to do with denying climate change? If you are saying religion is keeping people from doing anything about global warming, I would say it's a more valid point to say that science, which produced factories, cars, planes, atomic bombs, etc. Is to blame for the state of the current enviornmental issues.
True enough with regards to us causing it, cars and planes and gak. The question I asked was just related to an observation that almost all of the people who are Creationists and deny that evolution took place, also deny climate change. Not everyone that denies climate change is a creationist, but all creationists deny climate change.
Sebster explained it pretty well though, as it seems to mainly be linked to a distrust of Scientists, like "they are purposely misleading us" kinda thing.
I'm on board with David Mitchell (left leaning liberal gak that he is) that if you want to argue against global the burden of proof is on you to say it's not happening. There are in fact scholarly works supporting both sides.
Da Boss wrote:I don't think "cold" fusion is ever likely. But "hot" fusion is being investigated in many locations and will provide a safe (ish) and clean (ish) source of energy once they get it working.
Nuclear fission is a decent energy source, the waste is an issue but it's not an insurmountable one. There's a lot of hysteria over it, I always feel.
I advise everyone interested to look up Thorium Nuclear reactors. Thorium was initially ignored as a fissionable material because it cannot be used in the same way as Uranium to make bombs. However the first Thorium plants are due to open in India and China, and you have to think that the west will not be far behind if they prove successful.
- Thorium can't be used to make bombs, so no threat of 'rogue states' making power stations and using it for something else
- The waste it produces is thousands of times less harmful than traditional Uranium waste
- For the same reason that it cannot be used to create a nuclear explosion, even a broken reactor will not explode in the same way as Chernobyl or to a lesser extent Fukushima, no matter how poor the safety control and the natural disasters to come.
- The stuff is literally piled up. There was an estimate that at current levels of power consumption, there is enough Thorium on the earth to provide enough power for the next ten thousand years!
I think it definitely answers a lot of questions about the future of power production, and it isn't science fiction or reliant on breakthroughs that haven't yet come - the technology has been developed.
ShumaGorath wrote:Are you aware that the stuff you breathe out is actually poisonous? No? Well then put a plastic bag over your head. You'll be fine. Go ahead and try it at home.
The stuff you breathe out isn't actually poisonous. At least, not in the sense that it's actually going to kill you (although the human body does react adversely to the presence of high levels of CO2, but that's because we associate it with suffocation). The problem with breathing into a plastic bag is not the build-up of CO2, the problem (from a health standpoint) is the depletion of oxygen. If you run out of oxygen you die.
Interestingly, oxygen is actually pretty poisonous for us. Take a wild guess why nutritionists put so much emphasis on antioxidants.
Pacific wrote:Sebster, I admire your tenacity in repeatedly acting as the shining force of reason in these topics whenever they crop up. But, to be honest, no matter what mountain of evidence that is presented regarding climate change, it is always going to be some left-wing hippy scam to neuter the Great American people, politically motivated to scupper the efforts of Hard Working Americans.
To be honest I think you are beating your head against a wall.
It seems the liars and opinions for hire have done just enough to convince just enough people that there is an honest debate on climate change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I don't deny climate change. The climate has been changing constantly since, well the universe decided to create itself. Can we do anything about it?
Yes, we can cut reduce emissions.
1. Why?
Because our economy is built around certain weather patterns, and having to adapt to rapid changes in weather patterns will cost an immense amount of money.
2. Which way is it going? When I was younger we were worried about global cooling.
There was a handful of popular science scares about global cooling, released without peer review and when climate science was still a very new field. Your inability as a youngster to critically review the science is entirely understandable, but not very relevant to present policy concerns.
3. How much will it cost?
The Stern Review found that the cost of stabilising greenhouse gases to be about 2% of worldwide GDP. In comparison, the cost of adapting could be up to 20% of worldwide GDP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Climate change is very different. Nobody argues that climate can't change: we have records that show that it does. At this point, few people argue that the climate is changing (although some still do). That's all pretty established.
What's far less established are the details: do Greenhouse gases even increase global temperatures? To what extent does human action affect climate change? How fast is the climate changing anyway?
The problem with your argument is that these things are not as unknown as you think they are.
Yes, greenhouse gases trap heat. That's a piece of chemistry that's more than 100 years old.
97% of climate scientists active in the field believe the climate change we are seeing right now is impacted by man.
