Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage - Increase twice the size of Germany - Page 3

Stealth Hunter · 09-04-08, 08:53 PM

And too many do...

It's like my grandfather always used to say, "When you pull a single thread from a shirt, you will cause the whole thing to unravel."

SS107.9MHz · 09-04-08, 09:06 PM

I can't grasp the main driving force behind believing or not in global warming/or is it man made, etc, being the fact that it is convenient to any of the political sides in debate. The driving force behind any investigation can't be the need to justify or not some a priori position. That's the first step to a biased conclusion, even with the same data. Politics can't come before science. Politics should deal with the facts, not try and make them, unfortunetely that isn't happening... It's been that way for a long time mind you, galileu had th same kind of problem...

But to make a point, the question of global warming (witch is happening, and it's not just the average temp rising, besides that we can see an increase in seasoned relative air humidity in the equatorial line, with an extension of the dry/tropical areas towards the poles, variations in the salinity of diferent areas in the sea, etc) is going on for decades... first signs of accelerated global warming can be traced back to the mids of industrial revolution, (coal is a lot more CO2 rich than petroleum) so thats a pointer, but of course the human factor isn't the only. I've never heard any serious cientist not taking into account the variations in solar atmosphere, has was told above by someone, that's probably, in conection with geothermal activity, one pof the great variables in play, always were.
But it really pisses me of when people try to deny or exagerate facts just because it's convenient to them

I'd rather start working on real facts than with beliefs and hopes and similar shaits...

antikristuseke · 09-04-08, 09:15 PM

SS107.9Mhz it's quite simple. It is far easyer to hide ones head in the sand and pretend there is no problem than to take partial responsibility and to look for a solution.

Konovalov · 09-05-08, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I believe Joseph Joubert was right: "The purpose of argument or debate should be progress, not victory." Neither side here seems to be interested in getting at the truth, only in proving that the other guy is wrong.

Best thing that I have read all week here.

Skybird · 09-05-08, 03:42 AM

Why assuming human responsibility is a reasonable thing?

1. It cannot hurt to stop doing things that may cause harm, even if it turns out that they do not. The other way around, it can hurt a damn lot.

2. Known micro- and macro-cycles of climate developement do not explain the frightening speed at which thinngs are changing. Never before in Earth history things have changed so fast, and so fundamentally. some of the confused attempts to explain why human presence can not be the factor, are simply hair-raising. Acceleration of global change is happening currently at factors reaching into the four digit range. Some processes described run a thousand times faster than ever before in earth hiostory.

3. One pattern I observe time and again in sceptic's argumentation: if not telling the untruth, so at least not telling the truth in nfull, and hide vital data, leaving unwanted perspectoives and views out. Leaving out decisive data. Leaving out explanatory context. Argue inside so ridiculously small time frames that their views are supported on basis of these little time frames only. the comparison between two years following each other suddenpy are a model to explain the climate over a period of a thousand years. This is irresponsible and pseudo-scientific methodology. Honest scientists are tearing their hairs out over this, because it is so successful in populism to impress the masses. Half-truths and not telling all facts and hiding the vital one, or rip them apart, doers so much more dmaage than just telling lies, and it is so much more difficult for the public to recognize it.

4. but the most decisive factor for me is correlation. Agreed, correlations are no causal links in htemselves. But they make a statement about links being existent, saying that it is not by random chasnce that the two variables you observe coincide in quality and/or time. and when I look at so many things, from atmosphere change and killing forest over warming of the ocean, specie'S extinction and other species changing their global spreading drastically to jellyfish taking over dominance of life in the oceans and reef dying, and compare all this to the timing of the beginning of human industrial activity and the developement of the conseqeunces of it, then these links are not recommending themselves to be taken serious, but they shout and yell and shoot firework to be taken into account, that obvious it is.

5. Until some time ago, I worked as meditation teacher, and many people often asked questions about relgion, spirituality, and gods. One thing I realised time and again: most people did not wish to learn any truth about "reality" by themselves, or take any efforts that were considered "difficult" to win experiences that alolow them to form an educated view of things all by themselves. What most of them wanted is to be reassured in their personal interpretation of reality that they had arranged in ways that it allowed them most comfort and did not stand in their way - so they thought. they wanted not any experiences or new truths - they wanted to be told that they have no reason to change their views at all, and nevertheless would win "heaven".
With climate sceptics it is often the same. They do not want to learn any truth (and the payed once making it a job to deny it anyway even will make it their profession to spread doubt and half-truths). They want a model that allows them to say that man is not repsonsible, that nothing must be chnaged, that all is running by itself, and that nothing must be done, so that the old ways of living and habits can be sticked to and nobody must change a damn in his way of life. In other words it is about delaying chnage for industy's shortterm profit, it is about laziness and comfort of the ordinary man as well. It is about a desired outcome that allows not to move. Truth or reality have nothing to do with it. Such people are running by the same intention, like their equivalents in the camp of golobal wearming believers, who do not care for a discriminatory precise view at things, but wants their already decided measure being implememnted for principal and sometimes ideologicial reasons. what green parties implement once they became ordinary parties and share government often is driven by this, it looks green, but sometimes is not any green at all, and may even increase the damage to the "green casue". but all in all, sceptics are doing by far the reater damage. and why calling them sceptics in general? Only some are honestly sceptical, but most are no sceptics at all - they are prejudiced. Scpetics do not actively try to deny obvious facts, and do not intentionally close their eyes before unwanted realities.

