Mass Extinctions from Global Warming? 348
uncleO writes "The current issue of Scientific American has an interesting article,
Impact from the Deep, about the possible causes for the five major global extinctions. It contends that only the most recent one was caused by a 'dinosaur killer' asteroid impact. Evidence suggests that the others were caused by 'great bubbles of toxic H2S gas erupting into the atmosphere' from the oceans due to anoxia." From the article: "The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm...climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm...to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century."
Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only extinction I really expect to see is that of the reputations of "scientists" who harp on CO2 emissions when CO2 is a very small part of the overall picture; Methane has a far greater effect, as do many other things.
We have every reason to reduce emissions. I'm absolutely pro-emission-reduction; cleaner air is better for every living thing and that's a perfectly good justification to swing me. However, bogus, over-hyped faux "science" just serves to give the opponents somewhere to stand and take a swing at the "scientists."
The fact is, we've been warmer, and we've been colder, and CO2 is not the be-all, end-all index of why it is cold or hot. For instance, just let a major volcano erupt and you'll see a temperature swing that'll get your attention. Or let methane generation get completely out of hand, that'll put CO2 in perspective for you.
Aside from all that, we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway. We always have; we always will. Barring asteroid impacts, of course.
Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you should read some of the literature. Of all the greenhouse gases, CO2 is, by a considerable margin, the most significant. Methane (and others) are far more potent... there just isn't as much, so their effect is smaller.
The fact is, global temperatures are strongly correlated with CO2 concentration. That's a mathematical fact, recorded in the ice of Antarctica. CO2 concentrations are increasing at an unprecedented rate. This is a real cause for concern. Glaciers are shrinking... major chunks of Antarctica are just melting away. I don't doubt that we can survive. However, unless we do something *now* about all the crap we are pumping into the atmosphere (primarily CO2, but also methane and others) we are going to see significant rises in sea levels within our lifetime.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But in those records the CO2 increases lag temperature increases by 800 years. So which causes which? Climatologists answer this by claiming that some unknown process starts the warming, and then, 800 years later, CO2 comes in and acts as a feedback to cause further warming. That's a rather murky explanation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They "explain" it using a hypoth
Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:4, Interesting)
Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas per molecule. But that doesn't mean it has a greater impact, since there is much less methane being released into the atmosphere.
As a funny side note: a significant amount (more than a third) of the anthropogenic methane emissions are coming from agriculture -- farting livestock basically.
Re: (Score:2)
People get the government they deserve.
Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:4, Insightful)
1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) The sun's activity has increased by approx. 10% in the last 15 years. In other words, it's getting hotter.
4.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
5.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_
6.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem
How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/06082119
Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:4, Insightful)
2.) Scientists do new measurements on old sources. We don't just rely on old measurements.
3.) Who says that? According to the World Radiation Center and the Max Planck institute, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since the 40s.
5.) Jupiter, the gas giant, which is so much like the earth? As for Mars, it's interesting how just a few snaps from space can make you think, while years and years of direct measurements and hundreds of thousands of years of proxy data from earth means nothing.
Noone is denying that natural cycles exist. But there is no theory to explain the observed climate changes based on natural cycles alone. They work on time scales of thousands of years, while we're seeing change on a scale of just decades or centuries. What natural cycles do show us, however, is that an increase in CO2 concentration means higher temperatures. That is a fact, just as the observed spike in CO2 concentration is a fact. The data also shows that natural CO2 fluctuations did have a strong effect on ice ages and warm periods, and now humans have increased CO2 levels to historical highs.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's incorrect. See here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_0 30320.html [space.com]
And for the record, a minor correction on my part, the increase in the Sun's activity isn't 10% in 15 years but rather 1.5-2.0% in 30 years. Regardless, my point is it's getting warmer which may explain why the Earth is also warmer.
Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been some really exceptional flares recently, X-class and basically darned near off the scale (X22(!), in 2001 if memory serves.) We've been lucky enough to miss a direct hit from the worst of them, but clearly, old sol is having a bit of a temper tantrum, at least when you consider the narrow environmental window we can survive within. As a ham radio operator, I've been carefully watching, and been directly affected by, the 11-ish year solar cycle for the last fifty years, and I can tell you that the atmosphere's behavior today in terms of propagation is not even remotely similar to the way it was when I first began paying attention. This is essentially a direct the result of solar activity, and of little else, as near as anyone has been able to figure out. So I'm inclined to be doubtful when anyone says that solar input to the planet isn't changing, based on my own observations, for which I have logs dating back to the late fifties.
This does not mean that we are not seeing a natural cycle. There is no validated theory connecting quantum and macro level activity, either, but that doesn't mean it isn't connected. There is no theory that definitively explains how a "big bang" could come about, yet it may be the case, and so on. The bottom line is, nature doesn't give a hoot for our theories, it does what it does despite what we believe. Theories are our best shot at trying to understand what is going on. But in many cases -- how brains work, what intelligence means, interesting details about gravity, and yes, climate, theory is not really very well nailed down.