The rate of change in the climate, and more specifically the ups and downs of it, and the localised effects, are the present focus of study, and an area in which we still know very little. But all that does is add to the level of risk, and hinder our ability to predict how we might adapt.
Now, a nuanced observer would note that unlike in biology, there is money to be made picking a side in the Climate Change debate for scientists. The energy industry funds many studies. OTOH, there is a lot of government money, as well as publicity, for finding better or more alarming data to suggest that the world is ending.
If anyone was motivated by money, they'd just take the industry money. They pay more, and demand far less.
Which leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that the people researching this aren't money hungry mercenaries, but people with a genuine scientific concern about how the planet works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Well on the one end you get "recycle your plastic grocery bags because its green!" to "there's too many people!!!"
To wing buts who want to eliminate all current power generation and use magical fairy dust er green energy.
I agree that the wingnuts who dream of massive depopulation or the replacement of all present energy plants with solar panels or whatever are nuts.
At which point it becomes important for the sensible middle ground to embrace the plain reality of the situation and accept that climate change is happening, but that we still need energy general from fossil fuels. Doing this will marginalise the crazies on both ends, and allow us to develop sensible policy to address this issue. It means moving to natural gas over coal wherever possible. It means looking at more nuclear plants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:Nuclear isn't the final answer either however, Uranium is a finite resource.
A solution that lasts 100 years is enough of a solution. By then who knows what tech we'll have available?
Nuclear is certainly limited, mind you, because it requires huge amounts of fresh water and that's not exactly an abundant resource in many places. For instance, here in Australia we have immense amounts of uranium, but little fresh water. So exporting uranium becomes a good option, but actually using it here isn't viable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:You have 0 facts for your statement above, just noting that.
Let's do ourselves a favor and not make sweeping statements about groups shall we? MT11
EDIT It would be a sweeping statement if I claimed all US christians disliked science. I didn't state that because that would have been wrong, and silly. Instead I stated there is a tendency, because it is more common among US christians than among the general population. It might be possible to claim that one is offended by such a statement, but they cannot argue it is wrong.
I love these OT debates and this one started off really strong.
Just curious if anyone else gets a laugh out of people throwing the word "scientists" around to make their point? As though "scientists" are all infallible, honorable men of great wisdom or something. My experience working in clinical research did nothing to support that point of view.
Speaking as a right-leaning but scientificly taught person, I think the reason why "global warming" and "evolution" draws out the hostility of so many Republicans and Christians is that these are buzz-words used in politics to support initiatives or attack beliefs that the right and many religious people do not support.
"scientists" are usually "research scientists" who get paid when they do research that is backed by buzz-words. A genius of a scientist I treated about a year ago was a Venus (the planet) researcher who grumbled about how hard it was for him to get funding for his projects when the Mars guys "had it easy". Because "life on Mars" is a sellable buzz-word.
Me personally, I'm all for developing better energy technology but I'm against "greenhouse gas" fear-mongering. Levels of these gases have not really been studied very long on a geological time frame and it feels like we are over-reacting as a species to something we don't really understand or have appropriate perspective on.
Seriously, how many people even know what epoch we are in? And yet they talk about "living ecologically" to me. Weird.
But I hope the debate on Dakka continues, fun reading from well informed people on both sides of the issue. Cheers!
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I love these OT debates and this one started off really strong.
Just curious if anyone else gets a laugh out of people throwing the word "scientists" around to make their point? As though "scientists" are all infallible, honorable men of great wisdom or something. My experience working in clinical research did nothing to support that point of view. Cheers!
This is the thing I find funny, also. It seems as though a lot of people here believe Christians are the source of all head in the sand type evil, and anyone that has any faith in God is a fool believing in a myth, and because of that, we are going to die in greenhouse gases. The same people say science and government are going to save us, yet, here we are, worried about global warming from items created by the application of science, and allowed by government. These same people have blind faith in scientists and government to wave a wand and make everything green.
Funny.
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I love these OT debates and this one started off really strong.
Just curious if anyone else gets a laugh out of people throwing the word "scientists" around to make their point? As though "scientists" are all infallible, honorable men of great wisdom or something.
The assumption would be that they're specialists in the field of study in question, producing work which is peer reviewed. Which doesn't make any individual, or even the community at large infallible, but it ought to make their opinions matter more than some random internet dweller
Speaking as a right-leaning but scientificly taught person, I think the reason why "global warming" and "evolution" draws out the hostility of so many Republicans and Christians is that these are buzz-words used in politics to support initiatives or attack beliefs that the right and many religious people do not support.
