Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“The Russian application covers an underwater space covering an area of about 1.2 million sq km at a distance of over 350 nautical miles from the coast. To justify Russia’s bid for expansion, Russian experts used extensive scientific data collected during many years of Arctic research,” said a statement from a Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday.
the majority of the problem is from the third world and they will NOT stop having too many kids,
Birth rates are declining all over the world and while still above replacement in many areas, we're going to see a slowdown in population growth soon if the trends continue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zonest
paving over the Earth,
It is natural to assume that these land use issues are tied to population growth and thus the same conclusion applies, though it is considerably weakened by the fact that as living standards go up, so does the developed land per person. This does not, of course, mean that it is inevitable - living standards don't have to rise forever and it may be a worthwhile goal for society to penalize overusage of land via taxes, fees, etc. to limit this trend in future decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zonest
destroying forests, damming rivers, etc.
Same argument applies as above. If left untouched for 100 years, a forest will grow back to its natural state. In doing so the CO2 emitted by deforestation will be once again removed from the atmosphere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zonest
So you're going to see this problem (if it IS man-caused) just gettting worse, not better.
Yes, now it is indeed getting worse, but it isn't necessarily inevitably going to continue to do so without bound.
The big problem is burning fossil fuels. If we burn all of the known reserves, the planet's temperature will go up by 6-8 degrees C, and we're toast. But hopefully massive investment in green energy followed by an eventual ban on fossil fuel use can avert this fate. In the meantime, mitigation will be necessary in some areas that will be sensitive to climate impacts.
I suspect that whether or not climate change is real has nothing to do with science and everything to do with some deep pocket folks trying to protect the fortunes they have amassed. In the end when the world is flooded and the smog is not breathable, the rich folks will be able to afford to live in protected compounds with filtered air and stored clean water.
They managed to pull the fleece over 'regular' people so they could perpetuate the status quo. People don't really want to make an effort to change their way of life so it's easy to cast a little doubt even when 99% of scientists agree.
I would think that it's likely too late. The underwater methane hydrates will start melting and dumping all the stored/frozen hydro carbons into the atmosphere (btw, there's a large amount of it near north carolina).
Things will get ugly in a hurry and even then, the doubters will be sticking to their guns while the robber barons live it up.
Disagree. However whether climate change is real is irrelevant to may daily life. I buy used efficient vehicles live frugally and dont eat much meat. I am already doing what I can for the enviroment.
I do not however support the force of law impacting my life energy costs and efficiency standards. I as a consumer already pursue efficiency, I dont need a gov mandate to make it happen.
Yeah that's kind of my opinion too. Frugal living is green living. In some cases more green than "green."
I always thought the shift to climate change was a bad move for the environmental movement. I prefer to focus on conservation. It's a lot easier to point to an animal and ask people, "Do you want his habitat to be turned into a parking lot? Do you really think that's a good thing?"
At the local level I've never been to a region where people don't love their natural space and will do a lot to protect it. Usually when you say to them to you want "A" - a strip mine or oil rigs, or "B" beautiful forest or coastline - they will choose B. For the people that choose A they get what they ask for. No one is happy when companies let chemicals runoff into drinking water, etc... [Mod Cut] With Deepwater Horizon people demanded that they pay dearly and they have - they've paid out some 50 billion more or less.
However, sometimes there needs to be a push on things like vehicle efficiency. Automakers had the capability to produce very efficient cars, they just chose not to, particularly in that 90s to mid-2000s era when gas guzzling Expeditions were all the rage. Today they're capable of getting like 200-300hp performance out of cars that get over 30mpg highway. In the 70s cars were capable of half that at best - if you got 30 mpg you had put up with 90 horses or 250hp would mean you got 10mpg at best. Car technology, while improved over the 1970s or 80s, is not fundamentally different so I find it hard to believe they did not have that capability before - they just didn't try to reach those benchmarks.
Let's say you are right. And? Oh well... we're doomed? Why are we still having kids? Human caused or not, the projections have us at a 5C rise in atmospheric temperature in less than 100 years. That's it. We cannot survive that. Extinction in 100 years and that's alright because... its God's will... I don't know... sound's awfully fatalist and peacenicky. Even the most ardent of deniers has to see that a Hummer can't be the most neccessary thing a person could own? There are thousands of the things running up and down the West Coast and the only sand those 75lb radials ever see is the stuff that blows in off the beach as they are rolling down the Coast Highway. NONE of the proposed actions to forestall human extinctions are bad policies to put in place even if there was no such thing as AGW!! It is quite likely that in as little as 50 years we will see that AGW is actually the least of our worries and there will be a massive population crash in say 50 years that will take a huge chunk of humanity offline and extend the timeline to extinction. But it wouldn't be fun living then.
This makes sense to me because I've never understood why global warming is such a huge issue; it's really out of our control because not everyone is going to be compliant. It's just impossible. Even if everyone on the entire planet made it a priority to live with the lowest carbon footprint every day, what kind of life is that?
We're all going to die anyway, as will our children -- and I don't think this is morbid; just realistic. I put this in the category of, "Will you be prepared when the world ends?" Prepared for what? If it ends, we end. Gone. I'm no physicist, but Earth's been chugging along for almost 5 billion years, so I don't worry about this, nor do I think it should be a political issue or a legal directive.