The fact that in the geological record, CO2 increases lag warming periods by quite a bit puts at least some reasonable doubt on it as a causative agent, per se. Dust, on the other hand, is a known causative agent (see 1816, AKA the "year without a summer" for a seminal example.) It may well be that particulates are a far greater villain in the end. Certainly the more recent records (last millennium or so) favors this outlook.
Look, it is perfectly reasonable to argue for reduction of emissions. We have lots of right here, right now, reasons to so argue. Acid rain. Particulate levels of various unfriendly materials. Radioactivity from burning coal. Simple visibility beyond a mile or so in urban areas. Why not stick with what we actually know instead of creating a cult of "CO2 is the Evil Heat God" worshipers out of what is really pretty doubtful (and ass backwards in terms of causality) theory? Maybe a hundred years from now we'll have a handle on climate. Maybe (though I personally doubt it) on weather as well. But clearly, we do not today, and it seems quite ridiculous to get in a froth over such doubtful science.
And then there's the whole "politically correct" factor; there is no question that speaking against the climate change faction is not any way to get funding, to get published, or even to get invited to a party. That's got a very bad smell when it applies to science. We're supposed to make predictions from the data, not match the data to our predictions, no matter what the outside influences are. I fear climate science has done very poorly in this regard. From strident predictions of an "immanent ice age" to "we're all gonna fry!" within the space of a few decades is a real bell-ringer. It seems to me that these folks need to spend a little more time looking at what is happening before we should pay them a whole lot of attention in terms of them having the definitive scoop on what's going to happen... or not.
Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:4, Insightful)
I just wanted to follow up on one bit:
This is where classic risk management comes in, a topic sadly ignored by most of the current round of environmentalists. Topics with long-range impact and highly variable outcomes (global warming, nuclear waste) are hot-buttons, but companies that are polluting the third world to an extent where immediate and large-scale deaths result (Coca-Cola and Union Carbide, for example, not to mention the Chinese government) get almost no attention. All of the focus right now is on the emission of CO2. Sulphur and other toxins which have greater impact on the environment in the short term are nearly ignored.
In fact, most of the problems that you list have very little to do with CO2, and current plans to reduce CO2 emissions would have little impact on them.
Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:5, Informative)
Someone took the time to assemble a bibliography of climate change literature from the 70s with reference to predictions of cooling [wmconnolley.org.uk]. In the scientific literature, as contrasted with Newsweek, the closest thing was a paper that pointed out the current interglacial could end in a few thousand years, or maybe even a few hundred. The overwhelming bulk reached the totally accurate conclusion that they didn't know enough to make a prediction.
The hard data on solar output from satellite measurements [nasa.gov] goes back fifteen years and is kinda-sorta constant over that period. Much earlier, and you're relying on horribly indirect proxy measurements like radionuclides. There are a lot of uncertainties about trends in solar output [realclimate.org], although some climatologists think it could account for 10-30% of the temperature rise we've seen.
Troll Food. (Score:5, Informative)
Just in case you actually belive your "research", here is a handy mythbuster [realclimate.org]. A bit of research on that site will set you straight, the link itself points to a search on the word "myth", I'm confident the results will cover your objections and questions.
BTW: If you can come up with an original myth I'm sure the boffins at realclimate will be happy to try and bust it for you, if they can't then you may just end up famous.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you heard about this? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:5, Informative)
That was man made, according to this wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]:
"The Dust Bowl was the result of a series of dust storms in the central United States and Canada from 1934 to 1939, caused by decades of inappropriate farming techniques, with buffalo herds that fertilized the soil displaced by wheat farming, followed by a severe drought. The fertile soil of the Great Plains was exposed through removal of grass during plowing. During the drought, the soil dried out, became dust, and blew away eastwards, mostly in large black clouds. At times, the clouds blackened the sky all the way to Chicago, and much of the soil was completely lost into the Atlantic Ocean."
Get your facts straight, puhleeeaaase! Western civilization and productivist agriculture hold a nasty record in destroying the environment on a wide scale. You can't destroy entire ecosystems without suffering consequenses, short-term and long-term.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the dust bowl was a consequence of man's changing the environment. Prairie sod was broken up for cultivation, and when a natural cyclical decline in rainfall occurred, the soil, now exposed and broken up, blew away.
Let's suppose a large component of what's being observed today is natural: does it make sense to not address our activities that accelerate the consequences? Or, do you need a scientific study to empirically show that a stitch in time saves nine?