So it's because you've confused your disdane for easy targets on the left with scientific consensus. That sounds about typical for how most political opinions are formed, unfortunately.
Me personally, I'm all for developing better energy technology but I'm against "greenhouse gas" fear-mongering. Levels of these gases have not really been studied very long on a geological time frame and it feels like we are over-reacting as a species to something we don't really understand or have appropriate perspective on.
Yes, they have. Keep up with the research.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:This is the thing I find funny, also. It seems as though a lot of people here believe Christians are the source of all head in the sand type evil, and anyone that has any faith in God is a fool believing in a myth, and because of that, we are going to die in greenhouse gases. The same people say science and government are going to save us, yet, here we are, worried about global warming from items created by the application of science, and allowed by government. These same people have blind faith in scientists and government to wave a wand and make everything green.
Funny.
What? Government, nor technology, are not uniform things, so that one must agree with all it's applications, or none.
So we're
1) Suffocating on CO2
2) swimming with sharks
3) Ice Age...in case they got it backwards
4) Less fresh water = desalination = more jobs
5) War over resource = eco terrorist become unlawful combatants
6) Famine = Anything with hot sauce is good...so who drew the shortest straw?
7) Disease outbreaks = possible zombie apocalypse
but we might
1) Sea colonies to exploit resource in the ocean depth
2) Orbital colonies/shipyards to expand our presence into the solar system
3) massive multi layer hydroponic farms going up and down of the planet surface
4) Possible 3rd world nations become the labor force
5) Possible 3rd world countries tries to take out the top tier countries = Good money says France be first to go
6) Nuke each other from orbit
7) Shrink ourselves
Jihadin wrote:So we're
1) Suffocating on CO2
2) swimming with sharks
3) Ice Age...in case they got it backwards
4) Less fresh water = desalination = more jobs
5) War over resource = eco terrorist become unlawful combatants
6) Famine = Anything with hot sauce is good...so who drew the shortest straw?
7) Disease outbreaks = possible zombie apocalypse
but we might
1) Sea colonies to exploit resource in the ocean depth
2) Orbital colonies/shipyards to expand our presence into the solar system
3) massive multi layer hydroponic farms going up and down of the planet surface
4) Possible 3rd world nations become the labor force
5) Possible 3rd world countries tries to take out the top tier countries = Good money says France be first to go
6) Nuke each other from orbit
7) Shrink ourselves
Sounds like a plan.
Team Wienie officially approves #7.
Relapse wrote:This is the thing I find funny, also. It seems as though a lot of people here believe Christians are the source of all head in the sand type evil, and anyone that has any faith in God is a fool believing in a myth, and because of that, we are going to die in greenhouse gases. The same people say science and government are going to save us, yet, here we are, worried about global warming from items created by the application of science, and allowed by government. These same people have blind faith in scientists and government to wave a wand and make everything green.
Funny.
I don't think anybody here is painting christians with nearly as broad a brush as you claim, although I know that feeling like a persecuted and oppressed minority is everybody's right.
So, you find it funny that when a group of people that created something realize that it's actually bad, they then want to undo the damage? I mean, set aside the fact that the burning of fossil fuels was developed and condoned by very differet groups of scientists and lawmakers than currently exist, and you're still basially finding humor in the fact that a group of people could decide that they made a mistake.
I don't know if this is because faith based view points can't allow for mistakes, or because you are more interested in assigning blame than finding solutions, but it's wierd to me.
ShumaGorath wrote:Are you aware that the stuff you breathe out is actually poisonous? No? Well then put a plastic bag over your head. You'll be fine. Go ahead and try it at home.
The stuff you breathe out isn't actually poisonous. At least, not in the sense that it's actually going to kill you (although the human body does react adversely to the presence of high levels of CO2, but that's because we associate it with suffocation). The problem with breathing into a plastic bag is not the build-up of CO2, the problem (from a health standpoint) is the depletion of oxygen. If you run out of oxygen you die.
Interestingly, oxygen is actually pretty poisonous for us. Take a wild guess why nutritionists put so much emphasis on antioxidants.
