PDA

View Full Version : What If....



dirty old man
10-15-2007, 08:44 AM
Al Gore is on to something? He may not be 100%, but we definately are in trouble here

pw_Tony
10-15-2007, 09:05 AM
If he didn't have his head up his ass then maybe I would worry a little

Sleek-Jet
10-15-2007, 09:06 AM
Then there should be a lot more boats for sale in the Spam section... :D
Here's my problem with all of this talk...
The Earth's climate has changed many times in the past, drastically and quickly at times. Man wasn't around back then, or at least not in the numbers we are know... yet the climate changed. How can someone like Al Gore, who is nothing more than a career politician, be in a posistion to tell us that we, as a human race, can have that large of an impact on the environment. :idea: Because he made a flashy, slick movie??
It's about guilt... Al Gore and his bunch feel guilty about the American way of life. They know that they can't just come out and tell us to stop living the way we do without a good reason. Scarring the bejebus out of everyone with the environment works pretty well.
And since most people aren't motivated enough to do their own research, and try to decide for themselves what's going on, they believe what ever hollywood and the media tells them.
If Al Gore was really serious... he'd stop flying around the world at the drop of a hat, sell his house, and live a much simplier life style. That would speak volumes. But he doesn't... why?? In todays multi-media world, he could get his message out just as easily and effectively on through other means rather than personal appearances, but he doesn't...
Al Gore wants you to stop living your life... he doesn't want to stop living his.
And here is my view... if the damage to the enviroment is such that the changes are outpacing anyone's theories/guesses, how are we going to stop it?? By switching to flourecent light bulbs?? :rolleyes: You want to make a dent in green house gasses, stop burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. Simple as that. But no one wants a Nuke plant in their back yard and the lights go out when the sun goes down with Solar.

Racey
10-15-2007, 09:20 AM
I don't know if it's right or wrong, warming or not but here's the way i look at it:
a) I can't change the world overnight or even in a lifetime :idea:
b) I'm not going to stop boating, duning, riding dirtbikes, or driving my truck :D
c) I'm not going to switch to some kind of pig outboard to lower emissions, BBC all the way, power to burn :D
d) I'll be dead before the world sees any real change :eek:
e) I'm gonna use every drop of gasoline i can before someone else does :devil:
f) I'm not gonna live my life worrying about something i have no control over!

dirty old man
10-15-2007, 09:34 AM
One of the news stations reported now we're in a 500 year drought. What are the looking at, tree rings? I don't think our native Indians were keeping records back then, unless its carved into caves at Lake Powell

cdog
10-15-2007, 09:38 AM
Build a new nuke power plant to power a big desalination plant to refill all the reservoirs and reduce the rising coastal waters. Turn AZ into a tropical paradise.
Easy Fix!
ItÂ’s too early to tell. Some people need someone to blame for everything. Darwin had it correct with only the strong survive.

pw_Tony
10-15-2007, 09:47 AM
One of the news stations reported now we're in a 500 year drought. What are the looking at, tree rings? I don't think our native Indians were keeping records back then, unless its carved into caves at Lake Powell
500 Years to a planet is nothing, it's a blip. Maybe a droubt over 10,000 years might be a LITTLE something, but 500 years is nothing. Scientist can tell what our planet's temperature was thousands of years ago, due to reading long ice tubes pulled up from the artic. Facts don't lie, but indians maybe

Sleek-Jet
10-15-2007, 10:02 AM
One of the news stations reported now we're in a 500 year drought. What are the looking at, tree rings? I don't think our native Indians were keeping records back then, unless its carved into caves at Lake Powell
One hypothysis of what happened to the people inhabiting the Southwest part of Colorado and Southeastern Utah (cliff dwellers) is that a prolonged drought (yes it's happened before, who'd a thunk it), pushed them south into what is now New Mexico on Northwestern Arizona.
The supporting evidence is tree rings... seriously.
This all happened about the time of Columbus, so about 500 years ago.

spectratoad
10-15-2007, 11:44 AM
We humans have got to be the most self blaming species around.If it is happening and we can't control it there must be something we are doing that we need to fix.
This is all just a cycle in the earth and we can't fix or change it. I look at is a whatever we are putting back into the atmosphere for the most part came out of the atmosphere or the soil so how could that be bad. I know chemicals comps are different but it is a organic based.
I am all for doing whatever we can to take better care of our little blue marble and make it better and more healthy. Even our existance as humans is a mere blip on the earth's time scale. We have no say so in how this all shakes out so we can only better ourselves and the way we take care of our environment.

