Climate change: what to do?

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 23:52
VIEWED: 2699
PAGE 1 of 1

GEEZER

Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:52 PM

Okay. Let's assume that the IPCC's latest report is correct and that things will be warming up in the next 100 years(And they predict it will warm up, pretty much whatever we do.) What do we want to do about it?

Even if we maintain greenhouse emmissions at 2000 levels, we can expect a .6 Deg c increase by 2099. The IPCC's best scenario gives a 1.8c increase and .18 to .38 meter sea level increase. Their worst gives a 4.0c temp increase and a .26 to .59 meter higher sea level. Either the best or worst scenarios are also going to cause changes in rainfall patterns and storm tracks. Here's the IPCC's executive summary.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

So would it be better to try and stop climate change, or spend our time trying to prepare for it? Consider that China will be the biggest producer of greenhouse gasses by 2009, and has no plans of doing anything serious about it. India is getting right up there, and probably won't put much effort into emissions control. Even if the First World manages to impose harsh restrictions, we're still heading for an increase.

Might it be better to concede that climate change is coming and prepare for it? Encourage movement of populations from coastlines where storms and flooding are likely. Plan to move agriculture to areas that aren't in the new drought zones. People have coped with climate change before. Why not again?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Monday, February 12, 2007 12:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So would it be better to try and stop climate change, or spend our time trying to prepare for it?

Can't we do both? Any restraint of emissions is just going to reduce the rise and thus give more time to adjust to a changing climate.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTIMASON

Monday, February 12, 2007 1:39 AM

a new article from the London Telegraph, which claims that "Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11
.xml

Quote:
"Cosmic Rays blamed for Global Warming"

Richard Gray
London Telegraph
Sunday, February 11, 2007

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.

Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.

He said: "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

"This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."

Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

Mr Svensmark's results show that the rays produce electrically charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: "These particles attract water molecules from the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds."

Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.

Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.

He said: "Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.

"Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impa

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KANEMAN

Monday, February 12, 2007 1:56 AM

Lets take the hairspray out of the hands of New Jersey women.....It may buy us some time. Or we can go back to living in caves and eating worms and sh*t like that. Or we can get rid of cars and planes, who needs them anyway?

GEEZER

Monday, February 12, 2007 2:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So would it be better to try and stop climate change, or spend our time trying to prepare for it?
Can't we do both? Any restraint of emissions is just going to reduce the rise and thus give more time to adjust to a changing climate.

In a world of unlimited resources and money we could. Given that we have a finite amount to spend, is there a best mix of reduction in change and preparation for the change we'll get? If we limit the temp increase by 2099 to 2.0c instead of 4.0c, is it going to make that much difference in drought and storm patterns? maybe we'll have to wait for more detail from the IPCC.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, February 12, 2007 4:38 AM

I've seen this claim before. There are some reasons to think that cosmic rays could affect lower cloud cover, but none to explain why night-time temperatures are ALSO higher. And the cosmic-ray data doesn't apparently show the long-term trend that Henrik Svensmark says it does. Anyway, this is the best explanation that I could find.

www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/10/the_cosmic_climate_connection.php?pa
ge=2

However, there is another part of the explanation which scientists are finally getting around to. I'm surprised it took them this long. Cloud cover COULD be a cooling force but only if it's bright, white cloud cover like clouds formed around sulfuric acid droplets. But we're spewing out hundred and thousands of tons of carbon particles every day, mostly from forest-burning (clearing), wood-burning and dung-burning. That seriously changes cloud (and ice) albedo. Although carbon particles ostensibly cause condensation, they raise the cloud temperature and re-evaporate the water, allowing more visible light past where the cloud layer SHOULD be, and efficiently convert visible light to heat.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Monday, February 12, 2007 4:44 AM

The United States is still by far the largest - not per capita, but total- emitter of greenhouse gases. We are, compared to other industrialized naitons, profligate in our energy use: car mileage requirements are more stringent everywhere else in the developed world- even China- than here.

So, for the most part it would be ridiculously easy for the United States to reduce it's emission of greenhouse gases to less than 1980 levels with no reduction in living standards.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

GEEZER

Monday, February 12, 2007 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The United States is still by far the largest - not per capita, but total- emitter of greenhouse gases.