Re: (Score:2)
What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years
Since soon after the start of the industrial revolution, and the introduction of the motor car. And that is your evidence that human CO2 production has no effect on the climate?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Both of these are pretty flimsy. In both cases you've taken a regional warming trend and extrapolated it to an entire planet. You can do the same with Earth: temperatures at the south pole have been declining over recent yea
Re: (Score:2)
Right now yes, but what's being discussed is the CO2 levels at these extinctions and how we may get there one day, along with giving an estimate. The article is not about "oh wow, we're going to die from CO2 level tomorrow" like you seem to imply. If we're going to start seeing more seri
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway. We always have; we always will.
No we haven't. The sixth extinction has started a few centuries ago and there's hardly anything we've done to cope with that, and more and more species are disappearing and there's hardly anything we can do to it. And whatever we do now we're in for a ride to the land of troubles, because as the unfreezing of permafrost and the acidification of the ocean due to its higher concentration in carbon release gigatons of CO2, these n
Re: (Score:2)
I said "cope", I didn't say "resolve" or "solve". You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Well, then again — you'll need to pay considerably better attention. I said "you'll see a temperature swing", I didn't say "you'll see warming." Further, if you'll read
Ignorance is not the way to do this. (Score:2, Informative)
CO2 is the central climate gas. No, it doesn't have the largest warming effect; water does, nor the largest effect per molecule; SF6 is the current leader with 22,200 times the greenhouse effect of CO2. CO2 is the central climate gas because it is the reason why the Earth's climate has been mostly stable over geologic history.
CO2 is released by volcanic action, and removed by rock weathe
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may be a bit naive here. Sure, most of us can compensate for a day that's a bit warmer or colder or wetter than normal and that is all that climate change has given us so far... However, the climate change that is implied by 1000 ppm CO2 is much different in degree (pun intended). How do you cope with ocean levels that rise to inundate most coastal cities
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy! Just get the Army Corps of engineers to build a levy.
Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The question is, are we willing to risk total destruction of our economy and pre-industrial revolution
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:5, Informative)
Without going into a great deal of detail, let me provide a couple of pointers you can use to begin hunting stuff up on the net.
First, with regard to storage of nuclear waste. Passivated glass block storage solves all the storage problems. The waste is distributed in the block, the block will last longer than the waste's dangerous lifespan, the production of the block is easy and the stored materials will neither erode, progress chemically, or distribute themselves through the environment any other way. The technology is here now, and all it takes is using it to resolve the problem. In other words, money. The only down side is that once in said glass block, the "waste" is really waste, that is, we can't use it for anything else. This may not be optimum.
Second, with regard to accidents, modern reactor designs don't have those same kinds of problems. Neither do smaller, low-ish power reactors. For instance, look up pebble bed reactors [wikipedia.org]. Good design is important.
Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:5, Interesting)
To me an optimal disposal method for radio waste would packetize it in a way that would allow it to be recovered if that became economically viable. (Say, for use in a fast-breeder.) But you also want it dispersed so that it didn't undergo "mini-chains" that caused it to burn itself up too quickly. Small blobs in flat sheets separated by about a foot (of plaster? cement?) sounds good. The sheets could be as large as is convenient to handle. Some PVC mimic would be a good choice for what to make them out of. That way they could be loosely rolled for transport. (Unless someone things it worthwhile to build a cadmium spiral cylinder to store them in. Or to transport them flat separated by cadmium sheets. Not likely. Just keep them separated, and make sure that no one sheet will go critical even if you roll it tightly--and then ensure that it is rolled loosely (with styrofoam spacers?. (That should be easy. This is waste, not fuel.)
The thing is, while the stuff is encased in plastic it's only dangerous to folk that are near it. It's not explosive. So you need to keep it cool enough to not melt the plastic...but you've already used it as throughly as is reasonably economic, so it's not super hot thermally.
OTOH, if you just want it to go away and never return, then passivated glass bricks are hard to beat. You could even use them to pre-heat water for a steam plant for the first decade or so. (I'm presuming that the passivation includes something like sealing the bricks in paraffin so that water can't leach through... if you plan for that, then you don't need to worry about it's happening accidentally. Then put the bricks in a plastic bag before you dump them in the water to heat it, and all should be well.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You live in a really weird fantasy world. Apparently you're a white middle class suburbanite type who doesn't know of the huge 'brown' population of Roman Catholics to the south of the United States.
It's reassuring to know my government is working at a reasonable pace to fix these issues
Government really isn't very good at 'fixing' anything.
Re:Fearmongering is not the way to do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is a long and slow process. You cannot knee-jerk it into working for you, as so many people want to believe. It has taken science 77 years just to prove that breast really isn't best (it's just equal). Something as simple to study as that takes 77 years to get right, you better believe something as complicated and with so many more uncontrollable factors as the environment will take much longer.