The body doesn't take pure C02 well, whether you need to immediately take a breath or not. It's not a dire poison, there's a lot of it in the air at any given time, but it's not harmless when pure. I'll cede this point anyway though, suffice it to say that the stuff you breathe out is bad to breathe in again because there is less oxygen instead of more C02.
The body doesn't take pure C02 well, whether you need to immediately take a breath or not. It's not a dire poison, there's a lot of it in the air at any given time, but it's not harmless when pure. I'll cede this point anyway though, suffice it to say that the stuff you breathe out is bad to breathe in again because there is less oxygen instead of more C02.
If I ever have to give CPR and this pops in my head...
The body doesn't take pure C02 well, whether you need to immediately take a breath or not. It's not a dire poison, there's a lot of it in the air at any given time, but it's not harmless when pure. I'll cede this point anyway though, suffice it to say that the stuff you breathe out is bad to breathe in again because there is less oxygen instead of more C02.
If I ever have to give CPR and this pops in my head...
What we exhale still has a lot of oxygen in it, our lungs aren't particularly efficient. That's why the bag thing was important, otherwise fraz would just be breathin' heavy. No one wants to see that.
Sorry for not quoting the entire comment but . . .
@Sebster: I am confusing my disdain for what? I could not quite understand your critique of me.
I think that "scientific concensus" does not always mean "the truth". I will not insult your intelligence to make a list of such situations in history. Usually the great scientific minds go against the concensus anyway.
Also we have studied atmospheric levels of various "greenhouse gases" for a long time? Really? I would be surprised if we had any data from even a hundred years ago and a 100 years is the equiv. of a millisecond in geological time. Extrapolating data from ice coring requires a good deal of theory work. It is not data and is easily biased.
I have no beef with anyone on Dakka, but there is questionable science on both sides of the issue. To claim otherwise is not being open-minded.
That said, I think the cessation of fossil burning fuels and the close to 5% of annual greenhouse gas emissions would be great!!!!! Alternative energy sounds great, as long as the tax payers (around the world) are not always being stuck with the bill.
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
That said, I think the cessation of fossil burning fuels and the close to 5% of annual greenhouse gas emissions would be great!!!!! Alternative energy sounds great, as long as the tax payers (around the world) are not always being stuck with the bill.
Have a a great weekend everyone
Too bad the Ontario government missed their own memo and have thus far spent over a billion dollars of tax payers money keeping an old coal-fired plant on stand-by... (all while preaching about their 'clean energy initiatives' )
Humans, who've been aware of the greenhouse gasses since only 1859...are attributing to the inevitable destruction of the planet through these same gasses.
You mean to tell me, that a planet that has been around for over four and half BILLION years, been struck by meteors the size of Texas, had 90% of it's surface covered by ice...is in danger from humans and our 'industry'.
Y'know, I had more of an argument but I think this is all I can say without rofling till I puke.
And lo, ladies and gentlemen. I present to you: The Ultimate Post. No other will top the quality of this one. It is the best. Numerous logical fallacies in 3 lines? Check. Multiple sizes of text? Check. Absolute and total misrepresentation of everything in the topic to date? Check. Clearly written without actually reading the first or any post? Check. Direct claim of superior and yet unstated knowledge? Check.
Humans, who've been aware of the greenhouse gasses since only 1859...are attributing to the inevitable destruction of the planet through these same gasses.
You mean to tell me, that a planet that has been around for over four and half BILLION years, been struck by meteors the size of Texas, had 90% of it's surface covered by ice...is in danger from humans and our 'industry'.
Y'know, I had more of an argument but I think this is all I can say without rofling till I puke.
And lo, ladies and gentlemen. I present to you: The Ultimate Post. No other will top the quality of this one. It is the best. Numerous logical fallacies in 3 lines? Check. Multiple sizes of text? Check. Absolute and total misrepresentation of everything in the topic to date? Check. Clearly written without actually reading the first or any post? Check. Direct claim of superior and yet unstated knowledge? Check.
Pacific wrote:Sebster, I admire your tenacity in repeatedly acting as the shining force of reason in these topics whenever they crop up. But, to be honest, no matter what mountain of evidence that is presented regarding climate change, it is always going to be some left-wing hippy scam to neuter the Great American people, politically motivated to scupper the efforts of Hard Working Americans.
To be honest I think you are beating your head against a wall.
