08 Jun 11
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110607121525.htm
Around 55 million years ago, there was a massive increase in greenhouse gasses that caused an average 5 degree C rise in global temperature. That led to an extremely hot period that lasted 170 THOUSAND years.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
10 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou may notice I did not specify the cause of today's climate change. It is happening whether we like it or not, human caused or not. We may have a chance to counter those changes if we get off our collective butts and do the science and the politically unsavory things to keep from offing ourselves or being offed by planetary forces of climate.
Were there humans 55 million years ago? 😉
29 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseOur collective butts apparently have close to 170 million years or so to consider this pressing problem. So, what say we first do some mundane things like balancing the budget, fix the Middle east problems, get the debt under control, make sure Medicare takes care of everyone it's supposed to, repair the bridges, levees, planes, roads, and everything else that's fallin' apart. THEN let's start a mission to Mars and figure out a way to keep the ozone layer in tact, the polar ice caps from melting, and whatever else is necessary to stop that menace known as global warming.😀 I could get on board with that.
You may notice I did not specify the cause of today's climate change. It is happening whether we like it or not, human caused or not. We may have a chance to counter those changes if we get off our collective butts and do the science and the politically unsavory things to keep from offing ourselves or being offed by planetary forces of climate.
29 Jun 11
Originally posted by PinkFloydIf your mind cant handle too many things at once, why not just leave out the Middle East, Medicare and the budget and just deal with those bridges.
Our collective butts apparently have close to 170 million years or so to consider this pressing problem. So, what say we first do some mundane things like balancing the budget, fix the Middle east problems, get the debt under control, make sure Medicare takes care of everyone it's supposed to, repair the bridges, levees, planes, roads, and everything else ...[text shortened]... is necessary to stop that menace known as global warming.😀 I could get on board with that.
Or do you just work for an oil company and have tinted spectacles? Or has big oil convinced you that you will have to pay to deal with global warming?
I for one would rather deal with everything including Global Warming (though not being American most of my other concerns don't overlap with yours.)
01 Jul 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadQuite true. I often have to remind myself that the United States is NOT the only country in the world and our problems are not the same as say, Greece's or Brazil's. It's a common problem, but at least I'm trying to think more globally.
If your mind cant handle too many things at once, why not just leave out the Middle East, Medicare and the budget and just deal with those bridges.
Or do you just work for an oil company and have tinted spectacles? Or has big oil convinced you that you will have to pay to deal with global warming?
I for one would rather deal with everything including Global Warming (though not being American most of my other concerns don't overlap with yours.)
Nevertheless, there are plenty of Global Issues we should be handling before tackling Global Warming. Multitasking is great and wonderful, but when one has a list of problems to solve, one logically places them in order of importance, and handles the most crucial ones first. And $$$ (unemployment, defaults, etc.) trumps all other problems for the moment.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Jul 11
Originally posted by PinkFloydI am afraid that isn't true, Global warming...
Quite true. I often have to remind myself that the United States is NOT the only country in the world and our problems are not the same as say, Greece's or Brazil's. It's a common problem, but at least I'm trying to think more globally.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of Global Issues we should be handling before tackling Global Warming. Multitask ...[text shortened]... nes first. And $$$ (unemployment, defaults, etc.) trumps all other problems for the moment.
or more properly Global Anthropogenic Climate Change...
is a very important and pressing issue...
However solving the issues of climate change are not incompatible with solving the other problems you mentioned, In fact many good measures to help solve climate change help with the other issues you mentioned...
If done properly.
However if Climate change is not dealt with, the economic consequences will make the last crash look like a tiny blip...
Plus how much more global can you get than world climate change?
If you have limited ability to do many things at once (and I will grant you that your [USA] government currently has trouble doing anything other than deregulate big oil) then it is best to make changes that help many problems at once, thus maximising the benefit of a limited number of changes.
01 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydI disagree. Such short term thinking is a major short coming of modern democracy. If it wont make us look bad before the next election then don't bother about it.
Multitasking is great and wonderful, but when one has a list of problems to solve, one logically places them in order of importance, and handles the most crucial ones first.
I see no reason why we cant deal with global warming now just because you are worried about unemployment.
Besides, you are basically saying we should never do anything long term because there will always be short term problems. Am I correct in thinking that you do not have a retirement plan?
Global warming has been known about for decades and some countries started doing something about it a long time ago.
Now be honest with us. What have you really got against doing something about global warming? Is it that you benefit from big oil, or that you think there is a cost to you personally?