In other words, it is about phlegmatism. the excuse that first ojne wishes to see the ultimate, the undeniable, the unignorrable final evidence and proof is cheap in the fasce of so overwhelmingly striong and plentiful correlations between global symptoms and human activity. when you got shot by surprise and the bullet is in your body and causes you pain and you loose blood, you do not demand a crime examination first, before allowing to be brought into hospital - you hope they bring you to a doctor first who does the needed surgery as soon as possible and saves your life.

In the end you all jujst need to open your eyes to see how the world is changing, and lots of it are dying. the signs are there to see for everybody who is willing to open his eyes. From the mountains and glaciers to the ocean, from the deserts to the rain forest, from the drastically chnaging spread patterns of species to the disappearing of other ones. It is all so very, very obvious. - And some of you guys still insist on wanting to use a microscope to check wether the dot above the "i" really is round, or not. that way, you sure can acchieve that the rescue boats are not even considered to be brought to water before the whole ship already is below the water surface. It is, according to you, enough to have a vague idea of where they are. Will we all die a fast, sudden death soon? No. but it is our civilisation at risk, our cities, and hundreds of millions of people are directly affected from death by desasters, floodings, diseases, with the rich nations affected by shortage of ressoucres, wars, and social unrest. And over the passing of decades, they will die by the hundreds of millions from these factors. Take my word for that.

That are the real smashing consequences of global warming and irresponsible demand for ever-growing industrialisation and no birth control, gentlemen.

UnderseaLcpl · 09-05-08, 05:10 AM

As one of our remaining points of contention, I will make a brief stand here if you don't mind, sky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Why assuming human responsibility is a reasonable thing?

1. It cannot hurt to stop doing things that may cause harm, even if it turns out that they do not. The other way around, it can hurt a damn lot.

Actually the economic consequences can be quite harmful. In. the U.S. the EPA has wasted tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and even bulldozed entire communities in the name of environmentalism. Their policies impair the growth of commerce and industry and often have dubious benefits.

While I would agree that some regulation concerning pollution is certainly in order, I think that it needs to be limited. The government has done a poor job of managing it thus far, generating a lot of economic damage for relatively little gain.

Quote:

2. Known micro- and macro-cycles of climate developement do not explain the frightening speed at which thinngs are changing. Never before in Earth history things have changed so fast, and so fundamentally. some of the confused attempts to explain why human presence can not be the factor, are simply hair-raising. Acceleration of global change is happening currently at factors reaching into the four digit range. Some processes described run a thousand times faster than ever before in earth hiostory.

Oh rly?

And as for the rest of the argument, your logic can be applied in reverse. And often is. Just look at Greenpeace. Giving environmentalists everywhere a bad name with their whacked-out theories and questionable methods.

Something needs to be done, but the debate is not over, and the wrong course of action, whatever it may be, could have far-reaching consequences.

Skybird · 09-05-08, 05:24 AM

Assuming for a moment that graph is correct - I did not check it - you see that it lists eons of earth history, and the according chnages in the grapüh take place over tens and hundreds of thousands of years therefore. I never said that past climate has not seen drastic changes - I referred to the acceleration of speed at which they take place currently. chnages that befoe took place over thousnads and thousands of years - now running hundreds or a thousand times faster. and that is new, as far as our science can tell us. And the beginning of this acceleration, like the beginning of many other problematic botanic, zoological, atmosherical, oceanographical changes, by random chance coincides with the emergence of man, and sees it'S spiking accentuations at the time the heavy industry popped up. Just decades - in geological time scales, 50 years is less than an eye's blink, so if two events or processes fall together within half a century, that probably has a message to tell. at least that is a more reasonable an assumption than just thinking it is random chance.

Regarding damage to the eco0nomy, the IPCC study as well as many other studies before calöculated that if we do not react to climate chnage by adjusting our industial procedures and business routines now, in the long run the financial falout from needing to repair the damages caused by that lacking action wilkl be at least ten times as high. I also would like to remind of that old Indian proverb used by Greenpeace that when he last riover is poisened and the last tree is cut, you eventually may find out that you cannot eat money. Currently, economic interests are profits are given priroity about everything else. And that is a suicidal mistake. The interests of industry does not overrule the interests of the community, or the realties set by nature on planet earth. Therefore, the theory of "unlimited economical growth" will cause us just more damage, for it increases the trend by which we damage ourselve, and the biosphere. It will not help us to lower these tendencies. If you want to stop your car, there is no use in pushing the gas pedal - at least you need to let go the gas pedal, if not even applying brakes.

