Be worried, be very worried(Global Warming Related)

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame


(Time.comexternal link) -- No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth.

Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.

From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us.

The problem -- as scientists suspected but few others appreciated -- is that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. That's just what's happening now.

It's at the north and south poles -- where ice cover is crumbling to slush -- that the crisis is being felt the most acutely.

Late last year, for example, researchers analyzed data from Canadian and European satellites and found that the Greenland ice sheet is not only melting, but doing so faster and faster, with 53 cubic miles draining away into the sea last year alone, compared to 23 cubic miles in 1996.

One of the reasons the loss of the planet's ice cover is accelerating is that as the poles' bright white surface disappears it changes the relationship of the Earth and the sun. Polar ice is so reflective that 90 percent of the sunlight that strikes it simply bounces back into space, taking its energy with it. Ocean water does just the opposite, absorbing 90 percent of the light and heat it receives, meaning that each mile of ice that melts vanishes faster than the mile that preceded it.

This is what scientists call a feedback loop, and a similar one is also melting the frozen land called permafrost, much of which has been frozen -- since the end of last ice age in fact, or at least 8,000 years ago.

Sealed inside that cryonic time capsule are layers of decaying organic matter, thick with carbon, which itself can transform into CO2. In places like the southern boundary of Alaska the soil is now melting and softening.

As fast as global warming is changing the oceans and ice caps, it's having an even more immediate effect on land. Droughts are increasingly common as higher temperatures also bake moisture out of soil faster, causing dry regions that live at the margins to tip into full-blown crisis.

Wildfires in such sensitive regions as Indonesia, the western U.S. and even inland Alaska have been occurring with increased frequency as timberlands grow more parched. Those forests that don't succumb to fire can simply die from thirst.

With habitats crashing, the animals that call them home are succumbing too. In Alaska, salmon populations are faltering as melting permafrost pours mud into rivers, burying the gravel the fish need for spawning. Small animals such as bushy tailed rats, chipmunks and pinion mice are being chased upslope by rising temperatures, until they at last have no place to run.

And with sea ice vanishing, polar bears are starting to turn up drowned. "There will be no polar ice by 2060," says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. "Somewhere along that path, the polar bear drops out."

So much environmental collapse has at last awakened much of the world, particularly the 141 nations that have ratified the Kyoto treaty to reduce emissions. The Bush administration, however, has shown no willingness to address the warming crisis in a serious way and Congress has not been much more encouraging.

Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman have twice been unable to get even mild measures to limit carbon emissions through a recalcitrant Senate.

A 10-member House delegation did recently travel to Antarctica, Australia and New Zealand to meet with scientists studying climate change. "Of the 10 of us, only three were believers to begin with," says Rep. Sherman Boehlert of New York. "Every one of the others said this opened their eyes."

But lawmakers who still applaud themselves for recognizing global warming are hardly the same as lawmakers with the courage to reverse it, and increasingly, state and local governments are stepping forward.

The mayors of more than 200 cities have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging, among other things, that they will meet the Kyoto goal of reducing greenhouse emissions in their own cities to 1990 levels by 2012. Nine northeastern states have established the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for the purpose of developing a program to cap greenhouse gasses.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html



I still dont how understand how fools still dont believe something needs to be done. There are going to be the certain group on this site that will say its all BS and the earth going through global warming is a natural process or it doesnt even exist. Well even if it is normal for the earth or the earth isnt in danger, the animals including us the dumbest of all animals are still endangered. Or do you believe these extreme weather conditions from the past couple years are normal and everything is fine.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever'] Well even if it is normal for the earth or the earth isnt in danger, the animals including us the dumbest of all animals are still endangered. Or do you believe these extreme weather conditions from the past couple years are normal and everything is fine.[/QUOTE]

Top of the fucking food chain baby. Millions of years of evolution would disagree with you about us being the dumbest animal.

I love this self-defeatist attitude that humans are oh so awful. You have the power to help the problem by getting rid of at least 1 human being.
 
Well, I think only a fool would argue that humans are anything but a negative for the environment.

But, killing off humans that want change is idiotic. It's like saying "If you don't like the way the country is heading then leave", which in turn ensures that the current path will remain unchanged.
 
