Global Warming... is THIS how we'll perish?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by lazs2
rolex... when I was growing up.... TIME MAGAZINE had an article... in fact, the cover story... about the coming inevitable doomsday ice age that I believe they said would hit before the year 2000...

 

Times had a more recent article in 1994, Ice Age Coming was the "flavor of the week" for doomsday scenarios 12 years ago:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm

[lazs2]

I tell you what I think is happening...


The commie socialist liberals finaly figured out that no one is gonna buy their line and put the yolk on without a fight...  They are now trying to build goverment by scaring the most gullible among us with junk science...  "better let us run your life or you are DOOMED!!!!"

Scratch an environmentalist and you will find a socilaist commie liberal wanting more control over your life.

lazs

[Rolex]

Look lazs, you don't read scientific papers. I thought maybe you'd read a non-scientific magazine, but I'd forgotten that you said you don't read.

I'll admit it was a mistake to mention any magazine, since the 'Ice Age' theory was published in non peer-reviewed 'popular' press, but was highly qualified in peer-reviewed papers with the caveat that not enough data was available then and the mechanisms not understood enough. They centered on defining the data required and the techniques to understand CFCs and CO2 contribution.

The peer-reviewed scientists didn't predict an ice age. The magazines did.

"So.. rather than read all the doom and gloom unproveable drivel that you seem to revel in (for whatever reason).....

If this is your starting point, there is no reason in continuing this.

[beet1e]

Excellent posts, Rolex - the best I've seen on this board on the topic of global warming, and its consequences. As you can see from what followed, a large proportion of the problem is a lack of public awareness and a lack of understanding of the problem. We have fatuous questions from naysayers like this -

Originally posted by Jackal1
Also, what are you doing personaly ?

Anyone who asks that clearly has no idea of the scale of the problem we face and the sheer volume of man-produced greenhouse gas being released into the atmosphere on a daily basis. The annual total of CO2 released is, I repeat, six billion tonnes - that's about 190 tonnes per second - and yet the ostriches ask "what are you doing personally".

The magnitude of the problem is such that no way in hell will token gestures - like not taking a flight, or cancelling a boat trip to save 90 litres of diesel fuel - make a ha'peth of difference. It's a GLOBAL problem, and cannot be solved by well intentioned do-gooders planting a few trees, holding discussion groups in the local community, building a few orphanages, or by turning down the thermostat by a degree or two - all of which have been suggested on this board in the past few months as "solutions".

Whole technologies are going to have to change world wide, and new ones are going to have to be developed and deployed. Paradoxically, the Greens are opposed to nuclear power, but with zero emissions into the atmosphere, it might be our salvation or, more to the point, the salvation of people who might be alive 20/50/100 years from now who can't swim.

Even though the USA emits 25% of the world total of CO2, China and India are not far behind, given their burgeoning economies. If growth in China continues at its current rate, we could see a situation - not too far into the future - in which China's oil demand alone exceeds the world supply.

As for the link between greenhouse gas output and glacial meltdown being "unproven", this sounds more like an argument from the Flat Earth Society every time I read it.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
We have fatuous questions from naysayers like this -  Anyone who asks that clearly has no idea of the scale of the problem we face and the sheer volume of man-produced greenhouse gas being released into the atmosphere on a daily basis.  

Having a problem with the top of the page are you?

They are certainly not going to EVER be able to agree with anything on such a grand scale as what it would take to reduce CO2 emissions to any degree that it would have an even microscopic impact

The point is , to attain the amount of vegatation/forest on a scale you are speaking of, to the point of having any impact whatsoever, production of machinery would have to be increased 10 fold and over at least. Then there is the question of where are we going to do all this MASS planting.

The initial projects would increase enough more percentage of CO2 over the current rate of output to set you back a couple hundred years because we are talking masive in order to have any significant bearing on anything.

If anyone doesn`t comprehend the scale, then it would be you.