UnderseaLcpl · 09-05-08, 05:59 AM

I'm not going to press this too much, because as I have said before, I doubt we can come to a consensus on this issue.

Firstly, the rate of climate change can roughly be discerned from this graph. It is not a be-all end-all argument. It's not even a strong argument, but there are many like it and they show that other possibilities are out there.

That's all I'm asking, consider the other possibilities.

Secondly, I would like to point out that the IPCC is a) not composed entirely of scientists. Activists have joined their ranks and some scientists have withdrawn from the panel in protest of its' activities.
and b) the IPCC is not uncontested in its' findings and some of their research methods are questionable
http://constitutionallyright.com/200...change-errors/

admittedly, this article (letter, whatever) is biased in favor of my viewpoint. But these people have some good points.

So, all I ask is that you would genuinely consider the opposing view. I would offer to do the same but I spent all of my teenage years believing that global climate change was man-made, already.

Climate change, even if man made, will take quite some time to profoundly affect the Earth. Even if it is only a few decades, that is precious time.
On the other hand, economic harms are almost immediate. And there are even some environmental harms in things like biofuel as the article I provided states. An argument I had not thought to investigate until now.

I'm sure we can both agree that the government generally makes a mess of things and is ineffecient. The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel.
Should we not, then, question their findings?

Although we (and our respective camps) may not ever agree on this issue until economic or climatalogical consequences have manifested themselves, would it not be best to at least attempt to reach some sort of compromise?

At the last I will say that the economic harms of action to stop climate change have already begun and they are quite noticeable. The use of ethanol has raised fuel and food prices, and renewable energy projects and research (particularly wind farms) have cost hundreds of billions of dollars, mostly from the taxpayers' coffers, for a marginal return.

Thoughts?

Skybird · 09-05-08, 06:43 AM

Firstly, the rate of climate change can roughly be discerned from this graph. It is not a be-all end-all argument.

the argument that atmospheric changes and temperature changes take place insanely fast currently, stands nevertheless.

Secondly, I would like to point out that the IPCC is a) not composed entirely of scientists. Activists have joined their ranks and some scientists have withdrawn from the panel in protest of its' activities.
and b) the IPCC is not uncontested in its' findings and some of their research methods are questionable
http://constitutionallyright.com/2008/04/16/nobel-prize-winner-asks-ipcc-to-admit-climate-change-errors/

I am aware of the weaknesses of the IPCC report, and the main critici9sm of it that was voiced by it's former head himself: that it assumed too optimistic assumptions mabout human energy behavior, and thus in it'S predictions even is not brtual enough. It paints a rosy picture basing energy demands already being reduced right now, instead of climbing in the future.

So, all I ask is that you would genuinely consider the opposing view. I would offer to do the same but I spent all of my teenage years believing that global climate change was man-made, already.

I do, but I have difficulty to take many of the sceptic's argument serious when I see them ignoring obvious and often-made obervations.

Climate change, even if man made, will take quite some time to profoundly affect the Earth. Even if it is only a few decades, that is precious time.

It WILL not, but already DOES affect us.

On the other hand, economic harms are almost immediate. And there are even some environmental harms in things like biofuel as the article I provided states. An argument I had not thought to investigate until now.

I was against biofuels from the beginning on, yes. There mis no altermntaive to reducing our energy demands, by being more energy-proficient, and not wasting it by increasing our dependency on energy-heavy applications. You do not need an electric lemon squezzer, if it makes already no real difference to do it by hand, to give a very simply example. the comfort of such stupid applictions do not justify their consequences. And if the damage affects the higher wellbeing of the community, and nature, than it is the point where imo the right of the individual to claim freedom to choose using such things nevertehless come to an end. I do not believe in the unlimited freedom of people, and consumers.

I'm sure we can both agree that the government generally makes a mess of things and is ineffecient. The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel.
Should we not, then, question their findings?

Sure, but the IPCC in the main is something like a metastudy, so tpo speak. the basic groundwork for it's conclusions has not been done by bureaucrats, but scitiensts. And most of them not being lobbyists, I would say.

Although we (and our respective camps) may not ever agree on this issue until economic or climatalogical consequences have manifested themselves, would it not be best to at least attempt to reach some sort of compromise?

Depends on the defintion of such a compromise. If wife and husband are fighting over saturday nights's TV program, him wanting to see football and her wanting to see the music show, and the compromise is considered to be watching the music show, then the term is loosing it's meaning, doesn't it.

At the last I will say that the economic harms of action to stop climate change have already begun and they are quite noticeable. The use of ethanol has raised fuel and food prices, and renewable energy projects and research (particularly wind farms) have cost hundreds of billions of dollars, mostly from the taxpayers' coffers, for a marginal return.

Harm from headless environmental pollution and excessively exoploiting natural ressources, both regarding sea and air, also continues. The damage to oceans, reefs and fishes is already very huge. Some fishes that are on our tables are down to 10% of there populations just 20 years ago. I just have read about jellyfish taking over the oceans, and biologists mean it like that: taking it over. It is a very frigthening perspective. Fish populations are massively driven back not only by human fishing, but jellyfish as well. Add to that: algas, and a decrease in plancton.

