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 world has just five years to avoid being trapped in a scenario of perilous climate change and extreme weather events, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned on Wednesday.
On current trends, "rising fossil energy use will lead to irreversible and potentially catastrophic climate change," the IEA concluded in its annual World Energy Outlook report.
"The door to 2.0 C is closing," it said, referring to the 2.0 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) cap on global warming widely accepted by scientists and governments as the ceiling for averting unmanageable climate damage.
Without further action, by 2017 the total CO2 emissions compatible with the 2.0 C goal will be "locked in" by power plants, factories and other carbon-emitting sources either built or planned, the IEA said....continued
World has five years to avoid severe warming: IEA - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/world-five-years-avoid-severe-warming-iea-170519443.html - broken link)
Wel then, there appears to be only one answer. We have a human infestation problem, seriousy that is what we have. Human kind has infested the planet. We then require a major thinning. We need one helluva war, probably some atomic bombs, or if less specific thinning is reqyired a global disease.
Nature has a way of taking care of problems. We shall see which calamity will result in the thinning. Not a goot time to be reducung our defense Mr. Obama.
...and to think, we could have fixed the entire planet with higher taxes, a slick Wall Street plan to trade carbon dioxide on the stock exchange, and another money scheme involving a world-wide carbon debt wealth redistribution, from western nations to the despotic third world countries.
Wel then, there appears to be only one answer. We have a human infestation problem, seriousy that is what we have. Human kind has infested the planet. We then require a major thinning. We need one helluva war, probably some atomic bombs, or if less specific thinning is reqyired a global disease.
Nature has a way of taking care of problems. We shall see which calamity will result in the thinning. Not a goot time to be reducung our defense Mr. Obama.
Don't forget the methane crisis, we need to kill all the sheep, pigs, cows, horses, chickens, ducks, and fill in the swamps and marshes
Well if we only have 5 years and its not likely the world is going to join hands, the topic should be how are you going to adapt or how are you going to live your life for the next five years knowing the world will end.
The world can't agree on peace let alone some mumbo jumbo global warming dance.
This human caused global warming is absolute nonsense even if the globe is warming or cooling as it has done since it was formed..... how is that news ?
The human caused aspect is pure egocentric philosophy that humans are the center of the universe, tripe from the dark ages. It is a rerun of Mayan human sacrifice to appease the gods to bring back the sun when an eclipse occurs.
Why won't the HCGW activists speak of adaptation in the face of the projected dramatically changing climate. Agriculture, farming, species affected other than polar bears which are increasing in population and whales.
I agree with you... People do have a tendency to jump onto a conclusion and ride it over a cliff.
But, when it comes to global warming, it looks like the majority of scientists are not looking at all the data. The CO2 in our atmosphere may actually be protecting us from getting even warmer. It blocks heat from being radiated out into space, right? So, it stands to reason that it also blocks some of the heat from getting to our surface as well. And, considering the Sun is getting warmer, this would be an issue not to be overlooked.
If the CO2 reflects heat going both ways, perhaps, it's actually working in our favor.
Given we only have one planet, which we can't afford to ruin under any circumstances, I don't think it makes sense to justify our crazy life style based on all those uncertainties and simplified assumptions in your post (in bold)
Be that as it may, when the **** starts to hit the fan, I will already be dead anyway, nor do I have children, so I don't really care what happens after I am gone.
Given we only have one planet, which we can't afford to ruin under any circumstances, I don't think it makes sense to justify our crazy life style based on all those uncertainties and simplified assumptions in your post (in bold)
Be that as it may, when the **** starts to hit the fan, I will already be dead anyway, nor do I have children, so I don't really care what happens after I am gone.
But, I would suggest that there is more that we need to look at. Exactly how much of the global warming is due to the sun increasing in temperature. How much does the heat generated from burning fossil fuels figure into the equation (ever burn your hand because you touched the hot exhaust pipe on a car, or the muffler on a lawn mower). Even with "clean nuclear power", put your hand on an electric motor that's been running, and see how warm it is. How much heat in our environment do we generate with our technology? If that were not a factor, then when a volcano blows, and spews 100 times more CO2 into the atmosphere in one minute than all the fossil fuels do in one year, how do they give fossil fuels that much credit?
Something I noticed when I lived in WI, on a farm. The city was 18 miles away, even if a house was burning, we didn't get to smell any smoke. But, when the weather came on, and they were giving the statistics, the winter temps in town were as much as 15 degrees warmer than what the thermometer outside the house said. The same did not hold true in summer when it was the air conditioners running.
In winter, home heating that escaped from the homes and businesses warmed the air outside by as much as 15 degrees, but in summer, the air conditioners only moved the heat and generated very little of it. Summertime difference was only about 1 or 2 degrees.
The more we use energy, and it really does not matter what the source of that energy is, the more we warm up the atmosphere of the earth. Even when we use power that has been generated by wind, we still generate heat. It's a by-product of turning energy into mechanical motion.
So, if we're going to look at the CO2 that comes from fossil fuels, when a volcano puts out many times more, we had better also start looking at the by-product of energy consumption as well, because that is also a source of heat on the planet. It is also increasing every year.
I don't know about those numbers. But as far as I know, with volcanoes the problem is ashes rather than CO2.
And I don't think wind turbines are a problem, the wind was not produced by any human, unnatural actions. With wind turbines the biggest ecological problem is probably their manufacturing.
Heating the environment, well, I have heard odd stories about Russia. In many homes there the thermostats don't work and people only have the choice to turn the heating off or to max. Of course they turn it to max and since that is too much heat, they keep their windows open
Most alternative energy and electric drive technologies can’t be implemented without large quantities of scarce metals.... While improved recycling practices have the potential to help alleviate shortages of critical metals, a recent UN study of global recycling rates for 60 industrial and technology metals found that only 18 had end of life recycling rates over 50% while 34 had end of life recycling rates under 1%. The metals that are most important to alternative energy and electric drive are very difficult and expensive to recycle. So with the exception of lithium, which is a plentiful resource that only represents 5% or 6% of the metal content in Li-ion batteries, the world cannot produce enough technology metals to permit a widespread transition to alternative energy or electric drive.
Any alternative that can't be deployed at relevant scale isn’t an alternative at all. It’s merely an expensive distraction for the masses, a bit like the circus in ancient Rome.
.....................
Of course, there is always electric traction rail... it doesn't require scarce metals to function.
Don't forget the methane crisis, we need to kill all the sheep, pigs, cows, horses, chickens, ducks, and fill in the swamps and marshes
Damn rights, I,m choking a chicken right now!
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.
human caused GW diagnostic of insanity