"How can you say that the American economy is in the toilet and that average inflation-adjusted wages just keep falling year after year? Don't you know that there are still some rich people in this country?"

Figure out the difference between 'average temperatures' and 'temperatures in a specific location during a specific time period' and then we'll debate you further.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Millions of years of evolution would disagree with you about us being the dumbest animal.[/quote]
Every animal in existence today has had an equal amount of evolution, no matter how dumb ;).

Well hey, let's be positive, if shit goes down and we all die off everything will just adjust over time and an animal with equivalent intelligence and ability to fuck it up may never evolve again.

At least from some angle that's positive...
 
Every animal in existence today has had an equal amount of evolution, no matter how dumb ;).

Not exactly true. Some animals have evolved relatively little. For example, the Coelacanth is type of fish that very closely resembles ancestors that existed 300+ million years ago.

Another example of different rates of evolution, Chimps (which many scientists think should be classified as human) are evolving faster than homosapiens.
 
I think you misunderstood me (or maybe I misunderstood him). What I was trying to say is that nothing is more evolved than another thing, everything is the product of the same number of years of evolution. As in humans aren't at the top of a chain leading from bacteria or what have you, as if there are some kinds of "levels" of evolution or something. It's just a common misconception, I didn't know if that's what he was saying or not.

Not that something can't be more or less fit for its environment (or a million other things) which would effect its rate of actual change over those years.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']So much environmental collapse has at last awakened much of the world, particularly the 141 nations that have ratified the Kyoto treaty to reduce emissions. The Bush administration, however, has shown no willingness to address the warming crisis in a serious way and Congress has not been much more encouraging.[/QUOTE]

Interesting article that unfortunately seems to believe in the fallacy that if everyone adhered to the Kyoto Protocol things would be all better, or even change significantly, which they wouldn't. I wish people like the author of this article would wake up and realize that Kyoto was not, is not, and never will be the answer, and instead start to discuss any sort of real agreement. I hardly am convinced that humans have played anything other than a minor role in these current climate issues, although if we stick to talking about nonsensical and ineffective relics like Kyoto instead of looking for something to agree on there won't be any room at all for immediate action if that becomes necessary or is felt prudent.
 
Sure, Kyoto might not be the immediate answer, but it's a step in the right direction and one, in which 141 nations agree is as well...
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Sure, Kyoto might not be the immediate answer, but it's a step in the right direction and one, in which 141 nations agree is as well...[/QUOTE]

It's a meaningless step. It places no limits on countries like China and India, who will soon become the largest polluters and whose pollution is increasing the fastest, while limiting the already industrialized countries to 1990 levels. Of course, since Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union were polluting a lot more in 1990 than they are today, they too can increase their pollution levels. Basically it places limits on a few countries that will have no real effect while allowing most countries to pollute as much as they want. It's a farce, plain and simple. It's better scrapped altogether and a new negotiation begun. Unfortunately, since Bush isn't very good at seeing too far into the future, he has refused to endorse any new negotiation either.
 
Kyoto places limits on those countries in the future, and those countries will be brought under kyoto in the near future. But your solution is essentially fuck kyoto and do nothing. You're not providing a better alternative, the u.s. government is unwilling to do anything substantial other than say they don't want to follow kyoto. The first step is better than waiting until the ideal that never shows up.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Kyoto places limits on those countries in the future, and those countries will be brought under kyoto in the near future. But your solution is essentially fuck kyoto and do nothing. You're not providing a better alternative, the u.s. government is unwilling to do anything substantial other than say they don't want to follow kyoto. The first step is better than waiting until the ideal that never shows up.[/QUOTE]

And how do you enforce limits? You monitarily penalize countries for overproduction thereby making the treaty useless except to redistribute wealth to poorer nations who do not produce as much as highly industrialized ones. The whole concept is a bribery scheme which will do nothing to reduce emmissions. Even if they could reduce emissions to zero the "feedback loop" theories wouldn't allow for a return to former equlibrium. It's moot.

Another variable never considered in these "theories" is the fact that solar output is not constant, and neither is the earth's orbit. Variances in solar productions can contribute enormously to the "greenhouse effect" as well as earth's eccentricly, or wobbly, eliptical orbit. Unfortunately, there is no way to compare data from 100million years ago so it's just much easier to claim that humans are responsible.
 