Thoughts?

No, I am distracted. My new camera just arrived

Nice low budget solution, the Canon Powershot A590IS, very many options, features and pic quality, just a bit noisy at high ISO. It replaces my old A75 which just had broken down.

asanovic7 · 09-05-08, 07:10 AM

Just some merry thoughts..

Biofuel is a brilliant design of how to make stupid little countries dependant on geneticly modified food(although Brasil huh). You have to invest more energy to gain very little with that s..t. And that's about that.
"We still have some decades, precious time" ??

Imagine Earth is a breeding organism with 6 billion little insects rowing and chewing.. :rotfl: Viruses..
You can say we accelerated the normal process of heating the Earth very much. If I am not mistaken, Earth is heating up normally, right? Regardless of that, to say that we are not affected allready is very nice, because that is what leads to things like reducing wastes to a point that was in 1990 which is much is like saying to a man that has a cancer to smoke only one and a half pack of cigarettes a day. We are covered with garbage, allready..
Algies and planctons are what makes this world breathe, other than plants.. Not only that, they are food for some very nice creatures..
Almost every single "not home" animal is in danger.
Every day a very good number of species dissappears..
There is no compromise at the cost of making a profit..

So you can say we all can just lay back, hope for the worse and enjoy while we can..

We still have tv shows from Atternborough :rotfl: , right?

All you can do is lay back, enjoy the view and hope for the worse.. And maybe do a little lovin'..

OOOPS forgot, if the ice melts only certain parts of Earth will freeze, like England, right? Before the end of this century, right?

UnderseaLcpl · 09-05-08, 07:12 AM

:rotfl: I underestimated you, sky. I really thought that we could at least begin to compromise on this, but it would appear that your convictions are unshakeable.

Since you will not come to my camp, I shall go to yours. Please outline a solution for global warming that doesn't destroy nations' economies in the process. I promise to genuinely consider it and observe its' merits and failures as objectively as possible.

A link is also acceptable as I'm sure you've been over this with others in the past. Make it good and I may inch in your direction.

Fair?

asanovic7 · 09-05-08, 07:33 AM

Yep, now it's definite..

I hate even that darn word..

Economy..

There is no solution, undersea man.. With anglo saxon ruthless capitalism, with boots flying all over, there is no way on earth to reduce the effects of our development. There is no way.
Here are some modern terms..
Sustainable development is a bs made by bs men. It only means you burn your fuel more effectively.. :rotfl: Nice, but maybe more profit like, not enviroment..
Alternative sources of energy are imagination. They will never replace 100% everything. And who wants fields filled with solar panels instead of deers..
I read some papers like how to reduce laying wastes and such. Wow the success was when they reached 20 % Wow..
But..
Maybe..
Only solution IMO would be electricity. Nuclear plants. Everything on electricity.
Although we would need to kill all car mechanics and oil pump workers, but it would work, I think..
Yep, and we can still shoot nuclear waste into outer space

Damn green monkeys..

UnderseaLcpl · 09-05-08, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asanovic7

Yep, now it's definite..

I hate even that darn word..

Economy..

There is no solution, undersea man.. With anglo saxon ruthless capitalism, with boots flying all over, there is no way on earth to reduce the effects of our development. There is no way.
Here are some modern terms..
Sustainable development is a bs made by bs men. It only means you burn your fuel more effectively.. :rotfl: Nice, but maybe more profit like, not enviroment..
Alternative sources of energy are imagination. They will never replace 100% everything. And who wants fields filled with solar panels instead of deers..
I read some papers like how to reduce laying wastes and such. Wow the success was when they reached 20 % Wow..
But..
Maybe..
Only solution IMO would be electricity. Nuclear plants. Everything on electricity.
Although we would need to kill all car mechanics and oil pump workers, but it would work, I think..
Yep, and we can still shoot nuclear waste into outer space

Damn green monkeys..

???????

Skybird · 09-05-08, 07:59 AM

Lance, this forum has been there. More than once.

there is no solution - in the meaning of the word - to global warming, or as i prefer to say more precise and open to variations: climate change. It is happening, no matter mankind noting it or not. the only questions are 1.) whether or not we stop fueling it, 2.) whether we start trying to adapt to it as best as we still can, or not - getting rolled over by it unprepared, then 3.) wether or not there is enough time left for us to adapt in any way making a difference for us, and the biosphere on which we depend, and all current life depends. It is not a future event that can be prevented. It already takes place. What meaning could the word "solution" have? The words to remember are "adaptation" and "damage control". Also, climate change not only affects man and his industry, but biosphere, botanic and zoologic life as well - and these again affect us. You can't pick out a simple phenomenon, adress it, and then think you are fine again.

before mankind dies as a species, it is our civilisation and communal structures that die, our culture. Earth, and "life" per se, has no problem with global warming. Man has the problem. earth does not care to have a hot desert all around, or an iceage, or a methane-poisened atmosphere. with or without us, the shows keeps running. And currently it is not decided if man ever will become more than just a small three-word-footnote in the diary of this planet. And this is a problem for our ego and also the religious self-understanding of quite many people. we are not being master of all life on earth? the meaning of life not revolving around us alone? homo sapiens not being the ultimate meaning of what life is all about, and evolution?