The point of the question of what you are doing personaly if you beleive in this to the degree that it is being put forth is this: If you are not personaly taking part in something that you supposedly beleive in 100%, then how in hell are you going to convince entire nations to your beleifs and have them agree on it? The answer? Ain`t gonna happen Marie.

You, yourself, don`t wish to give up your travleing in your mighty quest for knowledge.  
If you are not willing to sacrifice, what makes you think anyone else would for your benefit? It`s theory. One of many. True/false? Who friggen knows.
I can tell you one thing for certain on the outcome of the whole BS theory. If anything is attempted to be done at all. then it will be all of us who get fleeced. Also , more than likely, more damge will be done that gain accomplished. Grand scale beyond anyone`s comprehension.
Fairy tales.

[lazs2]

rolex... who said I don't read... I probly read a book or two a week.   I don't scour the world to find doom and gloom.

Don't you think that if the majority of the scientists belived that we were DOOMED if we didn't DO SOMETHING in the next ten years....

That even a dummy like me would have run into something irrefutable on it by now?

and... TIME MAGAZINE didn't claim to do the "ice age" story.... they had lots of leading scientists to quote at the time..

I remember carl frigging nut job sagan saying at the first gulf war.... right ther on TV... that if the sadman lit even half the oil fields on fire in kuwait that.... GASP  we would all suffer a nuclear winter from the blaket that would cover the earth!!!!

My point being.... In my short life span I have heard enough doom and gloom scenarios to have wasted hundreds of hours of me researching em for..... for nothing.

I am saying that when we get more proof... and everyone get's on board I will give it more of a look.... not that it matters... not a damn thing I (or you) can do about it in any case which brings us right back to the big unanswered question in all this....

What do you think we should do about it?  

Let's hear it... I know you have some answers....Tell us what little things we have to do "just in case" the handfull of scientists you are listening to are correct in every thing they are sayin.... not just in the whole global warming thing but the "why" and "how" part.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e

 Paradoxically, the Greens are opposed to nuclear power, but with zero emissions into the atmosphere, it might be our salvation or, more to the point, the salvation of people who might be alive 20/50/100 years from now who can't swim.
 

Ironic and hilarious all in one line. Good work.
Yes, when professing to be looking out for those in the future and cleaning up the planet, nuclear power is the way to go. I`m sure nuclear waste will never cause a problem.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
The point of the question of what you are doing personaly if you beleive in this to the degree that it is being put forth is this: If you are not personaly taking part in something that you supposedly beleive in 100%, then how in hell are you going to convince entire nations to your beleifs and have them agree on it? The answer? Ain`t gonna happen Marie.

Marie? Last time I was Hoss. Prefer Hoss! To answer your rather fatuous question, I'm not going to do anything to convince "entire nations". I am not a politician. Besides, what good could a one man crusade do when, as Rolex has suggested, there is a whole wealth of scientific data out there which is not being read by the public at large? There are thousands of pages on the web about this - and not from "left wing/liberal hippies" but from sources like the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in TN and the US Department of Energy. If their material isn't enough to convince you, nothing I can say will change anything.

Jack, you're still treating this like some kiddie crusade, or Moms Against Global Warming. It's a much bigger issue than you possibly realise. The answer doesn't lie with individuals making personal sacrifices. The changes needed go far beyond one person staying at home instead of going on a 90 litre of diesel boat trip.

There is one thing that one particular individual could do which might begin to address the problem - that is for W to concede that man-made carbon emissions are making an alarming contribution to the problem. There are now signs that this is happening - see my BBC link further up.^ Maybe now, the US will get with the programme along with the 157 countries who are already on it, instead of blindly proclaiming that a reduction in energy consumption is "not in America's interests", or, more to the point - a reduction in oil consumption in the short term is not in the interests of the oil business.

[beet1e]

The best land and best prospects for health I ever saw - Davy Crockett

Oh - seems like he got that wrong, at least for himself...

[lazs2]

Oh my gawd..... only chicken little knows the truth!!

beet... you will admit that if the U.S. dropped it's emissions to zero....