Not for long, China will take over by 2010-2025, depending on who you ask. Kinda hard to tell, because neither China nor India submit information to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for inclusion in their reports.

Quote:
We are, compared to other industrialized naitons, profligate in our energy use: car mileage requirements are more stringent everywhere else in the developed world- even China- than here.

True. We produce around 21% of the total man-made greenhouse gasses. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420r06003.pdf
U.S. transportation produces 27% of that, or 5.7% of the total (almost all CO2). Cars and light trucks make up around 60% of the transportation emissions, or 3.4% of the total. Say we make an instant 25% improvement in fuel economy and emissions, that'd be .85% of the world total.

Also, while China talks a good game on transportation emissions, their record on actually enforcing environmental laws makes ours look absolutely sterling.

Quote:
So, for the most part it would be ridiculously easy for the United States to reduce it's emission of greenhouse gases to less than 1980 levels with no reduction in living standards.

I don't know about "Ridiculously easy" but it could probably be done. My question is, would we be better off spending the time and money getting ready for the climate change that's pretty much inevitable unless everyone gets on board?

Read the scenarios in the IPCC report and pick the one you think most likely. Most would require either world government or every nation passing, and enforcing, tough emissions laws, changing the way electricity is generated and agriculture is carried out, and major redesign in manufacturing. Scrapping SUV's isn't going to do it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Monday, February 12, 2007 6:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
In a world of unlimited resources and money we could.

Actually I think the arguments against saving resources are more of the unlimited vein.

Reducing emissions is mainly about reducing resource usage, not increasing it so I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand why you think doing both would require infinite resources. Most emission curbs are about buying local goods, driving less and avoiding flying if at all possible, so indeed huge curbs could be made without unlimited resources.

If you mean switching to new lower polluting technologies then yeah, that costs, but the people bearing those costs, and the people bearing the costs for adapting to climate change aren't the same groups.

Quote:
Given that we have a finite amount to spend, is there a best mix of reduction in change and preparation for the change we'll get?

Governments already spend vast sums of cash on measures protecting the general populace from environmental conditions. What I mean is that it wouldn't be a staggering increase in what is already being done if started early enough, more a redirection of efforts. A lot of the rest is the purview of private citizens and enterprise. From walking more or taking the bus instead of driving to the CEO not flying everywhere. A great many pollution saving measures pay for themselves in short order, so I'm at a loss to explain why a business run by anyone with half a brain or business acumen wouldn't want to adopt them, even given the short term outlay.

Quote:
If we limit the temp increase by 2099 to 2.0c instead of 4.0c, is it going to make that much difference in drought and storm patterns? maybe we'll have to wait for more detail from the IPCC.

4c is 100% more than 2c, if 2c has an impact then 4c is going to have a greater impact. You're argument sounds like "it's only 2c, what difference can it make", the mini ice age of Europe had average temperatures of 1c lower.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

GEEZER

Monday, February 12, 2007 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Reducing emissions is mainly about reducing resource usage, not increasing it so I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand why you think doing both would require infinite resources. Most emission curbs are about buying local goods, driving less and avoiding flying if at all possible, so indeed huge curbs could be made without unlimited resources.

The entire world's transportation sector(cars, trains, ships, rail, etc.) generates 14% of greenhouse gasses. The U.S., Canada, and Europe produce a bit less than half of that, say 6%. A 25% decrease in all transport emissions for these regions would lower world totals 1.5%, assuming the rest of the world just holds steady. I've seen projections that China and India are expected to increase their transportation emissions 3.5 to 5.5 TIMES (not percent), easily counteracting any reductions by the "industrialized" nations.