AirtimeLavey
10-15-2007, 12:00 PM
Mostly, it shows how gullible we humans are. We will believe almost any story whether truely based in fact or just speculation and rumor, whatever suits our needs and requires the least amount of effort and that puts responsibility on someone or something else. Most don't want to put the effort into really looking at things from other perspectives.
I haven't really looked into the G.W. thing enough to state an opinion, but I have seen and read that some of the "climate change" they're talking about is about 1 degree of warming in the artic, over the next 100 years. I'm not too worried, but I will be looking at it more in depth as time goes on. It is something worth understanding.
Otherwise, like RE, it's cyclical. It will go down (get colder) and it will come back up (get hotter). The rest is drama... The hypocracy is hard to accept with Gore as it is with many evangelists....flying around in their private jets, living in their immense estates. I'd give them more credibility if they practiced what they preach.

LaveyJet
10-15-2007, 12:09 PM
Then there should be a lot more boats for sale in the Spam section... :D
Here's my problem with all of this talk...
The Earth's climate has changed many times in the past, drastically and quickly at times. Man wasn't around back then, or at least not in the numbers we are know... yet the climate changed. How can someone like Al Gore, who is nothing more than a career politician, be in a posistion to tell us that we, as a human race, can have that large of an impact on the environment. :idea: Because he made a flashy, slick movie??
It's about guilt... Al Gore and his bunch feel guilty about the American way of life. They know that they can't just come out and tell us to stop living the way we do without a good reason. Scarring the bejebus out of everyone with the environment works pretty well.
And since most people aren't motivated enough to do their own research, and try to decide for themselves what's going on, they believe what ever hollywood and the media tells them.
If Al Gore was really serious... he'd stop flying around the world at the drop of a hat, sell his house, and live a much simplier life style. That would speak volumes. But he doesn't... why?? In todays multi-media world, he could get his message out just as easily and effectively on through other means rather than personal appearances, but he doesn't...
Al Gore wants you to stop living your life... he doesn't want to stop living his.
And here is my view... if the damage to the enviroment is such that the changes are outpacing anyone's theories/guesses, how are we going to stop it?? By switching to flourecent light bulbs?? :rolleyes: You want to make a dent in green house gasses, stop burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. Simple as that. But no one wants a Nuke plant in their back yard and the lights go out when the sun goes down with Solar.
I'm in complete agreement. The Earths climate does change, we don't see ice sheets over Wisconsin any more.;)
As for Nuke power, good idea. Let's reduce the risk to us and put them on the Mexican border. :D

R.A.D.man
10-15-2007, 12:16 PM
The earth has been here a long time and us just a tiny bit. It's had many many climate cycles not to mention global catastrophies and will continue to do so. Even if we somehow kill all humans, the earth will continue on until the monkeys talk again.
Toilet paper time scale (http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/toiletpaper/history.html)

