Discussion in 'Serious Discussion' started by R29k, Jun 14, 2011.
OK guys, back to global warming... or else this thread will be closed.
Nature World News: Scientists Confirmed Earth’s ‘Stabilizing Responses’ Keeps Global Temperatures in Check.
"Carbon emissions during the Anthropocene are occurring 10 times faster than the Permian mass extinction 250 million years ago. What does that mean?...well 90% of all life went extinct during that period so we may want to tread carefully here."
"CO2 was at 400+ ppm during the mid-Pliocene (3 mya). By 2 mya CO2 dropped to the 220 ppm range and stayed there until about 1790, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In other words, it took about 3 million years to move from 420 to 220. We have moved to 420+ ppm in 220yrs"
Of course, Science is not uniform but still, they warn us like this: https://eos.org/articles/how-modern-emissions-compare-to-ancient-extinction-level-events
"They found that a single pulse of activity—the eruption of 100,000 cubic kilometers of magma over some 500 years—could have had a significant impact on the Triassic climate, much as our current emissions are drastically reshaping our world today. The entire CAMP event would have released roughly 100,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide—enough to warm the world by 10°C to 15°C. Put another way, Ernst said, “if we’re talking about going up 2° to 3° over a hundred years, we’re 20% of the way to a mass extinction.”
“There are countless variables that should be taken into account to foresee future climate change scenarios and that we are not able to constrain for the end-Triassic world,” Capriolo cautions. “However, as geoscientists, we warn that the currently ongoing carbon dioxide emissions are similar to those that led to the end-Triassic mass extinction.”"
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism rewards enterprises that maximize profits & punishes those that fail to do so. So of course Exxon publicly denied the truth (how burning fossil fuels damages the environment) it knew for many decades. Profit-driven capitalism is the problem.
Exxon Scientists Privately Predicted Global Heating with “Breathtaking” Accuracy in the 1970s
HEADLINEJAN 13, 2023
A new study in the journal Science confirms Exxon was fully aware of the link between fossil fuel emissions and global heating but spent decades refuting and obscuring the science in order to make maximum profits. The report finds that Exxon — as early as the 1970s — predicted with “breathtaking” accuracy the disastrous climate path that is now wreaking havoc around the globe.
Search for a pdf file: Rutger Bregman "Humankind"
Likewise... "Utopia for realists"
The billionaire dickheads' agenda ripped apart, head-on:
How temperature-dependent silicate weathering acts as Earth’s geological thermostat
The position you are parroting is overly dishonest. A fair calculation of pollution and resources consumption must be calculated per person, not per nation.
India + China alone are almost half the world's population
This list is from 2016 but gives the idea
china polluted twice the US, but people from china are almost 5x the US people
One must also think historically, as to how it got here, where it started and what are the causes - and not many people have the cojones to get to grips with that...
The UK - as small as it is, started before all with the industrial revolution and boy have they been smokin' a lot of that dark side s**t...
And also, as just stated, shouldn't those who per capita (Muricans) guzzle up crazily, give up most of their luxurious lifestyles?
If we all are to live like 'Muricans, we would need some 5,5 Earths, guys - no can do sustain that!!!
My two cents worth on climate change...
Man has little to no effect. To back up my view please refer to this site: https://www.climate4you.com/ It is a world temperature site with lots of data and graphs. Start with the "big picture" link and scroll though the data and graphs. It is very well documented where the data comes from and how the charts and graphs were derived. Next on left side click on "climate refections" a kind of summery. Here i quote:
Global temperature has not risen since 1998. The models relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this recent absence of global warming, as well as a number of other phenomena, such as, e.g., cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al. 2002), the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al. 2006; Gouretski and Koltermann 2007), and that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation recently changed from its warming to its cooling phase.
The present period since 1998 with no global temperature increase thereby has caused some embarrassment for the notion that burning of fossil fuel causes a marked increase of global temperatures. The embarrassment is becoming more and more pronounced as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to increase.
As increasing global temperature 1978-1998 was the main driver for concern about future climate, one would have expected this new temperature development to be broadly welcomed as a good development. Somewhat surprisingly, this has apparently not been the case. The lack of warming since 1998 has instead been ignored or defensively explained as being without significance. Some have simply chosen to refocus on other issues without direct relation to air temperature, such as, e.g., Arctic (not Antarctic) sea ice or retreating glaciers.