02 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have nothing against "doinfgsomething about Global Warming". I simply don't think it's at the critical priority stage that noted environmental scientists Bill Maher and Janeane Garafalo espouse. On the other end of the spectrum, certain things like "recycling"--I just simply will not sort my trash. I dutifully keep the annoying dogs in the neighborhood away to keep my block "environmentally pleasant", and then I put the Hefty's in the trunk and tote 'em to the landfill. But I draw the line at separating them into 8 different stacks, particularly since I KNOW (having taken statistics) how much good it does for me to do so.
I disagree. Such short term thinking is a major short coming of modern democracy. If it wont make us look bad before the next election then don't bother about it.
I see no reason why we cant deal with global warming now just because you are worried about unemployment.
Besides, you are basically saying we should never do anything long term because ther ...[text shortened]... ming? Is it that you benefit from big oil, or that you think there is a cost to you personally?
I have a retirement plan--I'm livin' that "dream" even now. And "big oil" has nothing to do with it--no stock, no IRA/401k. I don't have a dog in the big oil fight. Except this: I don't think I should keep my thermostat set at a blazing 78 in the summer and a less that toasty 68 in the winter, which our old number 39, Jimmy Carter, suggested as a way of conserving energy. Otherwise, No there's no cost to me personally.
02 Jul 11
Originally posted by PinkFloydThen I simply don't understand your argument. I can understand someone saying we should put more effort and money into priorities, buy you seem to be saying we are too busy with certain priorities to put anything into dealing with global warming.
I have nothing against "doinfgsomething about Global Warming". I simply don't think it's at the critical priority stage that noted environmental scientists Bill Maher and Janeane Garafalo espouse.
I don't know either Bill Maher or Janeane Garafalo so you may be reacting to something I don't know about but I simply cant see why anyone would say we shouldn't do anything about global warming unless they see the cost of doing so as being too high. In reality I believe the cost of not doing anything is greater than the cost of doing something.
Some of the things we can do would save us money immediately - energy is expensive.
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think that's the crux of the debate: whether it's too expensive to implement green energy plans or whether it's simply too important not to. I add one other component to the mix, in that I am unwilling to be inconvenienced by ANY plan. For example, if there will be restrictions on A/C in homes and automobiles where my living environment will be forced outside my comfort zone (65 in summer, 75 in winter), then I pass. If electric cars become requirements, I'm opposed to being told I have to drive around in these inefficient boxes. Wind and solar panels may be all fine and good, but they don't pump out the refreshing coolness of Freon nor give the warmth of my electric or gas heaters.
Then I simply don't understand your argument. I can understand someone saying we should put more effort and money into priorities, buy you seem to be saying we are too busy with certain priorities to put anything into dealing with global warming.
I don't know either Bill Maher or Janeane Garafalo so you may be reacting to something I don't know about bu ...[text shortened]... ething.
Some of the things we can do would save us money immediately - energy is expensive.
The argument that these types of energy will get better in the future is okay, but I'm not willing to suffer during the wait. So, I'll keep the A/C at MAX HI, but when some scientist invents a better system that's better for the environment AND doesn't cost a fortune, I'll be on board all the way.😀
04 Jul 11
Originally posted by PinkFloydI add one other component to the mix, in that I am unwilling to be inconvenienced by ANY plan.
I think that's the crux of the debate: whether it's too expensive to implement green energy plans or whether it's simply too important not to. I add one other component to the mix, in that I am unwilling to be inconvenienced by ANY plan. For example, if there will be restrictions on A/C in homes and automobiles where my living environment will be forced ...[text shortened]... better for the environment AND doesn't cost a fortune, I'll be on board all the way.😀
So in short, your selfish?!
04 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydThat is what we call short term thinking. Like they said, if the climate goes to hell, so does the world. We have already seen incredibly bad weather, tornado's a half mile across, hundreds of thousands of acres in the west burnt, more hurricanes than we have seen in a long time. What does it take to get people off their butts and think about actually doing something.
I have nothing against "doinfgsomething about Global Warming". I simply don't think it's at the critical priority stage that noted environmental scientists Bill Maher and Janeane Garafalo espouse. On the other end of the spectrum, certain things like "recycling"--I just simply will not sort my trash. I dutifully keep the annoying dogs in the neighborhoo a way of conserving energy. Otherwise, No there's no cost to me personally.
Take a look at this:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-ocean-layers-undermine-polar-ice.html
Do you think it inconsequential if the polar ice caps melt? Just think what would happen if oceans rise even 20 feet. It has happened before, completely changing coastlines around the world, times when the ocean level was a couple of HUNDRED feet higher. You think Miami, New York City, DC, Los Angeles, New Orleans could survive that? You think that would not effect you personally? Think again.
That is just ONE effect from glogal warming. Maybe it takes a hundred years but that is not very far away in time, remember, we are already 11 percent of the way through the 21st century, century 22 will come on in a rush and I don't think people will like what they see if it is just business as usual, bury your head in the sand and think, 'It can't happen here'.