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.
You really think we have the power to stop an ice age or a higher mean temperature cycle? The earth has had climate cycles presumably since its formation. Geologic record shows many such cycles, recorded history speaks of them... and here we know-it-alls of our time are thinking we are going to change that? The natural forces that act on climate cycles are far beyond our control. We can certainly minimize our own effect on climate. Beyond that, we are essentially powerless against the far more powerful natural forces and cycles.
We have the power to stop or minimize our activity that is accelerating climate change. The rest, obviously, is in Mother Nature's hands
But first we have to accept the fact that we are contributing. Kicking the can down the road is well...kicking the can down the road. Sitting with the head in the sand is well....sitting with the head in the sand.
We have the power to stop or minimize our activity that is accelerating climate change. The rest, obviously, is in Mother Nature's hands
But first we have to accept the fact that we are contributing. Kicking the can down the road is well...kicking the can down the road. Sitting with the head in the sand is well....sitting with the head in the sand.
OD
Insofar as humans are influencing nature's cycles, I think anyone with a scientific mind will recognize we do. Most people aren't scientists though and don't understand data and don't understand the scientific process and don't WANT to understand it because it causes an inferiority complex in them so they shut down and attack things which they don't understand.
Or they spout mystical BS which goes along the line of "we humans are PUNY in the face of G-O-D and we can't be so ARROGANT to think we actually influence nature".
But I also admit that there's very little we can do without giving up modern conveniences. NO matter the source of the energy, there's byproducts. Solar causes local hotspots and increases temperatures through heat, not to mention the ENORMOUS land commitment and toxic chemicals used to make them. Wind power disrupts bird migration patterns and local weather patterns. Hydroelectric dams disrupt the silt and mudflows that happen naturally, and if done wrong can also disrupt fish breeding patterns. Battery power requires a HUGE investment in power to just create the slurry of chemicals that are required for them, and you're left with a toxic product that is unsafe to dispose of in any way economical. Geothermal if done wrong would cause the same seismic issues that we've seen with water extraction (e.g. the recent Spain quakes).
Any way you look at it, humans extract power from various sources and there's always byproducts. Even future technologies like fusion have issues (helium buildup).
Thus, I take a pragmatic approach and say that yes fossil fuels are terrible, but you have to pick your poison. Until we discover a way to make solar power from orbiting stations that beam power back or something, we'll be stuck with one issue or another.
There is no such thing as a purely clean fuel. Anyone who has basic understanding of thermodynamics and chemical processes knows that.
Insofar as humans are influencing nature's cycles, I think anyone with a scientific mind will recognize we do. Most people aren't scientists though and don't understand data and don't understand the scientific process and don't WANT to understand it because it causes an inferiority complex in them so they shut down and attack things which they don't understand.
Or they spout mystical BS which goes along the line of "we humans are PUNY in the face of G-O-D and we can't be so ARROGANT to think we actually influence nature".
But I also admit that there's very little we can do without giving up modern conveniences. NO matter the source of the energy, there's byproducts. Solar causes local hotspots and increases temperatures through heat, not to mention the ENORMOUS land commitment and toxic chemicals used to make them. Wind power disrupts bird migration patterns and local weather patterns. Hydroelectric dams disrupt the silt and mudflows that happen naturally, and if done wrong can also disrupt fish breeding patterns. Battery power requires a HUGE investment in power to just create the slurry of chemicals that are required for them, and you're left with a toxic product that is unsafe to dispose of in any way economical. Geothermal if done wrong would cause the same seismic issues that we've seen with water extraction (e.g. the recent Spain quakes).
Any way you look at it, humans extract power from various sources and there's always byproducts. Even future technologies like fusion have issues (helium buildup).
Thus, I take a pragmatic approach and say that yes fossil fuels are terrible, but you have to pick your poison. Until we discover a way to make solar power from orbiting stations that beam power back or something, we'll be stuck with one issue or another.
There is no such thing as a purely clean fuel. Anyone who has basic understanding of thermodynamics and chemical processes knows that.