Geological data can indicate the level of greenhouses gases that were present. I'm not a geologist and can't do anymore than copy and paste info on how its done though.
 
Humans are some what responsible.
This treaty would help, but it would only slow it down by a couple of years at most.
I believe I read somewhere the entire human population's pollution is equivalent to three large volcanoes debris.
I'm all for cutting down pollution, but I just don't think it will do much.
 
I think since we're fucked anyways you might as well go out and buy that Hummer you've wanted, build a heated outdoor pool, use it through the winter, switch to aresol can deoderant, encourage all women you know to use Aquanet, buy from the most poluting factories possible and raise a giant herd of farting cows.

I mean, who cares at this point. Science says we're done for.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Top of the fucking food chain baby. Millions of years of evolution would disagree with you about us being the dumbest animal.

I love this self-defeatist attitude that humans are oh so awful. You have the power to help the problem by getting rid of at least 1 human being.[/quote]

We s#it in our own backyard worse than any other animal I can think of.

Humans are pretty fucking awful, especially as a collective.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']And how do you enforce limits? You monitarily penalize countries for overproduction thereby making the treaty useless except to redistribute wealth to poorer nations who do not produce as much as highly industrialized ones. The whole concept is a bribery scheme which will do nothing to reduce emmissions. Even if they could reduce emissions to zero the "feedback loop" theories wouldn't allow for a return to former equlibrium. It's moot.

Another variable never considered in these "theories" is the fact that solar output is not constant, and neither is the earth's orbit. Variances in solar productions can contribute enormously to the "greenhouse effect" as well as earth's eccentricly, or wobbly, eliptical orbit. Unfortunately, there is no way to compare data from 100million years ago so it's just much easier to claim that humans are responsible.[/QUOTE]

Temperature variations due to solar activity is still directly proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
 
[quote name='Dkellar']If there is an overall global warming issue then why did China have record low temperatures this past winter?[/QUOTE]

Global warming is the increase of the earth's average temperature. This process causes unstable weather patterns, which can result in areas of the planet seeing temperatures below normal.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But, killing off humans that want change is idiotic. It's like saying "If you don't like the way the country is heading then leave", which in turn ensures that the current path will remain unchanged.[/quote]

Screw you buddy!! If you dont like Earth you can leave!!

WOOoOOOOooOOO!
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Kyoto places limits on those countries in the future, and those countries will be brought under kyoto in the near future. But your solution is essentially fuck kyoto and do nothing. You're not providing a better alternative, the u.s. government is unwilling to do anything substantial other than say they don't want to follow kyoto. The first step is better than waiting until the ideal that never shows up.[/QUOTE]

Again, the fact is that Kyoto does basically nothing, so wasting time debating that or insisting it be followed is pointless because it doesn't make a real difference either way. My solution is to go back to the drawing board, since what has emerged so far is utter nonsense that is not worthy of pursuit.

But I do agree with you that the Bush administration seems unlikely to even want to pursue a negotiation on this issue, which is dumb (dumb not to talk about it).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
But I do agree with you that the Bush administration seems unlikely to even want to pursue a negotiation on this issue, which is dumb (dumb not to talk about it).[/QUOTE]

When the premise of the Kyoto treaty is to extort money from the industrialized world and give it to 3d world, why bother talking about it at all?

And since we're caught in a 'feedback' loop, it's pointless to think we can affect a reversal of the effect.

I say it's hogwash. Global warming will create more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor will create more cloud cover, which will reflect more sunlight back into space. This, along with a period of reduced solar activity and a slight natural shift in the earth's orbit will cause the next ice age.

And alonzo, nobody can tell you with certainty what the co2 content of the atmosphere was 100 million years ago. Some scientists even believe the co2 content was more than 5 times higher than todays levels 500 million years ago, yet life still exists even today. Amazing, eh?

And I'm not quite sure where you're going with this one coffman:
[quote name='coffman']Temperature variations due to solar activity is still directly proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.[/QUOTE] The total amount of heat absorbed primarily, has to do with the total output of the sun. Decreased solar activity leaves less energy for greenhouse gasses to absorb or reflect back to earth. Less sun = less heat. More sun = more total heat, regardless of how much greenhouse gas is in the atmosphere.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']When the premise of the Kyoto treaty is to extort money from the industrialized world and give it to 3d world, why bother talking about it at all?[/quote]
Because it would reduce the emissions of green-house gasses and thereby improve the health of the planet (and thereby our own future as a race)?