What a heresy! It cannot be what should not be. Our forefathers wrote into the bible that we shall see ourselves as the greatest, the only ones, the ruler of all and everything. Well, megalomania of that kind usually ends with the patient being locked away in a white cell with rubber walls.

asanovic7 · 09-05-08, 08:01 AM

Yep man! The safest!

Nuclear plants!

You may think I am talking nuts here, but nuclear plants are really safe to handle.
Cerrnobil was IMO sabotage.. two big human mistakes one after other, too much to be accident..

You asked for solution, I gave you one. If we can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases(co2, cfc's) to a position that was BEFORE 1990, that would be just fine..

So, you can see there will never be a compromise?

Hey, and you can have my wife:rotfl:

09-05-08, 03:42 AM	#35
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,650 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Why assuming human responsibility is a reasonable thing? 1. It cannot hurt to stop doing things that may cause harm, even if it turns out that they do not. The other way around, it can hurt a damn lot. 2. Known micro- and macro-cycles of climate developement do not explain the frightening speed at which thinngs are changing. Never before in Earth history things have changed so fast, and so fundamentally. some of the confused attempts to explain why human presence can not be the factor, are simply hair-raising. Acceleration of global change is happening currently at factors reaching into the four digit range. Some processes described run a thousand times faster than ever before in earth hiostory. 3. One pattern I observe time and again in sceptic's argumentation: if not telling the untruth, so at least not telling the truth in nfull, and hide vital data, leaving unwanted perspectoives and views out. Leaving out decisive data. Leaving out explanatory context. Argue inside so ridiculously small time frames that their views are supported on basis of these little time frames only. the comparison between two years following each other suddenpy are a model to explain the climate over a period of a thousand years. This is irresponsible and pseudo-scientific methodology. Honest scientists are tearing their hairs out over this, because it is so successful in populism to impress the masses. Half-truths and not telling all facts and hiding the vital one, or rip them apart, doers so much more dmaage than just telling lies, and it is so much more difficult for the public to recognize it. 4. but the most decisive factor for me is correlation. Agreed, correlations are no causal links in htemselves. But they make a statement about links being existent, saying that it is not by random chasnce that the two variables you observe coincide in quality and/or time. and when I look at so many things, from atmosphere change and killing forest over warming of the ocean, specie'S extinction and other species changing their global spreading drastically to jellyfish taking over dominance of life in the oceans and reef dying, and compare all this to the timing of the beginning of human industrial activity and the developement of the conseqeunces of it, then these links are not recommending themselves to be taken serious, but they shout and yell and shoot firework to be taken into account, that obvious it is. 5. Until some time ago, I worked as meditation teacher, and many people often asked questions about relgion, spirituality, and gods. One thing I realised time and again: most people did not wish to learn any truth about "reality" by themselves, or take any efforts that were considered "difficult" to win experiences that alolow them to form an educated view of things all by themselves. What most of them wanted is to be reassured in their personal interpretation of reality that they had arranged in ways that it allowed them most comfort and did not stand in their way - so they thought. they wanted not any experiences or new truths - they wanted to be told that they have no reason to change their views at all, and nevertheless would win "heaven". With climate sceptics it is often the same. They do not want to learn any truth (and the payed once making it a job to deny it anyway even will make it their profession to spread doubt and half-truths). They want a model that allows them to say that man is not repsonsible, that nothing must be chnaged, that all is running by itself, and that nothing must be done, so that the old ways of living and habits can be sticked to and nobody must change a damn in his way of life. In other words it is about delaying chnage for industy's shortterm profit, it is about laziness and comfort of the ordinary man as well. It is about a desired outcome that allows not to move. Truth or reality have nothing to do with it. Such people are running by the same intention, like their equivalents in the camp of golobal wearming believers, who do not care for a discriminatory precise view at things, but wants their already decided measure being implememnted for principal and sometimes ideologicial reasons. what green parties implement once they became ordinary parties and share government often is driven by this, it looks green, but sometimes is not any green at all, and may even increase the damage to the "green casue". but all in all, sceptics are doing by far the reater damage. and why calling them sceptics in general? Only some are honestly sceptical, but most are no sceptics at all - they are prejudiced. Scpetics do not actively try to deny obvious facts, and do not intentionally close their eyes before unwanted realities. In other words, it is about phlegmatism. the excuse that first ojne wishes to see the ultimate, the undeniable, the unignorrable final evidence and proof is cheap in the fasce of so overwhelmingly striong and plentiful correlations between global symptoms and human activity. when you got shot by surprise and the bullet is in your body and causes you pain and you loose blood, you do not demand a crime examination first, before allowing to be brought into hospital - you hope they bring you to a doctor first who does the needed surgery as soon as possible and saves your life. In the end you all jujst need to open your eyes to see how the world is changing, and lots of it are dying. the signs are there to see for everybody who is willing to open his eyes. From the mountains and glaciers to the ocean, from the deserts to the rain forest, from the drastically chnaging spread patterns of species to the disappearing of other ones. It is all so very, very obvious. - And some of you guys still insist on wanting to use a microscope to check wether the dot above the "i" really is round, or not. that way, you sure can acchieve that the rescue boats are not even considered to be brought to water before the whole ship already is below the water surface. It is, according to you, enough to have a vague idea of where they are. Will we all die a fast, sudden death soon? No. but it is our civilisation at risk, our cities, and hundreds of millions of people are directly affected from death by desasters, floodings, diseases, with the rich nations affected by shortage of ressoucres, wars, and social unrest. And over the passing of decades, they will die by the hundreds of millions from these factors. Take my word for that. That are the real smashing consequences of global warming and irresponsible demand for ever-growing industrialisation and no birth control, gentlemen. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 09-05-08 at 04:20 AM.