Yes, the environment is a complex system and can be quite difficult to understand. I'm a bit confused about the "breast isn't best" comment. I assume you mean the recent study that showed that breast feeding didn't contribute to intellegence levels, which is fine, but it does contribute to the immune system.
The question is, are we willing to risk total destruction of our economy and pre-industrial revolution living standards over what amounts to little more than a scientific theory? We're not talking about a theory that has concretely provable (and now, again, disprovable) components like Einstein's theory of relativity -- we're talking multiple theories that, while in the general sense show a consensus, in the specific sense show several different paths to take and have no specific way to prove them right now other than to take the plunge and see what happens.
Ah, here comes the scare factor. I can flip this around and ask whether we are willing to bet our living standards on continuing things the way they are now on the assumption that things will remain the same? Do we expect our world to support continued growth for an indefinite time? We're talking about multiple assumptions that seem reasonable but have no evidence at all that things will remain the same, in fact we have evidence to the opposite.
I, for one, would rather take the cautious route and wait for more concrete, proven, and accurate information. The economy isn't a laser light beam that you can turn on and off at will. Turning it off (which is what would be required to reduce emissions to the point that most of the more environmentally-evagelistic scientists wish) will result in drastic changes not only to things like lifestyle, but also drastic changes to our standards of health and hunger.
I, for one, believe there is a much better middle ground than "no more CO2 emissions". But, unfortunately, as long as the extremists are able to shout the loudest, we will continue to be unable to find the middle ground.
Again, this isn't what you're saying. What you're saying is that you would like hard evidence that what you think is wrong, and yet you fail to present evidence that your view is correct.
This really is not much more different than religion, if you think about it. Consider that to the right you would have extremist christians and catholics, people who would, at some point in time, find a way to get rid of anyone who wasn't white. And to the left you have extremist muslims that would be happy to blow up anyone that isn't arabic. In the middle you have people who are whatever religion their parents were and that go to church once a month out of a sense of duty, and some agnostics that don't care so much. Your ultra-right christians would be like your Exxons of the world that just want it all at any cost. Your ultra-left muslims would be like your greenpeaces of the world that just want everyone to have nothing at any cost. Everyone else wants a life of balance but can't get it as long as the other two keep fighting each other.
No, it is completely different than religion. Religion has no basis in evidence, religion is based on faith.
Example 1: We could easily power everything we use today with nuclear power, at a cost to the economy, if implemented slowly, that would be negligible. The end result would even likely be positive. But we can't have that because ultra-left environmental groups like the Sierra Club
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, are we willing to risk total destruction of our economy and pre-industrial revolution living standards over what amounts to little more than a scientific theory?
Tee-hee! Hope you get the +5 for "Funny" for that one!
The questions for policy makers-- which includes the voting public in the effective democracies-- are:
Re: (Score:2)
God forbid we should actually change our habits or do something that may take a single cent off our net profit, until there is 100%, undeniable evidence that we are destroying the planet.
Translation: I don't understand the harm that poorly justified and thought out carbon reduction measures based on insufficient scientific data can do both to society and to my cause and rather than educating myself, I'll belittle anyone who isn't sufficiently aggressive on carbon emission reduction instead.
Sorry, but
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The above post is a troll.
Well, of course we won't dig up all the coal and burn all the oil.
Fossil fuel reserves are for economically producable oil and coal. There is roughly enough economically producable coal to take the CO2 level to very roughly 2400 ppm from the current 380 ppm. There is lots more fossil carbon that isn't economically producable, at least with current technologies. Like oil shales.
Because most of the rest of us
Re: (Score:2)
Enquiring minds would like to know. Seeing as how I require oxygen to continue living, shouldn't that be a concern as well?
Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Give Up - Commercial Interests too Powerful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hybrid owners can chime in if they have different expreience than what I have heard reported on their real world gas milage.
Re: (Score:2)
Global climate change is a fact-- human-induced global climate change is an utterly unproven pile of steaming hysteria.
Re: (Score:2)
The owners will already have made their money, and move to gated communities in Aspen, Alaska, Antarctica or wherever while the rest of us fry.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. Protecting the planet is way too long-term of a project. Better to have good numbers this quarter, no matter how bad for the company / industry / economy / planet later.
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy *imposes* a short-term view on civilisation.
Corporations can afford to take a longer term view; they don't come and go every 4-8 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies are very interested in whether climate change will result in more frequent or more severe hurricanes/wildfires/floods. If they conclude that it will, expect serious pressure from them to change policy.
Politicians won't care (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
(The risk of an US Representant or Senator to fail to be reellected is LOWER than it was for a Soviet representent to be thrown out.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to do something? How about instead of waiting for the government to solve this problem people get off their own fat asses and follow their own advice?
