TIME to start worrying?

[sandorski]

People are afraid of Panic? How about being afraid the the total lack of Action and even trying to avoid any Action? The longer we wait, the more reasonable Panic becomes.

 

[BrownTown]

global warming seems like a pretty small concern when compared to other problems in our world, I'm not really sure why we should focus huge amounts of resources to fix it. For one thing its still debatable whether or not its a signifigant trend, and even if it is its debatable whether or not humans are the biggest contributers to the problem. And even if if is really a big problem AND humans are responsible then its still not nescecarrily a bad thing. IT makes cold regions better farmland, and reduces feul costs for heating in cold climates. Of course equatorial areas could experience desertification and other problems, but humans have problems predicting weather 2 days away, its very hard to predict long term trand that are tens of years away based off of incomplete data we have now....

So, im not gonna lsoe an sleep over it for now, if you wanna start panicing because some glaciers are melting then thats your peragotive, but im gonna wait for a little mroe conclusive evidence before i start supporting any regulation thats gonna use my tax dollars to try to combat it.

EDIT: if someone wants to do some research you can go look up the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes and compare it to the amount released by humans, woudl be interesting to see the percent of overall CO2 emmited per year that is casued by people.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
One possible outcome of global warming and climate change that nobody ever nentions is the likelihood of many more wars. When people get hungry, they often look to their neighbors food. As whole countries face radical changes in the amount and usefullness of their arable land, they will move to acquire the products and acreage of others. As sealevels rise, there will be many displaced persons who will demand a place to live. Katrina gave us a small glimpse of what happens when people lose their material posessions and way of making a living. Imagine the problems raised by an order of magnitude. Imagine areas that depend on tourism dollars for most of their income when they can no longer offer an inviting climate and have no industry or such to fall back on. Sprinkle in a few more million people who become despirate due to increased violent weather events. Is it really too far fetched to suggest that climate change will contribute to increased crime, revolt, and international conflict?

In the meantime...

...the world's population continues to explode.

Eventually, humans will rediscover a now, sadly, little known political economist named Malthus.

Actually world population is leveling off and is predicted t start declining within a couple decades

 

[Kappo]

I thought it was global cooling after 2000? You guys need to get with the times! They have been screaming about this since my FATHER was a child. "We dont know when, but soon!"

If you think you can damage the earth with your ozone layer depletion you are one arrogant nitwit.

Let it crumble if it feels like it. You arent forcing the earth to do anything.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: eilute
There might be some hurricanes. Arctic wildlife might die off. Coral reefs might die off. Some islands could wash away, and homes that were already built too close to rivers could get flooded.

Conversely, I suspect that it may not affect humans, as a whole, adversely. Global warming might also mean higher crop production.

This will be a GLOBAL change, not just coastal, and it's not just warming. It's colder than it should be in some places, some species could die off and subsequent species that depended on them could suffer, etc.
This is a HUGE issue, and unfortunately, I think we're holding up an umbrella in a hurricane and expecting it to protect us.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: Passions
More work of the liberal treemonger media trying to scare the public.

Seriously, how many times do we have to go through this. Water crisis of the 80's?? Energy crisis of the 90's. blah blah blah.

In other news... neo-cons still blindly hold onto the idea that the earth is theirs to rape.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
global warming seems like a pretty small concern when compared to other problems in our world, I'm not really sure why we should focus huge amounts of resources to fix it. For one thing its still debatable whether or not its a signifigant trend, and even if it is its debatable whether or not humans are the biggest contributers to the problem. And even if if is really a big problem AND humans are responsible then its still not nescecarrily a bad thing. IT makes cold regions better farmland, and reduces feul costs for heating in cold climates. Of course equatorial areas could experience desertification and other problems, but humans have problems predicting weather 2 days away, its very hard to predict long term trand that are tens of years away based off of incomplete data we have now....

So, im not gonna lsoe an sleep over it for now, if you wanna start panicing because some glaciers are melting then thats your peragotive, but im gonna wait for a little mroe conclusive evidence before i start supporting any regulation thats gonna use my tax dollars to try to combat it.

EDIT: if someone wants to do some research you can go look up the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes and compare it to the amount released by humans, woudl be interesting to see the percent of overall CO2 emmited per year that is casued by people.

Estimated CO2 150 (human) to 1 (volcanoes) with the sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes producing a cooling effect (5 to 1?). All the glaciers are melting, Kilimunjaru?(spelling) being one of the examples of glacial irrigation of an arid region and what the loss of glacier melt water will do to arid mountain regions world wide.