09-05-08, 05:24 AM	#37
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,650 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Assuming for a moment that graph is correct - I did not check it - you see that it lists eons of earth history, and the according chnages in the grapüh take place over tens and hundreds of thousands of years therefore. I never said that past climate has not seen drastic changes - I referred to the acceleration of speed at which they take place currently. chnages that befoe took place over thousnads and thousands of years - now running hundreds or a thousand times faster. and that is new, as far as our science can tell us. And the beginning of this acceleration, like the beginning of many other problematic botanic, zoological, atmosherical, oceanographical changes, by random chance coincides with the emergence of man, and sees it'S spiking accentuations at the time the heavy industry popped up. Just decades - in geological time scales, 50 years is less than an eye's blink, so if two events or processes fall together within half a century, that probably has a message to tell. at least that is a more reasonable an assumption than just thinking it is random chance. Regarding damage to the eco0nomy, the IPCC study as well as many other studies before calöculated that if we do not react to climate chnage by adjusting our industial procedures and business routines now, in the long run the financial falout from needing to repair the damages caused by that lacking action wilkl be at least ten times as high. I also would like to remind of that old Indian proverb used by Greenpeace that when he last riover is poisened and the last tree is cut, you eventually may find out that you cannot eat money. Currently, economic interests are profits are given priroity about everything else. And that is a suicidal mistake. The interests of industry does not overrule the interests of the community, or the realties set by nature on planet earth. Therefore, the theory of "unlimited economical growth" will cause us just more damage, for it increases the trend by which we damage ourselve, and the biosphere. It will not help us to lower these tendencies. If you want to stop your car, there is no use in pushing the gas pedal - at least you need to let go the gas pedal, if not even applying brakes. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-05-08, 05:59 AM	#38
UnderseaLcpl Silent Hunter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Storming the beaches! Posts: 4,254 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I'm not going to press this too much, because as I have said before, I doubt we can come to a consensus on this issue. Firstly, the rate of climate change can roughly be discerned from this graph. It is not a be-all end-all argument. It's not even a strong argument, but there are many like it and they show that other possibilities are out there. That's all I'm asking, consider the other possibilities. Secondly, I would like to point out that the IPCC is a) not composed entirely of scientists. Activists have joined their ranks and some scientists have withdrawn from the panel in protest of its' activities. and b) the IPCC is not uncontested in its' findings and some of their research methods are questionable http://constitutionallyright.com/200...change-errors/ admittedly, this article (letter, whatever) is biased in favor of my viewpoint. But these people have some good points. So, all I ask is that you would genuinely consider the opposing view. I would offer to do the same but I spent all of my teenage years believing that global climate change was man-made, already. Climate change, even if man made, will take quite some time to profoundly affect the Earth. Even if it is only a few decades, that is precious time. On the other hand, economic harms are almost immediate. And there are even some environmental harms in things like biofuel as the article I provided states. An argument I had not thought to investigate until now. I'm sure we can both agree that the government generally makes a mess of things and is ineffecient. The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel. Should we not, then, question their findings? Although we (and our respective camps) may not ever agree on this issue until economic or climatalogical consequences have manifested themselves, would it not be best to at least attempt to reach some sort of compromise? At the last I will say that the economic harms of action to stop climate change have already begun and they are quite noticeable. The use of ethanol has raised fuel and food prices, and renewable energy projects and research (particularly wind farms) have cost hundreds of billions of dollars, mostly from the taxpayers' coffers, for a marginal return. Thoughts? __________________ I stole this sig from Task Force