Well, when it comes to picking poisons, why does the US government not sponsor me or you to put a solar panel on our individual roofs (our our business's roofs) instead of sponsoring Shell or BP to drill in the Arctic? (actually they somewhat do sponsor you, 30% tax credit on the solar installation or at least that used to be the case). However, they can also sponsor research into better and more efficient solar etc.
Yes, no energy source is clean but you cannot put them in the same basket either. To me, the most pragmatic approach is individual power production i.e. solar panels on your roof, for example, a personal wind turbine etc. If a government (or any government) is serious about a path to energy self-sufficiency, then this should be the route, NOT drilling in some pristine environment FOR PROFIT by someone who already has so much money, they don't know what to do with it. At the same time we are screaming about dependence on Middle East oil, we are dependent on two or three private conglomerates who drill and extract oil. How is this any different? Is there an expectation of patriotism from Shell? Or BP? Most U.S. based companies have successfully extracted wealth from the United States population at a hefty profit margin while moving most of the jobs to third world countries. Is that a history of patriotism?
I don't think you read her post...
Nowhere did she say anything about stopping climate change, rather that adequate leadership (what we currently strive for) is essentially worthless in disaster situations.
Yeah, but the thing is, we (as a species) have been adapting to cycling climate for tens of thousands of years. Now, all of a sudden, everyone "thinks the world is going to end" because of it. It is true that leadership can be more or less effective in reacting to changes, but if we think back to where we were basically hunter-gatherers and had no leadership at all... well, we made it through. And, yes, things are different now and the old saying "the bigger they are the harder they fall" might aptly apply to what our species has evolved into culturally and technologically. But I still say we are, as a species, perfectly capable of adapting to a few degrees rise in global mean temperatures. It's not like it's never happened before. Whether we can do so without a bunch of "drama" (meaning inability to adapt as our ancestors did, without rioting in the streets)... well, that I honestly don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
We have the power to stop or minimize our activity that is accelerating climate change. The rest, obviously, is in Mother Nature's hands
Yes we do, but my opinion is that we are like a man in a rowboat on the ocean. He is making small waves with his paddles and, yes, he could stop paddling and those small waves would stop. But the ocean would not be glass smooth because the natural waves on the ocean dwarfs the little waves he was making. I just think we give ourselves too much credit in altering the climate. No doubt we could do so in a horrendous way with some of the weapons we have, but our "normal" activity is just a small brush stroke of color in a much bigger picture.
Now, mind you, I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to see us "clean up our act." But I have far better reasons (in my opinion) than the effect we have on climate. More along the lines of blatant gluttony and trashing our "home." We only have one "home" right now. It would be nice to keep it in a relatively pleasant condition in which to live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
But first we have to accept the fact that we are contributing. Kicking the can down the road is well...kicking the can down the road. Sitting with the head in the sand is well....sitting with the head in the sand.
OD
I agree we contribute. We probably disagree on the level of contribution, though. Truthfully, the thing that bothers me most about the clean air and "green" crowd is the hypocrisy. You have people like Al Gore chastising everyone for their horrendous "carbon footprint"... as he's living in a huge castle that probably uses more energy than the entire east side of my city; you have Ms. President whining about over lavish, wasteful "rich folks" lifestyle... while she spends hundreds of thousands on birthday parties and jets around in AF1; you had hippies spiking trees... after which they went home to their wood-framed homes; you have many libs doing their damnedest to keep the oil and steel industry out of their "back yard" (our country)... but it's okay that those industries are in someone else's backyards, and all the while, they are driving around in their cars, using steel for most everything they do, and latching onto some token little "save the earth" activity like asking for paper bags in the grocery store.
I would actually have great respect for people who truly do live an "earth friendly" lifestyle. But until I see people like Gore and all these little pet environmental project people living in a 200 sq ft home, without cars, in a 100% local economy village, with no critical need to import or export resources, etc etc etc, I'm not going to offer them my ear or any respect at all. You hear all this environmental caterwauling, yet there are very, very few places in our nation where there is even an experiment in locally based, "eco villiage," "earth friendly" lifestyles. People want to appear to champion these earth-friendly concepts, they just don't want to do it. They want the advantages of our "small earth" technological society, yet they don't want put up with the required disadvantages to maintain it. We can't have it both ways unless we put others through the disadvantages and by-products of our modern-day "binge living."