A widespread defensive reaction to the recent temperature development has been that of stressing the importance of natural multi-annual and decadal temperature variations to explain the lack of warming. Previously, this was not a widespread line of argumentation among people supportive of the notion of significant anthropogenic warming: In contrast, observed temperature increases were usually presented as indications of anthropogenic warming, and definitely not as the result of natural multi-annual and decadal temperature variations.
This way of asymmetrical reasoning is interesting from a psychological point of view, and is usually considered characteristic for groupthink.
How you feel about climate change does not change the data, pro or con, the numbers don't lie. Global temperatures have not rose since 1998 regardless of rising CO2. Climate will continue to change and man can do little to influence it. Just my two cents....
Nonsense - see the above relevant post of mine, where you have the data and much better reasoning behind the interpretation of that data... Yours is uninformed and rather confused and messed up, sorry...
Or listen to oil corporations' scientists, whose report was sociopathically put in a deep bunker and covered with cement...
In order to save our planet from exploding as a consequence of global warming, fossil fuel-powered vehicles must be phased out!
Generally, fossil fuels must not be used for energy...
Firstly, as for those that are responsible for this warming of the Earth problem, I am one of the many that are very guilty. Much more guilty than the average Earth resident. I used to be in aviation and our aircraft of all types are putting a lot of bad stuff into the atmosphere that I am informed causes this warming thing. And I am referring to some 50 years ago when the engines weren't built as they are now, to reduce that bad stuff discharge. Anyone in the aviation industries and militaries using aircraft is quite guilty, as was I. But we cannot do anything in that field of work to stop it or we end up in a military prison for disobeying an order to fly. Well, civilians could quit. Not military.
The next thought I frequently have is that the Earth getting warmer tens of thousands of years ago is the reason humans got into good shape to flourish, so on one aspect that has to be considered good. But do we read or hear scientists acknowledging that point? Not so often. Or ever?
In fact, while it is very true that now we have a problem to solve, a balanced view is that for a few hundred years the use of coal and then fossil fuels helped humans a whole bunch and that really needs to be given due respect before we move to a discussion of the fix as needed in the present day-and-age. But, again, do we read or hear the scientists acknowledging that? I mean, many of those that were able to get into studying for their degree were able to do so because the modern age released them from having to work the land just to survive, like on the family farm. Or in a stock yard for meat. Or other industries just for feeding humans. Modern technology using coal and fossil fuels allowed for a less rigid adherence to simply surviving and some folks could go off to schools and learn things like the Earth is heating up.
What I mean is some balance of all this is important. Just screaming and yelling about how awful humans are for using coal and fossil fuels without looking at the bigger picture isn't so good. It puts folks off. Maybe an art of a kind of forceful tact is better than just sitting on your side of the street and yelling over here at us folks that still drive a gas running car or using all those other so harmful tools we have to make our lives more comfortable.
And how about all those rich folks and powerful folks that fly around in those private jets? They sure are putting lots of bad stuff into the atmosphere. Do those super anti-fossil fuel folks give the rich and powerful as hard a time as they give us low-class dumb humans, like me?
I'd like to see a well-researched list of scientists that provide a kind of balanced view and not just that "you are a horrid human you fossil-fuel junkie' type scientist. Sure we have a problem here, but let's not be too hardcore about what got us here.
By the way, Mother Nature could sure cool this planet really fast, if she so desired. A few mighty powerful volcano incidents in a short period of time could cool things off really fast. And I would jump into a gas powered car to escape the lava flows before I jumped into an electric car, if there was that choice in that sort of emergency. Sorry, but in such an emergency I have more faith in that gas powered vehicle. Maybe even a bus, so many can be saved.
Yep, Mother Nature could cool things down really fast, if she was so inclined.
Actually, prof. Steve Jones has a way better way of looking at it - from 10.000 years ago when we invented agriculture (=ecocide!) to spreading fast around the globe even though that diet was rather poor compared to the previous one of hunters/gatherers - but it was sufficient for survival and populating the Earth => to the levels that are now unsustainable...
So, how is this "good" - asked in the same manner as asking how is the serious pollution from fossil fuels "good" for anyone?!? Being a bit slower and/or not having 7-8 children per woman might have been way better...
Well, "might have been way better" is based on information we have now that they didn't have for centuries. And large families were only happening for the somewhat lucky ones, because disease was killing a whole bunch of the children way back when.
And that "bit slower" idea may have merit, except way back when and for centuries I don't think the average scholar even knew about any sort of trouble like we know about now. And for average folks the process of getting information to them was not easy. Images were a big deal for so long to get certain information firmly into their minds.
Still, gorski, you prompted me to go checking about when the first scholars started having enough faith in research results to start sounding the alarm and this is from a Google featured snippet for NASA:
Vital Signs of the Planet - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change
So the late 19th Century was when the first quality documentation was published and by that time humans were moving forward at a fast pace with that coal being used to run all sorts of useful stuff to enable that fast pace.
Then you have to consider an important point --- humans are that sort of animal that is always looking for that shortcut in life and inventing all sorts of things to achieve those shortcuts. The nature of the beast, us humans. Bigger, Better, Bolder. Faster, Functional, Fancy. And that vocabulary list for how humans go about being human could be very long. Truly, the nature of the human is to seek out the better way to do something. Altering human nature is no easy task now and sure not easy 200 years ago.
I'd offer that it is a lot easier for us to now accept that some slowing down on our super highway of modernization is a good idea, but asking for that back in the 18th and 19th Centuries would have had you put into a loony bin, no matter how rich, powerful, or smart you might have been.
LOL ...... did you eat dan archer ? You talk about human evolution ......... and how life got better !?!? ............ thats establishment propoganda ........ things didnt change becauset the rich are benevelent ............ it happened because they needed us to do their dirty work . Life got better around / after WW2 because they needed us to die for them .......... thats why we got a national health service , social security , housing , education ............ and things continued to get better ....... more civilised ......... untill the start of the 80s ............. and then the rich started to take it back .
When i was a kid i used to go to hospital . There were no ques . I didnt have to wait months for apointments ............. and they gave me something to eat ........... and payed my bus fare there and back . Now people are dieing in ambulances parked outside of emergency rooms because theres no space , no equipment , no medicine , no doctors
Heh, how to miss all the relevant points completely...
Oh, dear... The ABC, eh? OK:
That is why they had large families because disease killed a lot of kids, lifespan was short, no "social security" to take care of you in your old age...
"Information"? People got on the way they saw things go down around them, there was no formal education, no schooling system, no "public sphere", nothing you see today...
"Way back" when we invented agriculture and started changing the climate through deforestation etc. - we had no scholars... They only come with the development of cities etc.
By the beginning of XX c even humble NZ etc. newspapers knew and published such information, yes...
Heh, when an amateur in philosophy - through his blessed ignorance - arrogantly publishes his musings on the subject freely...
No, we did not do that for a very, very long time...
When we started it had to do with the industrial revolution, capitalism, accumulation of capital (one can't forever hoard grain, for instance) etc. etc.
Btw, we are not "animals", not even biologists worth their salt would claim that nowadays but OK...
Oh, "human nature" is to primarily improve oneself, if you want to put it in those terms, not endlessly amass - not until Capitalism, that is...
Nature v. nurture is the ongoing debate of which you seem oblivious but OK, keep "teaching us", what don't you...
No, most people lived frugally, in most of the world, but the capitalists would. Because they lived lavish lifestyles they wanted to run freely...
Today we could talk about questionable class consciousness and international solidarity across artificial borders but that's another complex story...
Be that as it may, the greatest polluters are the billionaires and millionaires, plus armies of the world, cruisers, planes etc. etc.
Okey-dokey, I can take a hint. You want to start into insulting folks, so I'll be gone. You are obviously not too interested in solving any problems. Not even sure what your purpose is, but it is obvious I don't belong in this discussion. On that bit of your agenda you have succeeded admirably. Somebody who instructed you in how to use that technique will be proud of you. Too bad. I thought there was some hope here that those same tactics you just used weren't going to be happening. Of course, I did see there was some need for the admin to do some cleaning up in some earlier pages, so I suppose I now understand why. Yep, too bad. Dashed hopes. So stupid of me to expect some intellect to shine through the fog of bovine excrement.
Nope . Equals haveing fun . Part of a conversation ........ discussion ........ is haveing something to discuss ? = haveing differences and compareing them .......... with a bit of takeing the micky .......... and goading ........ and ' insulting ' ........ not just happy sheep agreeing with eachother ?
Heh... Yeah, how dare anyone disagrees...