09-05-08, 06:43 AM	#39
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,650 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	*Firstly, the rate of climate change can roughly be discerned from this graph. It is not a be-all end-all argument.* the argument that atmospheric changes and temperature changes take place insanely fast currently, stands nevertheless. Secondly, I would like to point out that the IPCC is a) not composed entirely of scientists. Activists have joined their ranks and some scientists have withdrawn from the panel in protest of its' activities. *and b) the IPCC is not uncontested in its' findings and some of their research methods are questionable* *http://constitutionallyright.com/2008/04/16/nobel-prize-winner-asks-ipcc-to-admit-climate-change-errors/* I am aware of the weaknesses of the IPCC report, and the main critici9sm of it that was voiced by it's former head himself: that it assumed too optimistic assumptions mabout human energy behavior, and thus in it'S predictions even is not brtual enough. It paints a rosy picture basing energy demands already being reduced right now, instead of climbing in the future. *So, all I ask is that you would genuinely consider the opposing view. I would offer to do the same but I spent all of my teenage years believing that global climate change was man-made, already.* I do, but I have difficulty to take many of the sceptic's argument serious when I see them ignoring obvious and often-made obervations. *Climate change, even if man made, will take quite some time to profoundly affect the Earth. Even if it is only a few decades, that is precious time.* It WILL not, but already DOES affect us. On the other hand, economic harms are almost immediate. And there are even some environmental harms in things like biofuel as the article I provided states. An argument I had not thought to investigate until now. I was against biofuels from the beginning on, yes. There mis no altermntaive to reducing our energy demands, by being more energy-proficient, and not wasting it by increasing our dependency on energy-heavy applications. You do not need an electric lemon squezzer, if it makes already no real difference to do it by hand, to give a very simply example. the comfort of such stupid applictions do not justify their consequences. And if the damage affects the higher wellbeing of the community, and nature, than it is the point where imo the right of the individual to claim freedom to choose using such things nevertehless come to an end. I do not believe in the unlimited freedom of people, and consumers. *I'm sure we can both agree that the government generally makes a mess of things and is ineffecient. The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel.* *Should we not, then, question their findings?* Sure, but the IPCC in the main is something like a metastudy, so tpo speak. the basic groundwork for it's conclusions has not been done by bureaucrats, but scitiensts. And most of them not being lobbyists, I would say. Although we (and our respective camps) may not ever agree on this issue until economic or climatalogical consequences have manifested themselves, would it not be best to at least attempt to reach some sort of compromise? Depends on the defintion of such a compromise. If wife and husband are fighting over saturday nights's TV program, him wanting to see football and her wanting to see the music show, and the compromise is considered to be watching the music show, then the term is loosing it's meaning, doesn't it. At the last I will say that the economic harms of action to stop climate change have already begun and they are quite noticeable. The use of ethanol has raised fuel and food prices, and renewable energy projects and research (particularly wind farms) have cost hundreds of billions of dollars, mostly from the taxpayers' coffers, for a marginal return. Harm from headless environmental pollution and excessively exoploiting natural ressources, both regarding sea and air, also continues. The damage to oceans, reefs and fishes is already very huge. Some fishes that are on our tables are down to 10% of there populations just 20 years ago. I just have read about jellyfish taking over the oceans, and biologists mean it like that: taking it over. It is a very frigthening perspective. Fish populations are massively driven back not only by human fishing, but jellyfish as well. Add to that: algas, and a decrease in plancton. Thoughts? No, I am distracted. My new camera just arrived Nice low budget solution, the Canon Powershot A590IS, very many options, features and pic quality, just a bit noisy at high ISO. It replaces my old A75 which just had broken down. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-05-08, 07:10 AM	#40
asanovic7 Captain Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 516 Downloads: 70 Uploads: 0	blah Just some merry thoughts.. Biofuel is a brilliant design of how to make stupid little countries dependant on geneticly modified food(although Brasil huh). You have to invest more energy to gain very little with that s..t. And that's about that. "We still have some decades, precious time" ?? Imagine Earth is a breeding organism with 6 billion little insects rowing and chewing.. :rotfl: Viruses.. You can say we accelerated the normal process of heating the Earth very much. If I am not mistaken, Earth is heating up normally, right? Regardless of that, to say that we are not affected allready is very nice, because that is what leads to things like reducing wastes to a point that was in 1990 which is much is like saying to a man that has a cancer to smoke only one and a half pack of cigarettes a day. We are covered with garbage, allready.. Algies and planctons are what makes this world breathe, other than plants.. Not only that, they are food for some very nice creatures.. Almost every single "not home" animal is in danger. Every day a very good number of species dissappears.. There is no compromise at the cost of making a profit.. So you can say we all can just lay back, hope for the worse and enjoy while we can.. We still have tv shows from Atternborough :rotfl: , right? All you can do is lay back, enjoy the view and hope for the worse.. And maybe do a little lovin'.. OOOPS forgot, if the ice melts only certain parts of Earth will freeze, like England, right? Before the end of this century, right?

09-04-08, 08:53 PM	#31
Stealth Hunter Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Y'ha-Nthlei Posts: 4,262 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	And too many do... It's like my grandfather always used to say, "When you pull a single thread from a shirt, you will cause the whole thing to unravel."