Sounds like my simple living biases coming through again, eh? Well, simple living is one thing I believe is required for the environmentalist crowd that, the way I see it, they are unwilling for the most part to embrace. They are only willing to prattle on about what everyone else should and shouldn't be doing. And then attempting to enforce it through legislation. All the while living in huge glass houses. To me, that's about power over others, not saving the environment.
And NO! I'm certainly not there yet--I'm no Mr. Green. But then again, I'm not on a national forum with hundred dollar bills falling from my pockets as I walk down from the mountaintop holding stone tablets, either. Maybe if I ever get to the point that I am "earth friendly," I will chastise everyone else for their "sins." I'd doubt it, though. I'm too much of a live and let live type. That doesn't mean that I would not like to see change. But in my opinion, the trick to lasting change is not forcing everyone to do the right thing, it's convincing them to choose to do the right thing.
Well, when it comes to picking poisons, why does the US government not sponsor me or you to put a solar panel on our individual roofs (our our business's roofs) instead of sponsoring Shell or BP to drill in the Arctic? (actually they somewhat do sponsor you, 30% tax credit on the solar installation or at least that used to be the case). However, they can also sponsor research into better and more efficient solar etc.
Yes, no energy source is clean but you cannot put them in the same basket either. To me, the most pragmatic approach is individual power production i.e. solar panels on your roof, for example, a personal wind turbine etc. If a government (or any government) is serious about a path to energy self-sufficiency, then this should be the route, NOT drilling in some pristine environment FOR PROFIT by someone who already has so much money, they don't know what to do with it. At the same time we are screaming about dependence on Middle East oil, we are dependent on two or three private conglomerates who drill and extract oil. How is this any different? Is there an expectation of patriotism from Shell? Or BP? Most U.S. based companies have successfully extracted wealth from the United States population at a hefty profit margin while moving most of the jobs to third world countries. Is that a history of patriotism?
OD
Not to mention the subsidies don't actually increase oil production. Hydrocarbons are already so profitable the oil companies WILL drill every last inch they possibly can. To them, it makes very little difference if the profit per well turns out to be $10 million on a $1 million investment or $10.2 million on a $1 million investment. A 10 to 1 return is already by far the best return they can possibly get for their money so they're going to do that no matter what.
What the subsidies really are nothing more than economic rent seeking (look that term up if you don't know what it means) and Adam Smith was absolutely right that economic rent seekers need to be stamped out where ever you can find them. This is just good old fashioned bribery where they give money to politicians and the politicians do them favors in return; one of those favors has been writing in special rent seeking subsidies. Subsidies which don't do a damn thing for taxpayers, sure as hell don't increase oil output, and really just get the politically connected rent seekers free money for doing what they would have been doing anyway.
Americans have a fascination with many, many subjects, issues, ideas etc. "Apocalypse" is one. Sports outranks it by a bunch I think and sex outranks all of them. The Bible notwithstanding, fiction writers have been writing stories about end time disasters since easily in the 1700s. I have a book compiling some of these excellent stories. Good reading.
I think Americans get bored easily and quickly and latch onto a fad for a bit before moving on to other interesting stuff. And true enough, Hollywood and scientists (groveling for grants) continue to gin up all sorts of stuff to grab the attention of Americans. This "study" shows that "if you take this pill or do this exercise that you will live another 32 minutes" only to have a new study show that if you took that pill then your gallbladder is going to lodge in your mouth and choke you to death BUT if you read this new book you can avoid the dreaded gallbladder choking death. And so it goes. Ho hum.
I thought this was funny as hell as it tied in with the zombie apocalype, prepping, and the election of Mitt Romney. Yes, Joss Whedon has made enough zombie and horror films that he knows what it takes to make a good apocalypse and boy does he like what he sees in Mitt Romney.
One of the world's largest open pit copper mines, and THE largest according to the owners and many mining experts, is in this photo.
Anyone see it?
Just saying.
EDIT: I'm not sure what elevation this satellite image is from, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 20 miles.
Alaska?
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 don't think you read her post...