Without consumer support for lower emissions technology there will be no way for corporations to continue on with the R&D it takes to pursue these matters seriously. Well, no way but high subsidies. So people need to put their money where their mouth is. You want to cut emissions; just do it. You'll vote wi
Where's the O2? (Score:2, Interesting)
New Indirect Solar Power Generation Concept (Score:4, Interesting)
The idea is to build a standard low gradient heat platform that can be optimized for a geographical location's specific climate and geothermal features. The specific adaptation for arid regions utilizing absorption refrigeration [energytower.org] especially shows promise.
Just a thought.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably the best source for scientific data and reliable modelling comes from the intergovernmental panel on climate change [ipcc.ch]. The last full report was from 2001 and is fully available on line and for free. I stupidly bought the books. The amount of synthesis of data performed is HUGE and from literally thousands of scientists in the field. It is truly the definitive work in progress. Due to the nature of science and the complex chaotic mechanisms of climate the models cannot be 100% conclusive; however, the four prospective models used have hypothesized the expected changes since 2001 fairly well. The four models assumed different scenarios of human responses to climate change. The four models being a reduction in CO2 emissions, constant increases, moderate increases and large increases in CO2 emissions. The effects of these models are classified according to a likelihood scale and associated percentages. Since the publication of the report, we have had 5 years to compare and contrast the models with reality. The modelling has done quite well. I suggest anyone who is interested read the synthesis report. The rest would take you a year or so to read
Since the report, due to the political tenderness of the topic, if anything, has been underreported and cautiously forwarded. It seems that one area that was underestimated in impact was the positive feedback mechanisms invovled in lost albedo and permafrost thaw. Also, the effects due to water vapor and cloud formation are still difficult to understand and predict.
As a teacher, I agree that we MUST listen and respond to the experts in the field and not political/religious/uninformed theorists. IE> michael Creighton and his ' State of Fear'. Some of the scientists he interviewed respond to his book at realclimate.org as well as a 'book report' in science magazine. Both are telling of the political nature of the topic.
Finally, we need to consider the larger manifestitions of 'global warming' with respect to increases in ocean acidity, altered weather patterns with respect to agriculture, etc. It is the unpredicatable spinoffs of global warming/climate change that will threaten society. Lack of food, lack of clean water and the wars associated with future conflicts we need to worry about.
Take the Global Warming Test (Score:2)
When faced with minimally-informed climate theorists, I like to direct them to Take the Global Warming Test" [geocraft.com]. (Part of an excellent fossils resource.)
It gives a reasonably accurate scientific picture which non-scientists can comprehend, and most importantly it de
Not Human Nature (Score:4, Interesting)
What this means (to me) is that the destruction that humans brings (aka man-made) is also natural. It is also natural for humans to destruct to the point of no-return - i.e. humans will use up every last natural-resource until there is no longer a natural-resource to use.
Whaling and fishing are great examples. The Atlantic Ocean used to have an abundance of (sperm) whales. But the human race killed them off - that didn't stop the whalers of course. Rather than realizing the impact and looking for alternatives, they setup long complex shipping routes. Boats from Nantucket (North Eastern US) would set sail and round Argentina (South America) and then exploit the waters of Hawaii and Singapore in the Pacific. Eventually killing off the whales there as well.
The reason for hunting whales? Primarily whale blubber -which was boiled down to oil - which was used as a power source. Eventually the stock of sperm whales dried up in the pacific as well - forcing humans to come up with an alternative - which they did (petrol) - thereby officially killing the whaling industry. (Sure Japan is still at it - but mostly for the meat which focus on other types of whales).
The point is that humans will not restrain themselves or conserve (with some notable exceptions of course) their natural resources. And this is a natural part of human nature - which is part of nature.
So yeah - we are doomed to repeat the process (there are countless examples) and the end result is that we will wipe ourselves out. But that is part of nature - to thrive until starvation. Every population does it. Name one animal that does not gorge themselves - even if it means death to the species.....
-CF
How many obese wild animals do you see? (Score:2, Insightful)
If pathetic short sighted people like you become the only voice out there the human race is indeed #ucked. If however, more rational voices and policies can be established, there is hope yet. We have about 100 years to save this planet, I don't see how that is impossible.
Ofcourse, you'll probably be dead by then anyway. Lung cancer from too much smob mb?...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What you do see is animals gorging themselves in summer and sleeping it off in winter (we have some damn-fat squirrels in this area). Or you see animals gorging themselves and converting that energy into extremely powerful muscle.
Humans not only gorge themselves, but they also sit and watch TV.
Any a
Whale oil (Score:2)
Stop the "Only in US-oil industry lies", here's EU (Score:2, Interesting)
These guys aren't saying that CO2 might not be one of the causes but that it might not be the biggest cause.
source: http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,931599&_ dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL [denmark.dk]
"Results from
Nuclear power is NOT the answer. (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, global warming is happening. Certainly the current fossil-based goin-on-all-guns economy isn't helping matters. Nuclear energy appears to be an appealing emmissions-free alternative. But, is it really?