Any effort to control global climate change by reducing emissions is going to require global action and cooperation. The "developing" world, to include China, India, and South America, have pretty much said that they have higher priorities, such as improving the standard of living for their people. If the industrialized nations try to reduce climate change by themselves, by whatever means, I'm not sure they're going to get much result with the rest of the world not playing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Monday, February 12, 2007 8:22 PM

Quote:
The entire world's transportation sector(cars, trains, ships, rail, etc.) generates 14% of greenhouse gasses. The U.S., Canada, and Europe produce a bit less than half of that, say 6%. A 25% decrease in all transport emissions for these regions would lower world totals 1.5%, assuming the rest of the world just holds steady. I've seen projections that China and India are expected to increase their transportation emissions 3.5 to 5.5 TIMES (not percent), easily counteracting any reductions by the "industrialized" nations.

Have you a cite for these figures.

Quote:
Transport accounted for about 21% of G8 greenhouse gas emissions in 2000, about the same as the manufacturing, construction and industrial sector combined.

http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowP
age&c=Page&cid=1097073714996

Quote:
Any effort to control global climate change by reducing emissions is going to require global action and cooperation. The "developing" world, to include China, India, and South America, have pretty much said that they have higher priorities, such as improving the standard of living for their people. If the industrialized nations try to reduce climate change by themselves, by whatever means, I'm not sure they're going to get much result with the rest of the world not playing.

Yes, but right at this moment we have the worlds biggest producer refusing to make any cuts because they might somday be larger producers. Why should developing countries worry when the current largest producer couldn't give a rats arse? Before the industrialised nations start saying "we don't have to do anything because they'll be big producers someday" perhaps they should be setting a good example, rather leaving the door open for the developing nations to say "why should we do anything when those that ARE the biggest contributers couldn't care less".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BARNSTORMER

Monday, February 12, 2007 8:45 PM

Well, I'll answer Geezers original question.

I think everyone should sell their oceanfront property as soon as humanly possible. Think of all the pain and suffering and drowning and property loss and stuff that is not just on the horizon, but bearing down on all the poor idiotic ocean front home owners.

Everyone, please, tell (in as an insistant and annoying way as possible) all your friends and family who are unfortunate enough to own these "drowning pool" properties that they can hand over ownership in these future disaster area's by donating them to the following non profit organization:

www.UN.LoadIPCC.org/relief/Barnstormer/VACA

Remember, Only YOU can end your own stupidity.

God Bless and pass the Life Raft..

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

GEEZER

Monday, February 12, 2007 9:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Have you a cite for these figures.

Transportation percent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Increased emissions from Indian & Chinese transport (one of several. I averaged):
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/adb_study_co2_e.html

Quote:
Yes, but right at this moment we have the worlds biggest producer refusing to make any cuts because they might somday be larger producers.

Not signing te Kyoto accords isn't the same as refusing to make cuts. I'll need to do some more research on this.

Quote:
Why should developing countries worry when the current largest producer couldn't give a rats arse?

Because they are less able to bear the costs of climate change. They're also not as convinced that climate change is the major thing they need to worry about. I suspect that the mext U.S. administration will be much more into actions to control grenhouse gas emissions, but I very much doubt that will have any impact on the developing world's prioritization of the problem.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Monday, February 12, 2007 9:29 PM

Rats. Double posts keep adding to my carbon debt. Guess I'd better turn a light off for a while.

Oh, yeah. Interesting article in this week's Newsweek. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17080934/site/newsweek/

in part:

Quote:
Most studies predict that the world will double its consumption of energy by 2050. Since much of that growth in consumption will take place in China and India, it will involve the burning of fossil fuels.

Between them, these two countries are currently building 650 coal-fired power plants. The combined CO2 emissions of these new plants is five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords—that is, if the Kyoto targets were being adhered to by Western countries, which they are not.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:09 PM

i wanted to share with you all this article from prisonplanet.com today

Quote:
The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria: Man-made orthodoxy is a dogma of coercion, bias, and junk science

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further centralize global power.

In an interview with a Czech newspaper, Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic blamed the "whip of political correctness" for preventing more scientists and statesmen from going public with their skepticism on man-made global warming. This is precisely what we have arrived at, in a bizarre vacuum of common sense and without any attribution, the establishment and the controlled left have managed to squash reasoned two-sided debate about global warming by coating their argument with the nebulous claim that expressing disagreement is somehow bigoted, backward and even racist.