And since we're caught in a 'feedback' loop, it's pointless to think we can affect a reversal of the effect.
You're right: it would be a hard problem to solve completely, so screw it.

I say it's hogwash. Global warming will create more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor will create more cloud cover, which will reflect more sunlight back into space. This, along with a period of reduced solar activity and a slight natural shift in the earth's orbit will cause the next ice age.
Quite true: first we have global warming (causing massive flooding along the coasts and violent weather everywhere), leading eventually to an ice age (destroying crops and causing widespread starvation.) No reputable scientist will disagree with you there. I'm not quite sure what the fact that global warming leads to an ice age wherein everyone starves to death makes it any better, though...

And alonzo, nobody can tell you with certainty what the co2 content of the atmosphere was 100 million years ago. Some scientists even believe the co2 content was more than 5 times higher than todays levels 500 million years ago, yet life still exists even today. Amazing, eh?
Yep. Too bad for the dinosaurs, though. Who knows, maybe in 100 million years some newly-evolved intelligent species will be saying the same thing about us.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']When the premise of the Kyoto treaty is to extort money from the industrialized world and give it to 3d world, why bother talking about it at all?

And since we're caught in a 'feedback' loop, it's pointless to think we can affect a reversal of the effect. [/quote]

No one says we are stuck in an irreversable loop. There may be tipping points, but it is not entirely out of our control. If enough is done it can be reversed, but more likely we can just limit the damage. It has changed throughout history, it's not permanent now.

I say it's hogwash. Global warming will create more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor will create more cloud cover, which will reflect more sunlight back into space. This, along with a period of reduced solar activity and a slight natural shift in the earth's orbit will cause the next ice age.

No, greenhouse gasses trap heat. Without an atmosphere the earth would be colder than it is today.

And alonzo, nobody can tell you with certainty what the co2 content of the atmosphere was 100 million years ago. Some scientists even believe the co2 content was more than 5 times higher than todays levels 500 million years ago, yet life still exists even today. Amazing, eh?

They can tell generally what it was in general time periods. I'm not sure how specific it gets, and I'm not going to make any more specific claims because, again, I'm not a geologist. I have a personal interest in paleontology, but that's just what I can get on tv. Not very in depth. Though I do plan on taking a course in it next semester, so maybe I'll know more then.

But, no, it's not in any way amazing that co2 levels changed. Life has existed for over 3 billion years, but the life is different. Some animals alive today would go extinct if past conditions were restored. And many past animals would go extinct if todays conditions were placed on them. Life, as a whole, adapts to fit the situation. But, individually, many species do not.

In the past the surface of the earth is believed to have essentially melted, the oceans dried up etc., but life existed before and after that. That doesn't mean that most of life didn't go extinct though.

And I'm not quite sure where you're going with this one coffman:
The total amount of heat absorbed primarily, has to do with the total output of the sun. Decreased solar activity leaves less energy for greenhouse gasses to absorb or reflect back to earth. Less sun = less heat. More sun = more total heat, regardless of how much greenhouse gas is in the atmosphere.

Ice reflects about 90% of heat that hits it, water aborbs about 90%. Much more matters than simply the sun.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']When the premise of the Kyoto treaty is to extort money from the industrialized world and give it to 3d world, why bother talking about it at all?[/QUOTE]

We should talk about it (1) to show goodwill to other countries who are concerned; and (2) because at some point in the future we may want to pursue such a global regime (something with real effects) if that becomes necessary and prudent. These things can take years and years and years to reach a consensus. We should do the legwork now and if it's not needed then at least we can say we were prepared with a plan. In other words, the current backup plan is unworkable; therefore we should formulate another backup plan.

[quote name='Drocket']Because it would reduce the emissions of green-house gasses and thereby improve the health of the planet (and thereby our own future as a race)?[/quote]

Once again, Kyoto does not significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a fact. Kyoto does next to nothing to improve the "health of the planet," even if you accept completely current theories about global warming.
 
bread's done
Back
Top