 

[BrownTown]

OK, so looked it up, and you are right, volcanoes produce less than 1% te amount of CO2 as humans. HOWEVER, all natural sources combine produce 20 times as much CO2 as humans do. I got those numbers from a site that beleived global warming was a large threat, so i think its pretty legit if even the global warming activists admit that humas only produce 5% of total output of CO2. Their argument is of course that natural production and absorbtion are perfectly in balance, and that human production offests that balance. However, I am nto so sure about this, looking in the past we can see changes in CO2 that occur naturally, so whats to say that hte current rises arent due to natural causes, and are isntead due to humans? Also, even if it is humans causing the changes, its a pretty big leap to say that these increases in CO2 are going to drastically change the enviroment. There are certainly examples in the past where glaciers grew and shrank due to natural causes, and the fact that some are shrinking now doesn't really prove anything. Im jsut saying that before you go crying for global changes your gonna need alot better evidence than some shriking glaciers and rising CO2 levels. You need to prove pretty darn well that this is due to humans, and that its is bad for humans if it continuous.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
OK, so looked it up, and you are right, volcanoes produce less than 1% te amount of CO2 as humans. HOWEVER, all natural sources combine produce 20 times as much CO2 as humans do. I got those numbers from a site that beleived global warming was a large threat, so i think its pretty legit if even the global warming activists admit that humas only produce 5% of total output of CO2. Their argument is of course that natural production and absorbtion are perfectly in balance, and that human production offests that balance. However, I am nto so sure about this, looking in the past we can see changes in CO2 that occur naturally, so whats to say that hte current rises arent due to natural causes, and are isntead due to humans? Also, even if it is humans causing the changes, its a pretty big leap to say that these increases in CO2 are going to drastically change the enviroment. There are certainly examples in the past where glaciers grew and shrank due to natural causes, and the fact that some are shrinking now doesn't really prove anything. Im jsut saying that before you go crying for global changes your gonna need alot better evidence than some shriking glaciers and rising CO2 levels. You need to prove pretty darn well that this is due to humans, and that its is bad for humans if it continuous.

Increase/Decrease the Oxygen in the atmosphere by a few percent and life could cease to exist on Earth. IOWs, small changes lead to dramatic diferences. You may think it's just 5%, but 5% is a very significant change.

 

[BrownTown]

Very signifigant given the rate of change, but not so much in an overall sense. I'm no expert in global temperature trends, but I'd bet that if you go back in time there are certianly times when the CO2 output was greater than it is now. The problem isn't so much a lack of ability to produce power without CO2, the problem is that the same people who complain about global warming also complain about everything that could solve the problem, so there really is no way to make these people happy. In real life it is not possible to just magically make a problem like this go away, if you want to get rid of CO2 emmisions then you have to live with the consequences, like nuclear waste. Like I said previously, I am OK with building new nuclear reactors to replace aging fossil plants as they go offline, but in order for this to happen the enviromentallists will ahve to deal with the fact that this will produce nucelar waste which will ahve to be stored somehow.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: Passions
More work of the liberal treemonger media trying to scare the public.

Seriously, how many times do we have to go through this. Water crisis of the 80's?? Energy crisis of the 90's. blah blah blah.

In other news... neo-cons still blindly hold onto the idea that the earth is theirs to rape.

I'm sure if they said the planet is flat the lemmings in here would believe it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's not time to start worrying, it's time to start preparing. Much of the economic base is going to go bye bye. NY, London, Boston, LA... All under water. I think Time is right. It's too late to stop it. Methods for long term storage of grain, and desalination on a huge scale for irrigation would be someting to start funding now.

Eventually things may go back, but I shouldn't be surprised that we wont see that until a glaciation maximum, a few thousand years at best.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Very signifigant given the rate of change, but not so much in an overall sense. I'm no expert in global temperature trends, but I'd bet that if you go back in time there are certianly times when the CO2 output was greater than it is now. The problem isn't so much a lack of ability to produce power without CO2, the problem is that the same people who complain about global warming also complain about everything that could solve the problem, so there really is no way to make these people happy. In real life it is not possible to just magically make a problem like this go away, if you want to get rid of CO2 emmisions then you have to live with the consequences, like nuclear waste. Like I said previously, I am OK with building new nuclear reactors to replace aging fossil plants as they go offline, but in order for this to happen the enviromentallists will ahve to deal with the fact that this will produce nucelar waste which will ahve to be stored somehow.

If you build a sustainable nuclear power base, with electric cars and hydrogen fuel. We will need tens of thousands of reactors world wide. Reactor powered ships amust for transportation. What is the uranium ceiling? When does the World's supply run out? Breeder reactors? Fusion power?

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: Passions
More work of the liberal treemonger media trying to scare the public.

Seriously, how many times do we have to go through this. Water crisis of the 80's?? Energy crisis of the 90's. blah blah blah.

In other news... neo-cons still blindly hold onto the idea that the earth is theirs to rape.

I'm sure if they said the planet is flat the lemmings in here would believe it.

Quite funny when I can search democraticunderground.com and the bizzaro boards and find your exact same arguments for every single one you make....

 

[Duckzilla]

Originally posted by: eilute
There might be some hurricanes. Arctic wildlife might die off. Coral reefs might die off. Some islands could wash away, and homes that were already built too close to rivers could get flooded.

Conversely, I suspect that it may not affect humans, as a whole, adversely. Global warming might also mean higher crop production.

That's how I see it. Imagine having to spend to 3.5k a year to heat your home and then tell me you're against global warming. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[BrownTown]

currently the known uranium deposits could not handle such a rapid growth in nuclear power, however, very little money is put into finding new sources of uranium, so its likely that if nuclear power became more widespread then new uranium deposits would be found.