The very fact that the man-made advocates have to introduce such a far distant concept as race into a debate about scientific climate change makes it self-evident that their argument is inherently weak and vulnerable.

In an article we published in November about global warming being primarily caused by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek that people who express doubts about global warming would soon be compared to holocaust deniers by the media and other self-appointed cultural kingpins who demand total adherence to orthodox religion style beliefs about climate change.

Here's what we wrote:

The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.

It's not longer a joke.

The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman wrote an op-ed last week denouncing anyone who dares dissent against the God-like authoritative status of the IPCC UN report on climate change.

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

This assault betrays what's at the heart of the global warming agenda - a cadre of control freaks who can't respond to the overwhelming evidence that the Sun and other long term natural cycles are responsible for climate change and thus have to resort to vile propagandistic personality attacks to sway the court of public opinion.

During a debate on the BBC's Question Time program, a panelist's appeal for viewers to simply look at both sides of the argument and consider other causes besides the man-made explanation was met with boos and cat-calls from the audience and the speaker was shouted down. It's now treated as sacrilegious to even question the force fed dogma that leads the automatons to endlessly repeat what has been brainwashed into them by the establishment media like a broken record.

"We can't afford to have this debate," they scream, arguing that the end is nigh and unbelievers need to be metaphorically burned at the stake of public opinion in the interests of human survival.

But for those with memories and the nerve to actually think for themselves, the climate doomsayers have been proven wrong throughout the decades. In the la

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:15 PM

Ohh, prisonplanet, the last bastion for unbiased reporting. No wait, the other things, lies portrayed as unbiased fact. I'd trust FOX news before I'd trust those hacks and crazies.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:40 PM

i wouldnt say unbiased.. but definately biased towards actual human beings, the 90% that dont make up the super rich of the world. if we assume both prisonplanet, and your typical establishment mouthpiece agency like FOX are both biased(in their own way), lets consider their motives- i see the UN and their global government scheme as being far worse then what the alternative media(like prisonplanet)promotes, which is ultimately freedom from oppressive authorities

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:14 PM

No I think they're both a group of loonies that'll say anything for effect and or pushing they're agenda, and that neither report anything even remotely resembling news of what is really happening in real life.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:31 AM

Even if there is some global warming...a few degrees every millenium or so......so what! Everybody likes it a little warmer anyhow...right?

Instead of being -20 in Michigan today it would be -15, or in Philly today it was 8..so in a hundred years it'll be 10. It's really a good thing, this global warming. And for all you whack jobs out there on this subject; I 'aint gonna change any of my own personal enviro-climatic indulgences one iota just so some lonesome caribu can wonder about in the Arctic in search of moose poontang.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:52 AM

Geezer- to answer your question (which has already been answered by large studies) the costs associated with global climate change far outweigh the costs of reducing carbon emissions. There are a lot of reasons why this is so, but the most basic reason is that we're living at the margin... in our highly populated, interdependent world, with cities placed on coastlines and nil food surpluses any change for the worse will be felt.

There is no question that monies must go towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the only question is "What percent of GDP?" In other words, at what point does it become AS expensive to reduce greenhouse gases as it does to mitigate their effect?

www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/business/14scene.html?ex=1323752400&en=f752
c231684bfc0a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

AFA China is concerned... unfortunately they have lots and lot of coal. 350 coal-fired power plants at about 1000 MW each (that's a hefty-sized power plant) is 350,000 MW. They also plan on building a (much smaller) number of wind-turbines by 2020 totalling 30,000 MW (they have very good 'wind resources', they should take more advantage of it) and the Three Gorges Dam will produce about 18,000 MW. I've heard thet China is seriously looking into hydrogen fuel (good luck on that). I think the big problem is India, which doesn't have enough control of it's economy to reform energy production in any meaningful way.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

HERO

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Let's assume that the IPCC's latest report is correct and that things will be warming up in the next 100 years

Thats so funny. I'm going to name my forty foot snowman in your honor.

Geezer the Snowman,
was a jolly happy soul,
without a corncob pipe cause smoking's illegal,
and two eyes made of bio-degradable dog crap.