1- Claims of greenhouse reductions made by nuclear power generation supporters focus primarily on only one aspect of the entire process, namely the power generation cycle, which gives off nearly no greenhouse emissions, while downplaying or ignoring greenhouse gas emissions throughout the remainder o
We are living in an extremely cold period... (Score:2, Interesting)
Both the temperature and CO2-levels are at an all time low value.
And the correlation between temperature and CO2 is very weak at best.
If You look at the diagram http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/ image277.gif [geocraft.com] over the last 500+ million yers of CO2-levels and temperature You will maybe get the impression that the humanitys CO2-production is not the main climate factor.
Global warming is real (Score:3, Insightful)
Global warming is indeed due to greenhouse gas emissions, and not some natural cycle.
If we keep a business-as-usual approach to emissions, climate change will be dramatic and catastrophic for many.
This is what virtually all climate scientists believe (and by "believe" I mean "have concluded from painstaking scientific research involving paleoclimatology, basic therodynamics, oceanography" etc...). Not "believe" as in "I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
I can't tell you how much it frustrates me as a scientists that more people can't see the obvious. I believe (heh) it is due to an overwhelming lack of people exercising critical, scientific thought.
The truth is, unless you at least have a basic understanding of atmospheric radiation theory, you really have no place arguing about the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Let me put it this way: It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that increasing greenhouse gas emissions would *not* lead to a shift in the earth's radiative equilibrium temperature (related to global average temperature). If there were too many negatives in that sentence, I'll put it this way: Global warming is no surprise, it is physics in action.
Pick up any intro meteorology college texbtook - there are several - and read the chapter on radiation and climate change. And climate feedback mechanisms. And the thermohaline circulation. And then argue against global warming being forced by greenhouse gas emissions. I'd love to hear a decent argument which wasn't politically motivated or based upon selective omission of the research on this topic.
I have grown weary of trying to get people to do a small amount of basic science research so that they may use their own goddammed heads and draw a scientifically based conclusion about climate change rather than re-spew crap they heard from some douchebag whose politics aligns with their own. This includes you too Lefties/greenies: Do some homework. If you are right for the wrong resons, you're not helping things. Educate yourself scientifically. Everyone.
Think, people, think. It seems that precious few people (well here in America) do much of this any more.
And yes, I have a PhD in meteorology.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Those who fail to study the past... (Score:2, Interesting)
Make things up in the present! Here is our best understanding [park.org] of causes of the past mass extinctions:
There has never been an extinct
By end of next century? (Score:2)
The whole "global warming" myth... (Score:4, Interesting)
...is just a con to get the federal government to adopt fuel efficiency standards. That will force people to drive smaller cars, which will force them to have smaller families. It's just a conspiracy to impose involuntary birth control by a bunch of latte-swilling liberals who hate children!
Sounds like I'm flamebaiting, right? But that's pretty much the party line with the Eagle Forum crowd.
Hydrogen Sulfide (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose in that scenario, Mankinds final words should be
"He who smell't it dealt it!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
so the 'core' of the planet died several thousand of years ago
lol, I love how people have such an aweful representation of geological scales. Like this old lady who said that where she lived ocean was there a few hundred of years ago when it was really in the Jurassic (about 180 million years ago according to my geological map of France). The core of the planet died most likely (i didn't check) a few hundred million years ago, or even a few billion years ago.
so there is no hope of having a planet with an
Re: (Score:2)
which geologic time scale are you using here?
ha. ha. loser, that was weak. We're not even talking about a geological phenomena. Scenarios of terraforming are usually all about hundreds of thousands of years.
Re: (Score:2)
We'd have to screw up pretty badly before it is easier to terraform Mars into a habitable planet than to restore Earth.
Re:i wouldn't worry, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You'll be dead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You think you have to actually pick a side, and sign up to a complete party line? Do that and you don't think at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Come election day, and you have very little choice but to do so. In the US, any issue which isn't split clearly down the Democrat/Republican line and people fall down on both sides is completely lost. I'm not saying that you'll find a party program that'll completely match your preferences here either, but with 7 parties in parliament you're pretty sure to find something that'll be at least a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is one viable option to reduce oil dependancy : nuclear power.
Nuclear power (especially on its own) isn't going to do much to reduce oil dependency. It's not like much electricity comes from burning oil or derivatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, to appeal to the mass market it's got to be cheape enough once you've factored in the extra cost of buying an electric vehicle - but as demand increases the existing problems with making electric and hybrid electric vehicles which can perform to a similar standard as petrol powered ones will s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> It's not like much electricity comes from burning oil or derivatives.
First, we in the U.S. burn large amounts of fossil fuels (coal, oil derivatives etc) for electricity--precisely because unlike Europe we haven't built new nuclear power plants in decades.
Second, the ubiquity of cheap nuclear-generated electricity would easily have a ripple effect on other areas of infrastructure, phasing in electric capacitance
Re:One wonders (Score:4, Informative)
It's not like much electricity comes from burning oil or derivatives
Riiight [nationmaster.com], except that 80.2% of China's production of electricity and 71.4% of the USA's production of electricity is coming from fossil fuels, and that for the whole world 65.1% of electricity is produced from fossil fuels.
You're right, it's not that much, it's only two thirds.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, it's not that much, it's only two thirds.
Fossil fuels != oil.
Most fossil-fuel related *electricity production*, by my understanding, comes from coal (and gas ?), not oil (or derivatives like petrol).
(Heating with oil was something I hadn't considered, however, largely because it's not very common here in Australia (neither is really cold weather, for that matter).)
Re:One wonders (Score:5, Insightful)
You are trolling. First you label everyone believing that human induced global climate change is really happening as "the environmentalists" in an attempt to discredit that opinion, ascribing it to a relatively small number of extremists. Then you put a bunch other opinions in the mouths of these people to make them sound irrational and stupid.
All this when in reality the vast majority of researchers and people (at least outside the US) find that there are strong reasons to think that we are causing global warming, and that the consequences likely are devastating for a large portion of the Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Do yo ulive in a country where being an environmentalist is a bad thing? god help you, I hope it's a small country.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite, actually. However, it seemed the OP was hoping the term would bring negative connotations. At least with his definition of environmentalism. In your case he clearly failed.
Re: (Score:2)
If human activity is to blame for the current bout of global warming, then one would logically expect the current bout of global warming to have begun sometime during, oh, let's say the past couple of hundred years. Certainly no more than a few thousand.
But that's NOT what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that the current cycle of global warming began about 30,000 years ago. Other evidences include the land bridges bet
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But that's NOT what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that the current cycle of global warming began about 30,000 years ago. Other evidences include the land bridges between Ireland and Britain, Alaska and Siberia disappearing as the oceans began to ris
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If butterflies were natural you would expect them to look like other flies. Flies have dark bodies and translucent wings. Butterflies have light bodies and colorful wings.
Now, I can accept the idea that evolution has produced a variety of fly that looks different from the other members of its family. (Look at zebras and horses.) But butter does not occur in nature! Butter is only a manmade product! How can we accept that butterflies are natural when butter is not natural! Scientists and evironmentalists ar
Re: (Score:2)
That's pure fiction. There have been many studies posted to slashdot alone on this subject, let alone reputable scientific news sources, and every one of them comes up the same: most scientists think the planet is getting hotter, it's probably related to
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying short-term consequences can't be devastating? Humans and nature are good at adapting to the environment if it changes, but adaption takes time. I'm sure the western world will cope; some of us might even be better off. But even slightly altered rain patterns in poor countries that already have a dry climate could be very problematic, resulting in drought and famine. And rising s
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, for crying out loud, don't use Patrick Moore to support any of your arguments. He's made a lucrative career out of making perfectly reasonable middle-ground arguments into sheep's clothing as a corporate shill. His credibility went down the toilet when he started several PR front organizations for the transnational foresty industry in his home province.
He's like a shrill ex-smoker: rabid, anti-whatever-he-was, and self-serving under the guise of magnanimity and mod
Re:One wonders (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, "environmentalists" are not a single block of people but there are many different opinions. Second, the mobile phone hysteria was bred by esoterics, not environmentalists and even though there might be some overlap, those are different groups. Third, this hysteria is pretty much over already, so you are not knocking down a strawman - it's already knocked down. 4: Even if "environmentalists" said that, being wrong on one thing doesn't make you wrong on everything.
There is not sufficient evidence to really change our policy (this btw, is unfortunately very true)
Actually there is sufficient evidence and a large part of the world DID already change it's policy. Germany is leading in wind power and Sweden wants to be independent of oil within some years. Many other countries do similar things to attack the problem.
Also, do you remember the problem with the ozone-layer? A world-wide effort by most countries (that time including the USA) dealt with the problem and it worked amazingly well. Today the ozone-layer is almost back to normal.
Therefore CO2 does not cause problems (this conclusion may be true, but the honest answer is : we don't know)
There is already a mountain of evidence that it does cause problems, but even if you ignore all that, messing around with something you are dependent on and you don't fully understand is pretty stupid, don't you agree? I think we should use a very conservative approach to environmental issues BECAUSE we don't fully understand it. To say it's "not a problem" because we don't understand it doesn't make the slightest sense at all.
Imho the environmentalist option to be against both oil and nuclear power is not going anywhere, it's just not helpful. You can call all you want for the moon to come down, but regardless it's just not going to happen. Also, you cannot turn of all energy in the country for 5 years until an alternative is developed. It needs to be here now, working and functional, and proven. Obviously you cannot turn over the country to something like wind power.