It seems the liars and opinions for hire have done just enough to convince just enough people that there is an honest debate on climate change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I don't deny climate change. The climate has been changing constantly since, well the universe decided to create itself. Can we do anything about it?
Yes, we can cut reduce emissions.
1. Why?
Because our economy is built around certain weather patterns, and having to adapt to rapid changes in weather patterns will cost an immense amount of money.
2. Which way is it going? When I was younger we were worried about global cooling.
There was a handful of popular science scares about global cooling, released without peer review and when climate science was still a very new field. Your inability as a youngster to critically review the science is entirely understandable, but not very relevant to present policy concerns.
3. How much will it cost?
The Stern Review found that the cost of stabilising greenhouse gases to be about 2% of worldwide GDP. In comparison, the cost of adapting could be up to 20% of worldwide GDP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Climate change is very different. Nobody argues that climate can't change: we have records that show that it does. At this point, few people argue that the climate is changing (although some still do). That's all pretty established.
What's far less established are the details: do Greenhouse gases even increase global temperatures? To what extent does human action affect climate change? How fast is the climate changing anyway?
The problem with your argument is that these things are not as unknown as you think they are.
Yes, greenhouse gases trap heat. That's a piece of chemistry that's more than 100 years old.
97% of climate scientists active in the field believe the climate change we are seeing right now is impacted by man.
The rate of change in the climate, and more specifically the ups and downs of it, and the localised effects, are the present focus of study, and an area in which we still know very little. But all that does is add to the level of risk, and hinder our ability to predict how we might adapt.
Now, a nuanced observer would note that unlike in biology, there is money to be made picking a side in the Climate Change debate for scientists. The energy industry funds many studies. OTOH, there is a lot of government money, as well as publicity, for finding better or more alarming data to suggest that the world is ending.
If anyone was motivated by money, they'd just take the industry money. They pay more, and demand far less.
Which leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that the people researching this aren't money hungry mercenaries, but people with a genuine scientific concern about how the planet works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Well on the one end you get "recycle your plastic grocery bags because its green!" to "there's too many people!!!"
To wing buts who want to eliminate all current power generation and use magical fairy dust er green energy.
I agree that the wingnuts who dream of massive depopulation or the replacement of all present energy plants with solar panels or whatever are nuts.
At which point it becomes important for the sensible middle ground to embrace the plain reality of the situation and accept that climate change is happening, but that we still need energy general from fossil fuels. Doing this will marginalise the crazies on both ends, and allow us to develop sensible policy to address this issue. It means moving to natural gas over coal wherever possible. It means looking at more nuclear plants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:Nuclear isn't the final answer either however, Uranium is a finite resource.
A solution that lasts 100 years is enough of a solution. By then who knows what tech we'll have available?
Nuclear is certainly limited, mind you, because it requires huge amounts of fresh water and that's not exactly an abundant resource in many places. For instance, here in Australia we have immense amounts of uranium, but little fresh water. So exporting uranium becomes a good option, but actually using it here isn't viable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:You have 0 facts for your statement above, just noting that.
Let's do ourselves a favor and not make sweeping statements about groups shall we? MT11
EDIT It would be a sweeping statement if I claimed all US christians disliked science. I didn't state that because that would have been wrong, and silly. Instead I stated there is a tendency, because it is more common among US christians than among the general population. It might be possible to claim that one is offended by such a statement, but they cannot argue it is wrong.
A great post. I think it's the first one I've read where I agree with everything written. Add a few more aggressive sweeping stereotypes and some foul language and it could have been written by me!
Humans, who've been aware of the greenhouse gasses since only 1859...are attributing to the inevitable destruction of the planet through these same gasses.
You mean to tell me, that a planet that has been around for over four and half BILLION years, been struck by meteors the size of Texas, had 90% of it's surface covered by ice...is in danger from humans and our 'industry'.
Y'know, I had more of an argument but I think this is all I can say without rofling till I puke.
And lo, ladies and gentlemen. I present to you: The Ultimate Post. No other will top the quality of this one. It is the best. Numerous logical fallacies in 3 lines? Check. Multiple sizes of text? Check. Absolute and total misrepresentation of everything in the topic to date? Check. Clearly written without actually reading the first or any post? Check. Direct claim of superior and yet unstated knowledge? Check.
This man is a superhero.
Well, I suppose that's it for me. Guess I'm too stupid to read and comprehend the thread. Thanks for helping me understand.
Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:@Sebster: I am confusing my disdain for what? I could not quite understand your critique of me.
I felt your disdain for certain policies and the people who support them is getting in the way of an actual review of the science.
I think that "scientific concensus" does not always mean "the truth". I will not insult your intelligence to make a list of such situations in history. Usually the great scientific minds go against the concensus anyway.
Sure, but as you'd know science isn't looking for 'the truth', but for the model that best explains the observations. As we make new observations we refine our models, and just sometimes overturn them entirely.
Meanwhile, you don't have to list all those instances of models being overturned, but for your own purposes it'd be good to go and review them, and note how many were done with little serious work having been performed in the field beforehand, and whether or not an actual profession of scientists had really developed in that field. Even if you can instances where that's the case, I just don't know about the wisdom of basng policy around 'all the people who've studied this might be wrong, because other people were wrong about something before'.
Also we have studied atmospheric levels of various "greenhouse gases" for a long time? Really? I would be surprised if we had any data from even a hundred years ago and a 100 years is the equiv. of a millisecond in geological time. Extrapolating data from ice coring requires a good deal of theory work. It is not data and is easily biased.
Ice cores are not the only source of historic temperatures, and your claim of 'bias' has no substance. I'm getting really, really bored of people calling out 'bias' everytime they're presented with informationthey don't like.
I have no beef with anyone on Dakka, but there is questionable science on both sides of the issue. To claim otherwise is not being open-minded.
I think you're being unfair to climate science to dismiss it like that. Sure, not everything published is rock solid, but that's why we have peer review.
That said, I think the cessation of fossil burning fuels and the close to 5% of annual greenhouse gas emissions would be great!!!!! Alternative energy sounds great, as long as the tax payers (around the world) are not always being stuck with the bill.
Definitely. I mean, for a whole host of reasons we need to move away from fossil fuels, climate change is simply making that more urgent. That said, there will be a cost, and much of that cost will be born by people as a whole (either through taxes leading to subsidies, or through higher energy prices). The plain reality is that now we've recognised that there are considerations to energy production other than cost, to make the shift we have to be willing to pay more for power.
Now we just need one side of politics to learn that we are not so timid and gentle that we can't possibly cope with somewhat higher energy prices, while the other side of the political divide has to learn that the cost of energy can't simply scale up to 'whatever it takes to get everything produced by wind and solar power'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frankenberry wrote:Well, I suppose that's it for me. Guess I'm too stupid to read and comprehend the thread. Thanks for helping me understand.
You win. Forever.
Are you genuinely interested in debate over this issue? Because it'd suck for me to explain the mistake you've made, only for you to simply refuse to listen. But basically, you've completely invented this idea where climate change is going to totally kill the planet more than any asteroid ever managed. That's not the issue.
The issue is that we live on this planet, and are dependant on certain weather patterns for much of our economic activity. If emissions are unchecked, the subsequent climate change is predicted to cost us up to 20% of worldwide GDP in lost activity and adaptions we'd have to make, which is much, much bigger than the 2% of worldwide GDP it'd cost to cap emissions.
So there you have it. This isn't about totally killing the whole of the planet, this is about the fact that 2% is a much smaller number than 20%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: A great post. I think it's the first one I've read where I agree with everything written. Add a few more aggressive sweeping stereotypes and some foul language and it could have been written by me!
It might have lacked sweeping stereotypes and swearing, but I did get a mod edit and something of a warning, so that's gotta count for something
Jihadin wrote:Actually for Fraz I dangle a dog treat above his chest and let the weiner dogs bounce of his chest
Queso baby, and Tbone doing his "if you don't let me out in 3.887878 seconds I am going to turn this place into a sea of old dog pea" bark. Can wake me from the dead.
The EPA has some great Info about Greenhouse gasses.
The website is an interesting read.
They even confirm that "Since 1750, atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N20 have increased by over 36 percent, 148 percent and 18 percent, respectively. Scientists have concluded that this is due primarily to human activity."
@ Deathreaper, thanks for posting the link, I particularly enjoyed the sections about past warming periods and "proxy" measurements. Got some great information there without it reading like some sort of "2012" gloom and doom scenario. Thanks
.
although they are prone to damage from celestial objects, damaged satellites and potentially attack from hostile nations. The cost is inhibitive at the moment, but it's an interesting an a very Sci-fi idea. 
)