I was watching a National Geographic special a couple of years ago and that program debunked the notion of global warming being caused by humans.
They effectively showed that we are in the midst of a very normal warning cycle and also pointed out the polar ice caps thaw every 5,000 years or so and we are right on target for that.
That said, it does behoove us to live as prudently as possible with respect to pollution.
This makes sense to me because I've never understood why global warming is such a huge issue; it's really out of our control because not everyone is going to be compliant. It's just impossible. Even if everyone on the entire planet made it a priority to live with the lowest carbon footprint every day, what kind of life is that?
We're all going to die anyway, as will our children -- and I don't think this is morbid; just realistic. I put this in the category of, "Will you be prepared when the world ends?" Prepared for what? If it ends, we end. Gone. I'm no physicist, but Earth's been chugging along for almost 5 billion years, so I don't worry about this, nor do I think it should be a political issue or a legal directive.
You got that from what I wrote?? The opposite! Humanity clawed itself to the top of the food chain over 60,000 years of natural selection. It is criminal to lie down and die in a soup of Industrial Pollution and Climate Instability without making some attempt, even a token attempt at a fix. At any given time tens of thousands of people don't think life is worth living and take themselves out in a variety of ways. Someone who plans to commit suicide might not care about even the short term future of the planet. Someone who has built a legacy of family and/or corporate visibility might care more.
Then again, it is likely those mammoth corporate interests that have the least interest in a long term future for the planet. They just want to see as many zero's as possible in the tallies of their net worth's before they die.
I was watching a National Geographic special a couple of years ago and that program debunked the notion of global warming being caused by humans.
They effectively showed that we are in the midst of a very normal warning cycle and also pointed out the polar ice caps thaw every 5,000 years or so and we are right on target for that.
That said, it does behoove us to live as prudently as possible with respect to pollution.
When roughly 9 out of 10 scientists agree about how things are going, it is a ratings bonanza for that 10th guy. I have seen a few shows like that. The Hysteria -err I mean History Channel has some on ancient aliens, monsters and ghosts. Highly entertaining. Anyway, just seeing a show or two is not compelling evidence to me. I also agree that our pollution should be reigned in whether it is messing with the climate or not.
I was watching a National Geographic special a couple of years ago and that program debunked the notion of global warming being caused by humans.
They effectively showed that we are in the midst of a very normal warning cycle and also pointed out the polar ice caps thaw every 5,000 years or so and we are right on target for that.
That said, it does behoove us to live as prudently as possible with respect to pollution.
Did they happen to speculate as to exactly how warm it would get and when? Will it conveniently stop at a temperature that allows humanity to continue existence or not? If not, are you ok with that? That, I think, is the fundamental question to all who claim a natural causative for Global Warming. Interestingly enough, it is the question they never ask and never try to answer. "Global Warming is natural and happens every now and then". And? As per the bolded... why? If the first part of your post is true then the bolded is irrelevant.
However, sometimes there needs to be a push on things like vehicle efficiency. Automakers had the capability to produce very efficient cars, they just chose not to, particularly in that 90s to mid-2000s era when gas guzzling Expeditions were all the rage. Today they're capable of getting like 200-300hp performance out of cars that get over 30mpg highway. In the 70s cars were capable of half that at best - if you got 30 mpg you had put up with 90 horses or 250hp would mean you got 10mpg at best. Car technology, while improved over the 1970s or 80s, is not fundamentally different so I find it hard to believe they did not have that capability before - they just didn't try to reach those benchmarks.
My father's 1969 Dodge Dart could hit 120 mph on level ground with a tailwind. I don't know the gas mileage. Probably bad. But get this. You are clearly too young to know about this but in 1972. My father used to take us out driving every Sunday afternoon. We would pile in the Dodge and go tooling around at freeway speeds while sitting ON our seatbelts. Emphasis on seatbelts. There were not yet the over the shoulder harnesses that you call seatbelts today. Wait, there's more... airbags... you've heard of those? In 1972 if you asked someone what an airbag was they might have trouble giving you an answer.
Car makers bitterly fought the introduction of airbags in production cars. Bitterly. I remember some of the highlights that made the evening news. Then one day it all changed. Congress acted or something and it was no longer something car makers could argue back and forth about. Two decades later and airbags deploy from just about every flat surface in the cabin of an automobile. Driver and shotgun of course but also side impact... soon the trunk will have one just in case a stowaway needs protection from a rear end collision. My point is that your premise is completely wrong. We were not wrong to make Climate Change a cause. We were and are wrong to keep arguing about it. It's time for action like there was with seatbelts. When its the LAW, companies will be fighting to show how green they can be. They will outdo themselves getting more all electric vehicles on the road. One day it will be as unthinkable to use gas powered lawn mowers or weed eaters as it is to drive any distance without a seatbelt. That day cannot arrive soon enough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have seen a few shows like that. The Hysteria -err I mean History Channel has some on ancient aliens, monsters and ghosts. Highly entertaining. Anyway, just seeing a show or two is not compelling evidence to me. I also agree that our pollution should be reigned in whether it is messing with the climate or not.