Global warming,
is a fairytale, they say.
It causes warm winters and hurricanes,
but the scientists know
how its all politcal bullshit.

There must have been some magic in
that old ALGore they found,
for when Bush kicked his sorry ass,
he began to dance around!

Oh, Geezer, the Snowman,
was as felt warm as he could be;
and the children say
he could he could point and say,
"the end will come someday".

Geezer the Snowman,
knew the sun was hot that day,
so he said, "Let's run, and we'll have some fun,
now, before I melt away."

Thumpety, thump thump, thumpety, thump thump . . .
look at Geezer go!
Thumpety, thump thump, thumpety, thump thump . . .
over the hills of snow!

Thanks, global warming is so funny. Gotto run, turns out shoveling snow is much harder then shoveling the crap you guys are spreading.

H

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:43 AM

Geezer, I'm going to expand on the subject a bit, because there are so many easy things that COULD be done both in the USA and worldwide that aren't.

Just to toss out a few:

DC power transmission. It's already in use for very long-distance tranmission (the Pacific Intertie between the Columbia Dam and Los Angeles) That would save about 10% electricity right away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Intertie

More efficient fluorescent, diode lights.

Solar ovens. Very useful in places where wood, dung, or coal is used for cooking. Costs $5-$20 each depending on how sophisticated you want it to be.

Windpower. Tall towers (about the size the the Statue of Liberty) with similarly-sized, slow-turning baldes create huge amounts of power even in moderate-wind areas. Being slow-moving, they do not represent a hazard to birds.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Thanks, global warming is so funny. Gotto run, turns out shoveling snow is much harder then shoveling the crap you guys are spreading.

That was clever, Hero. Brought a smile to my face. But you are, as usual, missing the big picture.
Whatever.

Freezing cold on a planet who's mean temperature is rising Chrisisall

RUE

Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:42 AM

What to do now? All engines hard astern. We've got a lot of reversal to do.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:46 AM

I'd love to worry about it, but I'm kind of scared of the world we're growing into and I think maybe everyone and everything will be better off if the weather finally does us all in and the animals get it back for a while.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:46 AM

My first double post. Yay!

RUE

Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:51 AM

CONGRATS !

"I'd love to worry about it, but I'm kind of scared of the world we're growing into and I think maybe everyone and everything will be better off if the weather finally does us all in and the animals get it back for a while." I'm sorry that we're going to take down a lot of the animals and plants before we go down ourselves. I'm mean, what did they ever do except live on the same planet as an eff'ed up species that can't stop, as they saying goes, shitting in its own nest.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:21 AM

We done outgrown our nest quite some time ago and now we have no choice but to shit where we eat.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

ANTIMASON

Thursday, February 15, 2007 6:00 AM

Quote:
RUE-
I'm sorry that we're going to take down a lot of the animals and plants before we go down ourselves. I'm mean, what did they ever do except live on the same planet as an eff'ed up species that can't stop, as they saying goes, shitting in its own nest.

how curious it is, that we *appear to hold the balance of life in our hands- what miracle of evolution allowed us to be the guardians of this planet? ... we cant even take care of our own 'species'

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 15, 2007 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
how curious it is, that we *appear to hold the balance of life in our hands- what miracle of evolution allowed us to be the guardians of this planet? ... we cant even take care of our own 'species'

Hah.... put that in your pipes and smoke it Evocrats!

P.S.... or perhaps put it in your patch and wear it. I guess you people don't smoke too much anymore. You're so smart!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

GEEZER

Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:55 PM

SignyM, I'm combining responses to your last two posts.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA China is concerned... unfortunately they have lots and lot of coal. 350 coal-fired power plants at about 1000 MW each (that's a hefty-sized power plant) is 350,000 MW. They also plan on building a (much smaller) number of wind-turbines by 2020 totalling 30,000 MW (they have very good 'wind resources', they should take more advantage of it) and the Three Gorges Dam will produce about 18,000 MW. I've heard thet China is seriously looking into hydrogen fuel (good luck on that). I think the big problem is India, which doesn't have enough control of it's economy to reform energy production in any meaningful way.

And that's sort of the problem. If we take steps to control emissions and they don't, it doesn't mean we avoid climate change and they don't.

Quote:
Geezer, I'm going to expand on the subject a bit, because there are so many easy things that COULD be done both in the USA and worldwide that aren't.

Just to toss out a few:

DC power transmission....More efficient fluorescent, diode lights...Solar ovens...Windpower.

These may be good ideas, but, for example, I know that folks have been pushing the solar ovens for 30 or 40 years, and still can't get any significant use. I use flourescent when possible, to save on power bills, incandescent is more useful in some situations. Then there's the question of what lengths government should go to to enforce such changes.

But the real point is still in "...both in the USA and worldwide...". If "worldwide" doesn't play, is there a point at which the USA and the rest of the First World are just spending their capital on a feel-good gesture that will have little or no impact on climate?

I got no problem with reducing the use of fossil fuels. I've seen the problems that acid rain has caused in the Shennandoah mountains and would like the trees to come back. But I don't think we're going to get the required number of players involved to do much about preventing global climate change.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Let's assume that the IPCC's latest report is correct and that things will be warming up in the next 100 years

Thats so funny. I'm going to name my forty foot snowman in your honor.

Geezer the Snowman,
was a jolly happy soul,
without a corncob pipe cause smoking's illegal,
and two eyes made of bio-degradable dog crap.

Okay. I'll edit this for those who don't understand the concept of proposing a hypothetical assumption so that a theoretical discussion can take place.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Let's hypothetically assume, for the sake of a theoretical discussion, that the IPCC's latest report is correct and that things will be warming up in the next 100 years.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:57 PM

Quote:
And that's sort of the problem. If we take steps to control emissions and they don't, it doesn't mean we avoid climate change and they don't.

And that's the age-old problem of "the commons". But I'm facing a busy day today so I'll have to get back to you later.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

KHYRON

Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:01 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6354759.stm

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

RUE

Friday, February 16, 2007 1:26 PM

If the US works like hell to avoid climate change and 'they' don't the US will be efficient and energy independent and 'they' won't. Not a bad spot to be in.

RUE

Friday, February 16, 2007 1:27 PM

6-string

Was your relationship with your mother highly conflicted? Not meant to be insulting, I'm really curious.

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And that's sort of the problem. If we take steps to control emissions and they don't, it doesn't mean we avoid climate change and they don't.
And that's the age-old problem of "the commons". But I'm facing a busy day today so I'll have to get back to you later.

---------------------------------
Rue: If the US works like hell to avoid climate change and 'they' don't the US will be efficient and energy independent and 'they' won't. Not a bad spot to be in.

I posted that later but I think it applies. Aside from climate change, there are good reasons to be ahead of the curve.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 4:33 PM

Geezer- How 'bout this?

Turnbull to pull plug on light bulbs

Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull is announcing today that conventional, incandescent light bulbs are to be phased out over the next three years and replaced with energy-saving globes. He says this will save up to two million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in Australia over the next few years. Mr Turnbull has told AM that new energy standards will be introduced.

"It'll be illegal to sell a product that doesn't meet the energy standard so that'll happen by 2009, 2010, and so by that stage you simply won't be able to buy incandescent light bulbs because they won't meet the energy standard," he said. Mr Turnbull told Channel Nine this action could also make an enormous impact globally.

"If the rest of the world supports us, does what we've been doing here, follows our lead, this will reduce an amount of energy, in effect make the world more energy efficient to the tune of five times as much energy as Australia consumes, so this is a little thing but it's a massive change," he said.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070219/21/12h62.html

---------------------------------
Taking one step back from Earth that was.

KHYRON

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:04 PM

Now that the Ozzies have finally gotten their arses handed to them in cricket, it looks like Howard could at last tear himself away from watching them on the telly long enough to get one of his ministers to do something sensible.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Now that the Ozzies have finally gotten their arses handed to them in cricket, it looks like Howard could at last tear himself away from watching them on the telly long enough to get one of his ministers to do something sensible.

Read over that sentence again and realise where you went wrong.

Hint:
Howard. Doing. Something. Usefull.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.