09-04-08, 09:06 PM	#32
SS107.9MHz Lieutenant Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Lat.40º12'82"N, Long.8º85'48"W, Portugal Posts: 256 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I can't grasp the main driving force behind believing or not in global warming/or is it man made, etc, being the fact that it is convenient to any of the political sides in debate. The driving force behind any investigation can't be the need to justify or not some a priori position. That's the first step to a biased conclusion, even with the same data. Politics can't come before science. Politics should deal with the facts, not try and make them, unfortunetely that isn't happening... It's been that way for a long time mind you, galileu had th same kind of problem... But to make a point, the question of global warming (witch is happening, and it's not just the average temp rising, besides that we can see an increase in seasoned relative air humidity in the equatorial line, with an extension of the dry/tropical areas towards the poles, variations in the salinity of diferent areas in the sea, etc) is going on for decades... first signs of accelerated global warming can be traced back to the mids of industrial revolution, (coal is a lot more CO2 rich than petroleum) so thats a pointer, but of course the human factor isn't the only. I've never heard any serious cientist not taking into account the variations in solar atmosphere, has was told above by someone, that's probably, in conection with geothermal activity, one pof the great variables in play, always were. But it really pisses me of when people try to deny or exagerate facts just because it's convenient to them I'd rather start working on real facts than with beliefs and hopes and similar shaits...

09-04-08, 09:15 PM	#33
antikristuseke Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Estland Posts: 4,330 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	SS107.9Mhz it's quite simple. It is far easyer to hide ones head in the sand and pretend there is no problem than to take partial responsibility and to look for a solution.

09-05-08, 07:12 AM	#41
UnderseaLcpl Silent Hunter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Storming the beaches! Posts: 4,254 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	:rotfl: I underestimated you, sky. I really thought that we could at least begin to compromise on this, but it would appear that your convictions are unshakeable. Since you will not come to my camp, I shall go to yours. Please outline a solution for global warming that doesn't destroy nations' economies in the process. I promise to genuinely consider it and observe its' merits and failures as objectively as possible. A link is also acceptable as I'm sure you've been over this with others in the past. Make it good and I may inch in your direction. Fair? __________________ I stole this sig from Task Force

09-05-08, 07:33 AM	#42
asanovic7 Captain Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 516 Downloads: 70 Uploads: 0	Not possible Yep, now it's definite.. I hate even that darn word.. Economy.. There is no solution, undersea man.. With anglo saxon ruthless capitalism, with boots flying all over, there is no way on earth to reduce the effects of our development. There is no way. Here are some modern terms.. Sustainable development is a bs made by bs men. It only means you burn your fuel more effectively.. :rotfl: Nice, but maybe more profit like, not enviroment.. Alternative sources of energy are imagination. They will never replace 100% everything. And who wants fields filled with solar panels instead of deers.. I read some papers like how to reduce laying wastes and such. Wow the success was when they reached 20 % Wow.. But.. Maybe.. Only solution IMO would be electricity. Nuclear plants. Everything on electricity. Although we would need to kill all car mechanics and oil pump workers, but it would work, I think.. Yep, and we can still shoot nuclear waste into outer space Damn green monkeys..

09-05-08, 07:59 AM	#44
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,650 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Lance, this forum has been there. More than once. there is no solution - in the meaning of the word - to global warming, or as i prefer to say more precise and open to variations: climate change. It is happening, no matter mankind noting it or not. the only questions are 1.) whether or not we stop fueling it, 2.) whether we start trying to adapt to it as best as we still can, or not - getting rolled over by it unprepared, then 3.) wether or not there is enough time left for us to adapt in any way making a difference for us, and the biosphere on which we depend, and all current life depends. It is not a future event that can be prevented. It already takes place. What meaning could the word "solution" have? The words to remember are "adaptation" and "damage control". Also, climate change not only affects man and his industry, but biosphere, botanic and zoologic life as well - and these again affect us. You can't pick out a simple phenomenon, adress it, and then think you are fine again. before mankind dies as a species, it is our civilisation and communal structures that die, our culture. Earth, and "life" per se, has no problem with global warming. Man has the problem. earth does not care to have a hot desert all around, or an iceage, or a methane-poisened atmosphere. with or without us, the shows keeps running. And currently it is not decided if man ever will become more than just a small three-word-footnote in the diary of this planet. And this is a problem for our ego and also the religious self-understanding of quite many people. we are not being master of all life on earth? the meaning of life not revolving around us alone? homo sapiens not being the ultimate meaning of what life is all about, and evolution? What a heresy! It cannot be what should not be. Our forefathers wrote into the bible that we shall see ourselves as the greatest, the only ones, the ruler of all and everything. Well, megalomania of that kind usually ends with the patient being locked away in a white cell with rubber walls. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 09-05-08 at 08:51 AM.

09-05-08, 08:01 AM	#45
asanovic7 Captain Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 516 Downloads: 70 Uploads: 0	:) Yep man! The safest! Nuclear plants! You may think I am talking nuts here, but nuclear plants are really safe to handle. Cerrnobil was IMO sabotage.. two big human mistakes one after other, too much to be accident.. You asked for solution, I gave you one. If we can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases(co2, cfc's) to a position that was BEFORE 1990, that would be just fine.. So, you can see there will never be a compromise? Hey, and you can have my wife:rotfl: