Kolya on 24/11/2009 at 17:27
You're a mosquito.
Aerothorn on 24/11/2009 at 18:44
Quote Posted by Koki
Do you care about your impact of the ecosystem every time you kill a mosquito?
RELEVANCE NOT DETECTED
Koki on 24/11/2009 at 19:27
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
RELEVANCE NOT DETECTED
[some picture from wikipedia showing the few percent of CO2 that is attributed to humans]
d0om on 24/11/2009 at 23:47
if you think 35% is a small increase, then I hate to think what a large increase is...
CCCToad on 25/11/2009 at 00:58
The other problem is that there really are no significant, genuine advocates of Change. Most of the famous climate change advocates(most notably Gore) live an extravagant lifestyle, complete with limos, private jets, mansions, and other luxuries that use up an enormous amount of energy. Much of the legislation being discussed will produce negligible reduces in CO2 production. Politicians seem to view it not as an actual problem, but as an excuse to raise taxes.
The Way I see it: I think the alarmists probably are wrong, and the world isn't going to destroy itself in 20 years. However, that doesn't mean our energy addiction is OK. Its not. Unless we are able to curb our reliance on Fossil fuels before they dry things are going to get extremely difficult for the generation which experiences that.
It's irresponsible to keep punting this issue downfield, so speak.
Koki on 25/11/2009 at 09:18
Quote Posted by d0om
if you think 35% is a small increase, then I hate to think what a large increase is...
Oh you, you almost made me actually go to Wikipedia and look for the image.
icemann on 25/11/2009 at 17:34
I find it quite amusing, and in other ways quite sad of the people who advocate that humans have nothing to do with climate change and so that we should therefore just continue along our happy way polluting the planet. Many of the politicians in the "against" camp, dont care since the end result of much of it wont be till all us are gone, and our kids are approaching old age themselves.
Recall back to when you were a kid and what the temperature and weather was like, and then flash forward to today and compare it. I`m sure the common response would be that its now hotter and that extreme weather is now alot more common than back then. The hottest day I can recall from 20+ years ago was of 42 degrees celcius days and that back then was considered extreme. Earlier this year we had several days of 42+ degree days, with one being 47 degrees, the hottest day recorded on record here in populated areas (to my knowledge). Of course everyone in their own respective countries would have their own differing extremes.
Here in Australia there has been HUGE debate in parliament as the labor government has been pushing for an ETS (emissions trading scheme) pretty much since the election, and the vote of whether or not to put it in place is taking place this week, with many in the opposition liberal party dead against it. Those in the opposition are dead against it due to 3 main reasons: the economic requirements of it (ie higher taxes), others are against it as they are completely of the opinion that we have nothing to do with it all and the third main reason for opposition has been that why should we be acting on climate change when the rest of the world isn't.
Personally I think a larger move to more greener technologies (ie solar power, wind power, hydro plants etc), and far less of a reliance on carbon emitting sources (coal power plants etc) would be immensely better than trapping the carbon underground but ah well.
All in all in my opinion of this age we are now in of governments beginning to act/start debating of these issues is due to those born from the 80s onwards now being of age for our voices to be heard, and of some of those people being in parliament themselves. We also have been raised with a better/greater understanding of the green house effect, climate change etc in comparison to our parents, and their parents. Though this again would of course vary from country to country so I can only speak from my own experiences.
End of the day this is something we need to act on at some point, and why not now. Better to act on something, when its effects are beginning, to later when things are far more dire and possibly irreversible. Yes your bills will go up, but its something that had to happen at some point.
On the Co2 emissions, from what I recall from school days is that the more of it that is present in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature will become. So the longer it takes for us to act and reduce those Co2 emissions, the hotter the planet will become as well as its effects on us and other life on the planet. You have only to look at planets like Venus for example to see the results that a extreme version of the green house effect can have on a planet (average temperature temperature of 480 degrees celcius).
Quick google search link: (
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/thermo/grnhse.html#c5)
All of the above is purely my opinion on the issue. I obviously have no evidence to back up the majority of it, but its my 5 cents on the topic.
Xorak on 25/11/2009 at 20:39
Quote Posted by icemann
I find it quite amusing, and in other ways quite sad of the people who advocate that humans have nothing to do with climate change and so that we should therefore just continue along our happy way polluting the planet. Many of the politicians in the "against" camp, dont care since the end result of much of it wont be till all us are gone, and our kids are approaching old age themselves....
I agree completely on the need to change to green technologies because it's the right thing to do and not because of a belief that humans are causing global warming. What would happen to the push for green technologies if it was definatively proven that humans were not causing global warming? Would the majority of people say screw it and go back to old ways? What about those places that have a carbon tax in place, what would the people do if it was revelead that Co2 emmisions never had any effect and the money was completely wasted? That's the kind of thing I worry about. Even fifty years into the future, even if this warming period is long gone, the answer will probably never be clear. Both sides will still say they were right.
Venus is a good example of a runaway greenhouse effect, but it can't really be compared to Earth, because Venus didn't have oceans, soil, plants, or life to recycle the Co2 back into its surface. It's atmosphere is also 96% Co2, compared to Earth with .038%.
Also, not that I dispute your memory, but the idea of saying it was different when we were younger, and that the world is headed towards disaster, is a fundamental truth/need of human existence. Some of the earliest literary, non-religious texts deal with this idea. Sumerian moralistic tales written as early as 1700 BC have the father telling his son how much the world is changing and how much the new generation doesn't appreciate the older, and how the world was so much simpler when the father was young. How a paradise once existed but now is gone; how the world is headed to disaster because of the idleness of the new generation. Might as well have been written yesterday.
Koki on 25/11/2009 at 20:41
Quote Posted by icemann
I find it quite amusing, and in other ways quite sad of the people who advocate that humans have nothing to do with climate change and so that we should therefore just continue along our happy way polluting the planet.
(Pollution != CO2 emissions)
The case, from what I see, is quite simple, and is the answer to the question "What can be done?". And the answer is, nothing can be fucking done about global warming. Whether we're the cause, or it's natural coming out of the small ice age, or it's increased solar activity, it doesn't really matter, because we're completely and utterly powerless to affect the outcome in any way.
No, seriously. Let's assume it's our fault. Well guess what? CO2 goes into the air. It stays here. For a LONG time. I heard, a hundred years. But even ten would be enough. And then there are points of no return, like melting of permafrost. We crossed them about five times already, but I admit I wasn't really counting. And weird thing is, every time we cross one, another appears in a few years' time.
So what's the bottom line? We're fucked. Even if - right here and now - we stopped ALL CO2 emissions - and that would pretty much mean all people around the world going back to living in caves and foraging - what we already pumped into the air will come and bite us in the ass. Yeah, if it's really our fault, the situation is THIS bad.
So let's see what is libtards' grand plan of stopping global warming: Don't fly planes, unless it's SUPER NECESSARY(like going for a vacation). Turn off the light when you go out. Oh, and pay more for petrol.
Well guess what. I really don't think that's going to work. I really don't think the Climate is going to appreciate our efforts. "Hey humans, you've been a bunch of dicks, but I can see you're trying. I'll give you another chance".
Somewhat unlikely.
Muzman on 25/11/2009 at 20:44
The hilarious thing about the ETS is it's tearing the Libs apart as they do everything they can to block it, but it was their idea in the first place.
ETSs were cooked up by right wing economics fans 15+yrs ago as a business friendly alternative to the hard caps proposed by everyone else. This was back when turning everything into a deregulated marketplace was the answer to the world's woes. Remember those days, before being shown repeatedly to be a great way to mask dodgy business practices and generally (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron) fuck up important shit?
Green groups at the time opposed it as it didn't necessarily amount to any reduction in emissions, just giving companies a way to shuffle everything around and look like something is happening (the current proposal may have some provisions to avoid this. I don't know). Nowadays the Green side are like "Fine, just pass something. Anything!", Labor aren't even too sure about it sometimes and the Libs are franticly restaking their position now that they're not as aloof as they could be (rumour has it that half the party are outright do-nothing denialists and I have little trouble believing it).
It's not even law yet. Implimenting it will take years and then there's be all sorts of enquiries to figure out if its doing anything. It's exhausting is what it its.