SB
10-15-2007, 12:18 PM
A Peace Prize? For what war? Even leftists are wondering why he won for making a movie of himself giving a speech.
Even most of the hysterics admit that Gore grossly overestimated the sea level increase in that movie.
I don't happen to believe in global warming (or the way it is treated as a religious dogma) but I would like to form a coalition with those who do to start an energy policy.
--------
i don't agree w/ everything here, but if you're interested in this important issue, this is a really good article ---
Chill out.
Stop fighting over global warming -- here's the smart way to attack it.
By Bjorn Lomborg Sunday, October 7, 2007; B01
All eyes are on Greenland's melting glaciers as alarm about global warming spreads. This year, delegations of U.S. and European politicians have made pilgrimages to the fastest-moving glacier at Ilulissat, where they declare that they see climate change unfolding before their eyes.
Curiously, something that's rarely mentioned is that temperatures in Greenland were higher in 1941 than they are today. Or that melt rates around Ilulissat were faster in the early part of the past century, according to a new study. And while the delegations first fly into Kangerlussuaq, about 100 miles to the south, they all change planes to go straight to Ilulissat -- perhaps because the Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing.
I point this out not to challenge the reality of global warming or the fact that it's caused in large part by humans, but because the discussion about climate change has turned into a nasty dustup, with one side arguing that we're headed for catastrophe and the other maintaining that it's all a hoax. I say that neither is right. It's wrong to deny the obvious: The Earth is warming, and we're causing it. But that's not the whole story, and predictions of impending disaster just don't stack up.
We have to rediscover the middle ground, where we can have a sensible conversation. We shouldn't ignore climate change or the policies that could attack it. But we should be honest about the shortcomings and costs of those policies, as well as the benefits.
Environmental groups say that the only way to deal with the effects of global warming is to make drastic cuts in carbon emissions -- a project that will cost the world trillions (the Kyoto Protocol alone would cost $180 billion annually). The research I've done over the last decade, beginning with my first book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," has convinced me that this approach is unsound; it means spending an awful lot to achieve very little. Instead, we should be thinking creatively and pragmatically about how we could combat the much larger challenges facing our planet.
Nobody knows for certain how climate change will play out. But we should deal with the most widely accepted estimates. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ocean levels will rise between half a foot and two feet, with the best expectation being about one foot, in this century, mainly because of water expanding as it warms. That's similar to what the world experienced in the past 150 years.
Some individuals and environmental organizations scoff that the IPCC has severely underestimated the melting of glaciers, especially in Greenland. In fact, the IPCC has factored in the likely melt-off from Greenland (contributing a bit over an inch to sea levels in this century) and Antarctica (which, because global warming also generally produces more precipitation, will actually accumulate ice rather than shedding it, making sea levels two inches lower by 2100). At the moment, people are alarmed by a dramatic increase in Greenland's melting. This high level seems transitory, but if sustained it would add three inches, instead of one, to the sea level rise by the end of the century.
A one-foot rise in sea level isn't a catastrophe, though it will pose a problem, particularly for small island nations. But let's remember that very little land was lost when sea levels rose last century. It costs relatively little to protect the land from rising tides: We can drain wetlands, build levees and divert waterways. As nations become richer and land becomes a scarcer commodity, this process makes ever more sense: Like our parents and grandparents, our generation will ensure that the water doesn't claim valuable land.
The IPCC tells us two things: If we focus on economic development and ignore global warming, we're likely to see a 13-inch rise in sea levels by 2100. If we focus instead on environmental concerns and, for instance, adopt the hefty cuts in carbon emissions many environmental groups promote, this could reduce the rise by about five inches. But cutting emissions comes at a cost: Everybody would be poorer in 2100. With less money around to protect land from the sea, cutting carbon emissions would mean that more dry land would be lost, especially in vulnerable regions such as Micronesia, Tuvalu, Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Maldives.
As sea levels rise, so will temperatures. It seems logical to expect more heat waves and therefore more deaths. But though this fact gets much less billing, rising temperatures will also reduce the number of cold spells. This is important because research shows that the cold is a much bigger killer than the heat. According to the first complete peer-reviewed survey of climate change's health effects, global warming will actually save lives. It's estimated that by 2050, global warming will cause almost 400,000 more heat-related deaths each year. But at the same time, 1.8 million fewer people will die from cold.
The Kyoto Protocol, with its drastic emissions cuts, is not a sensible way to stop people from dying in future heat waves. At a much lower cost, urban designers and politicians could lower temperatures more effectively by planting trees, adding water features and reducing the amount of asphalt in at-risk cities. Estimates show that this could reduce the peak temperatures in cities by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit.
Global warming will claim lives in another way: by increasing the number of people at risk of catching malaria by about 3 percent over this century. According to scientific models, implementing the Kyoto Protocol for the rest of this century would reduce the malaria risk by just 0.2 percent.
On the other hand, we could spend $3 billion annually -- 2 percent of the protocol's cost -- on mosquito nets and medication and cut malaria incidence almost in half within a decade. Malaria death rates are rising in sub-Saharan Africa, but this has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with poverty: Poor and corrupt governments find it hard to implement and fund the spraying and the provision of mosquito nets that would help eradicate the disease. Yet for every dollar we spend saving one person through policies like the Kyoto Protocol, we could save 36,000 through direct intervention.
Of course, it's not just humans we care about. Environmentalists point out that magnificent creatures such as polar bears will be decimated by global warming as their icy habitat melts. Kyoto would save just one bear a year. Yet every year, hunters kill 300 to 500 polar bears, according to the World Conservation Union. Outlawing this slaughter would be cheap and easy -- and much more effective than a worldwide pact on carbon emissions.
Wherever you look, the inescapable conclusion is the same: Reducing carbon emissions is not the best way to help the world. I don't point this out merely to be contrarian. We do need to fix global warming in the long run. But I'm frustrated at our blinkered focus on policies that won't achieve it.
In 1992, wealthy nations promised to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Instead, emissions grew by 12 percent. In 1997, they promised to cut emissions to about 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. Yet levels will likely be 25 percent higher than hoped for.
The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012. U.N. members will be negotiating its replacement in Copenhagen by the end of 2009. Politicians insist that the "next Kyoto" should be even tougher. But after two spectacular failures, we have to ask whether "let's try again, and this time let's aim for much higher reductions" is the right approach.
Even if the policymakers' earlier promises had been met, they would have done virtually no good, but would have cost us a small fortune. The climate models show that Kyoto would have postponed the effects of global warming by seven days by the end of the century. Even if the United States and Australia had signed on and everyone stuck to Kyoto for this entire century, we would postpone the effects of global warming by only five years.
Proponents of pacts such as Kyoto want us to spend enormous sums of money doing very little good for the planet a hundred years from now. We need to find a smarter way. The first step is to start focusing our resources on making carbon emissions cuts much easier.
The typical cost of cutting a ton of CO2is currently about $20. Yet, according to a wealth of scientific literature, the damage from a ton of carbon in the atmosphere is about $2. Spending $20 to do $2 worth of good is not smart policy. It may make you feel good, but it's not going to stop global warming.
We need to reduce the cost of cutting emissions from $20 a ton to, say, $2. That would mean that really helping the environment wouldn't just be the preserve of the rich but could be opened up to everyone else -- including China and India, which are expected to be the main emitters of the 21st century but have many more pressing issues to deal with first.
The way to achieve this is to dramatically increase spending on research and development of low-carbon energy. Ideally, every nation should commit to spending 0.05 percent of its gross domestic product exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies, be they wind, wave or solar power, or capturing CO2emissions from power plants. This spending could add up to about $25 billion per year but would still be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto Protocol and would increase global R&D tenfold. All nations would be involved, yet the richer ones would pay the larger share.
We must accept that climate change is real and that we've helped cause it. There is no hoax. But neither is there a looming apocalypse.
To some people, cutting carbon emissions has become the answer, regardless of the question. Cutting emissions is said to be our "generational mission." But don't we want to implement the most efficient policies first?
Combating the real climate challenges facing the planet -- malaria, more heat deaths, declining polar bear populations -- often requires simpler, less glamorous policies than carbon cuts. We also need to remember that the 21st century will hold many other challenges, for which we need low-cost, durable solutions.
I formed the Copenhagen Consensus in 2004 so that some of the world's top economists could come together to ask not only where we can do good, but at what cost, and to rank the best things for the world to do first. The top priorities they've come up with are dealing with infectious diseases, malnutrition, agricultural research and first-world access to third-world agriculture. For less than a fifth of Kyoto's price tag, we could tackle all these issues.
Obviously we should also work on a long-term solution to climate change. Solving it will take the better part of a century and will require a political will spanning political parties, continents and generations. If we invest in research and development, we'll do some real good in the long run, rather than just making ourselves feel good today.
But embracing the best response to global warming is difficult in the midst of bitter fighting that shuts out sensible dialogue. So first, we really need to cool our debate.
Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor
at the Copenhagen Business School,
is the author, most recently, of "Cool It:
The Skeptical Environmentalist's
Guide to Global Warming."