That one good volcano going off would put more emissions into the atmosphere than decades of living in caves without fire would have saved?

lazs

[NattyIced]

Earth heats up before it cools down. The fertile crescent use to be green, now it's a desert. The US use to be covered in glaciers, now it's full of illegals.

This is probably the upswing of a global climate change. They've happened in the past.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by lazs2
That one good volcano going off would put more emissions into the atmosphere than decades of living in caves without fire would have saved?

lazs

lazs, stop pretending you have any sort of clue you know what you are talking about.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
Oh - seems like he got that wrong, at least for himself...

Unlike yourself, Davy seems to have given very little selfish though to himself.
You keep expounding on my Crockett sig. Does it bother you in someway? You have something against Mr. Crockett............I mean other than he was part of the Evil U.S. Empire?

Marie? Last time I was Hoss. Prefer Hoss! To answer your rather fatuous question, I'm not going to do anything to convince "entire nations". I am not a politician. Besides, what good could a one man crusade do when, as Rolex has suggested, there is a whole wealth of scientific data out there which is not being read by the public at large?

We will stick with Marie then.
I know you are not going to do anything Beet. Other than take a bunch of gullibles to the cleaners, neither is anyone else. If one person can`t convince hisself to get into the mix, once again, how do you propose the magic formula for getting the world to agree on it. Fairy Tale. Ain`t gonna happen.
The world consists of individuals, such as your "one person" comment.
I disagree on the general public not reading the "wealth of scientific data" available. Most read it and discard it as another doomsday theory, which btw it is, or read it and don`t give a rat`s patunia one way or the other. Most people are like you. "Let someone else make any sacrafices because I don`t want to be bothered" kind of thing that you gladly admit to.

Jack, you're still treating this like some kiddie crusade, or Moms Against Global Warming.

I`m not treating it like anything slick...err Marie, other than being another doomsaday theory of which I have seen many. At this point nobody is treating it period. A big load of hogwash and talk. That`s about as far as it will ever get.

he changes needed go far beyond one person staying at home instead of going on a 90 litre of diesel boat trip.

And there it is again. The world consists of "one persons" in the plural. rarely do they agree on anything on a small scale, not to mention something as grand as this. The size and shape of meeting tables cannot even be agreed upon ,when it comes to nations leaders, and you are trying to tell me that all of a sudden every leader in the world is going to agree on something? On a friggen far fetched theory at best? I don`t think so Homie...er Marie.

You or anyone else is not going to stop the forces of nature, no matter how much whining is loaded onto the cart.
For heavens sake man, we are threatening to nuke each other at every turn. Now you are saying all of a sudden everyone is going to jump on the Peace Train and Save Mother Earth bandwagon . Pure fictional, fairy tale thinking. Too much Sagan for you my man.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
So whats this mucky muck I've been hearing about the poles reversing? In was in the news some time ago, now its not.  Anyone?

Poles are reversing? Darn, I'm cancelling my trip to Warsaw!

[Angus]

The poles are moving, yes, but the majority of the crowd here will probably say it's not true, and as well, not recognize that it is the magnetic pole that it's being referred to, not the axis of the globe.
Well what to expect.
So Jackal and Lazs (can I call you Charlotte and Susan?), while you are figuring out whether the globe is warming it actually is, and it is an established fact. If you'd live nearer to glaciers you'd actually not need any particular data, - you can see it with the naked eye.
It still can be debated whether this is a normal swing in global temperature, but it goes along just fine with predictions of CO2 emission the first of those being made in the 19th century.
This (repeating myself) goes so paralell to the whole deal about the ozon layer, where the scientists were right and many a government...wrong.
But the global warming is a bigger issue. What's creepy about it is that if it gets going, it's hard to tell where it stops. A certain acceleration in warming, and/or a certain level of greenhoue effect can result in a vicious circle, - the warming will increase warming. Once there, - better move your address to the southern pole, if that's enough. A little cooler than Venus though.....