Things that can be done easily, without new technology and with modest investment:
BTW, wind power is already covering 4,3% of Germany's electricity (per 2005) and will cover 10% or more by 2020. The USA with a much lower population density could cover a much higher percentage than that.
Having said all that, I'm not really worried about global warming because the very same people who want to "safe the economy" by wasting oil will run the economy right into the ground as soon as Saudi-Arabia hits peak oil. (probably before 2010, but even if they can hold out longer it's merely a question of when, not if)
Oversimplification (Score:5, Informative)
It's not because they are evil or apathetic. They are simply not rich, are commonly sleep-deprived (read: have children), and flat out do not have time to deal with it (read: have children).
As far as your "use stone instead of wood houses," that is a red herring. Yes, when starting from scratch, a stone house would be better; however, US homes are overwhelmingly built upon wood construction. Those homes don't just magically go away just because we decide stone homes are better. Even if all new construction were to be stone homes -- a long shot considering that most construction workers are familiar with wood construction, not stone -- it would be a minuscule proportion of the total number of homes.
In addition, what would you propose for earthquake-prone regions? Stone? I think not. A very good reason to build wood homes is that the wood home will sway in an earthquake instead of crumble. In 1989, a major quake hit my area. Many homes survived, but the chimneys were by and large ruined. You simply can't buy a home around here that doesn't have a cracked or repaired chimney.
The suggestion about smaller, more fuel-efficient cars is actually the most reasonable suggestion you've made. Far more so than the suggestion about wind power. Why? Check out wind density in the US [wikipedia.org]. Wind power completely excludes the south and most of the southwest. Just have one state sell to another? One word: Enron. Not gonna happen.
Also, let's look at your numbers. Possibly up to 10% by 2020 in Germany? In the US, we consume upwards of 4.8 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (with a 't'). The larger windmills generate up to 5 megawatts if the wind is blowing to full potential and the windmill is in perfect working order. That's potentially about 43.8 million kilowatt-hours per year. Those 5 megawatt jobs require about an acre of land apiece (they're really big!). Hmmm... Not only would it require 19,178 of those monsters to handle 10% of the US in the perfect case (hint: we live in the real world where perfect cases don't exist), but you'd have to factor in the maintenance costs associated with keeping such a decentralized power source in good repair. This requires -- you guessed it -- more energy. If you think the repair aspect is trivial, just remember the climate found in those northern states where the wind is so abundant. Hot summers and below freezing winters with hail and sleet in between.
Coal is currently the number one US electricity source: over 50% of our total electricity production. This is a problem. For reasons mentioned above, wind is not going to replace that. For reasons I haven't spelled out but you can research yourself, solar power can't displace coal either (1.367kWh/m^2 is the solar constant). The reasons are somewhat similar though: energy density and the demands of geography. So what's left?
Hydroelectric? We've already tapped that avenue. Microtidal? Over 90% of Earth's life exists within ten miles of a coastline. I'm a bit hesitant to mess with the energy transfer found in those ecosystems. Geothermal? The US is not Iceland. Biodiesel? The amount of cropland required to offset coal usage would significantly reduce the area available for food production.
What's left? Conservation? Even if we cut our usage in half -- 2.4 trillion kilowatt-hours per year, which incidentally will not happen in the US without an energy crisis afoot -- that's still a massive amount of power required.
And we haven't even factored in vehicle needs yet, which is necessary since oil won't last forever. Plug-in hybrids? Great idea. Gonna need more electricity for that.
What hasn't been discussed yet? Nuclear. Commonly
Re: (Score:2)
Actually many houses are so badly insulated, that you could get back your investment within only a few years.
But, essentially you are right: It does cost something, sometimes a lot. And in this times in which ever
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Whilst I agree that it's stupid to be against both options (radioactivity is even less understood, especially at low doses), I think you're making a harsh stereotype here.
Finally: I've said this before, but perhaps was misunderstood:
-If we don't cut our carbon emissions (because we think we don't need to) and then turn out to be wrong, we may well end up like Venus.
-If we do cut them, we reduce our use of oil (which is in finite
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Energy efficiency is never mentioned, but we can save energy AND our own hard earned cash this way.I never understand why businesses dont
Re: (Score:2)
I agree due to the huge technical challenges to contain the heated plasma of deuterium and tritium gas to get fusion.
solar power : too expensive, currently massive quantities of oil are needed to create solar panels, research ongoing
Now more viable than you think. Thanks to nanotechnology breakthroughs we could see production cost of solar panels drop dramatically in the next 5-7 years.
wind : unreliable, will place extreme demands on distribution net, and e
Re: (Score:2)
You should stop being a bad human being and stop perverting facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)