Global warming

[corduroygt]

You just don't get it, do you? If we don't have global action on climate change, everybody, including Americans, are going to suffer.

If you don't pay a dollar today, a kid in Africa will starve to death. That is far more certain and immediate than the negative effects of AGW, the severity of which cannot accurately be predicted. Why don't you pay it?

You're a horrible, horrible excuse for a human being and a hypocrite as well.

 

[corduroygt]

Yes but if we do have global action the rich oil barons telling him what he needs are going to suffer. Can't have that.

Rich oil barons aren't going to suffer regardless of what happens. I am just against paying more taxes for a cause that's priority #584. I'd rather have all that money poured into nuclear power and algae biofuels, and more efficiency, but nothing that requires altering the lifestyle that we have in this country. So, yes to hybrids, yes to biofuel, yes to battery car research, yes to nuclear, but no to mass transport, or moving closer to the city or having smaller homes.

 

[hoho]

What would that do and how is it related to AGW. I don't go out and protest the attempts to pass Crap'n'Trade either, since I don't think they work.

My point was that you are heavily against spending money on preserving nature the way it is while you aren't doing anything to stop your country from gifting far bigger sums of money to badly managed companies money from the pockets of yourself and your fellow citizens.

 

[corduroygt]

My point was that you are heavily against spending money on preserving nature the way it is while you aren't doing anything to stop your country from gifting far bigger sums of money to badly managed companies money from the pockets of yourself and your fellow citizens.

I am against the bailouts too, but this is not the thread for that, is it?

 

[Blazkowicz]

My point was that you are heavily against spending money on preserving nature the way it is while you aren't doing anything to stop your country from gifting far bigger sums of money to badly managed companies money from the pockets of yourself and your fellow citizens.

in those unfair giveaways you can include subventions for ethanol and wind farms, if only because they serve private interests and increase carbon emissions (at least in a nuclear powered country for the latter)

 

[Frank]

The reduction in fertillity in what we call the Fertile Crescent has been at least partially attributed to the fact that that region of the Middle East was subject one of the earliest periods of intense agriculture in a climate that tended towards arid with soils that had limited reserve for exploitation.

Farming disrupted thin soil, and the vegetation that helped retain moisture in the dry parts of the year was replaced by crops that did not protect the soil or retain moisture.
When some years were drier than others, the vegetation was less able to thrive, and so the soil quality suffered even more. The reduced soils lead to weaker vegetation, which lead to faster drying and die-back of the biome.
The exhaustion of local farms lead to tearing up more uncultivated land, which lead to...

A similar modern incident was the American Dust Bowl. The level of richness of midwest soils was such that agriculture survived (heavily fertilized these days), but the billions of tons of lost topsoil was a staggering amount of nutrients lost that took millennia to accumulate.

Agreed. Most (if not all) large deserts we have today are due to there being some large, central cities, which needed wood and food. They chopped down all the forests for firewood and building materials, and planted crops. But, there not being artificial fertilizers, those farms had to move along with the chopping.

After a while, the time it took to transport the wood and food became too great (no frigid trucks), the cities collapsed and desert was left.

There are some very interesting pictures made by ground-penetrating radar satellites (originally designed to spot submarines), that show a nice map of the floor plan of those lost civilizations in those deserts. And archaeological digs show the evidence.

 

[Squilliam]

So what happens when the price of fertilizer goes up due to rising natural gas prices? If the price of farm production goes up due to the rising cost of fuel and electricity? If the price of transportation and refridgeration goes up due to the rising cost of again fuel and electricity? When you have a energy source which is so vital to the survival of 95% of the population you surely wouldn't want all your eggs in that basket?

Sorry.

You would.

My bad.

 

[AlphaWolf]

So what happens when the price of fertilizer goes up due to rising natural gas prices?

Actually the biggest thing pushing fertilizer prices is food prices. Right now they aren't driven so much by costs as demand. Potash prices are up $50 a tonne from last year.

 

[Squilliam]

Actually the biggest thing pushing fertilizer prices is food prices. Right now they aren't driven so much by costs as demand. Potash prices are up $50 a tonne from last year.

Its also transportation. A lot of farm products are quite bulky, case in point feed for animals.

 

[KimB]

Agreed. Most (if not all) large deserts we have today are due to there being some large, central cities, which needed wood and food. They chopped down all the forests for firewood and building materials, and planted crops. But, there not being artificial fertilizers, those farms had to move along with the chopping.

And what, pray tell, is this based upon?

 

[Frank]

So what happens when the price of fertilizer goes up due to rising natural gas prices? If the price of farm production goes up due to the rising cost of fuel and electricity? If the price of transportation and refridgeration goes up due to the rising cost of again fuel and electricity? When you have a energy source which is so vital to the survival of 95% of the population you surely wouldn't want all your eggs in that basket?

Sorry.

You would.

My bad.

Exactly.

First, that's why finding and burning oil, and creating and using plastics was the best and most environmental thing that happened to Earth and humanity in millennia.

But you are right: who cares? People only care if they have the money to spare and want a diversion to feel good, or if they go down because of it. Otherwise, it's business as usual, and people who proclaim the "Apocalypse is Upon Us!" are from all times.

The current crop is the AGW proponents, to me.

Not that they are totally wrong, but then again, nobody ever is. Everyone has a valid reason to behave as they do.

But knowing your facts and history helps a lot in getting it right.

 

[Frank]

And what, pray tell, is this based upon?

You're a scientist, right? Find out and tell us.

If you can prove me wrong, I'll be happy: I like to learn new things, to broaden my knowledge.

 

[KimB]

You're a scientist, right? Find out and tell us.

If you can prove me wrong, I'll be happy: I like to learn new things, to broaden my knowledge.

Try Wikipedia, and the links therein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Climate

Everything that changes on Earth isn't necessarily about us.

 

[Squilliam]

Exactly.

First, that's why finding and burning oil, and creating and using plastics was the best and most environmental thing that happened to Earth and humanity in millennia.

Err the fact that they enabled a massive increase in resource use and population expansion which resulted from the free/cheap energy means that I don't think it was the best thing for the other creatures on the planet. Trust me, you can chop down a hell of a lot more trees with a bulldozer and a chainsaw in a place far away where you can get to with a car.

But im not here to argue about that, moving on...

But you are right: who cares? People only care if they have the money to spare and want a diversion to feel good, or if they go down because of it. Otherwise, it's business as usual, and people who proclaim the "Apocalypse is Upon Us!" are from all times.

The current crop is the AGW proponents, to me.

Not that they are totally wrong, but then again, nobody ever is. Everyone has a valid reason to behave as they do.

But knowing your facts and history helps a lot in getting it right.

How about reasons to do stuff which aren't related to AGW.

1. Conserving fuel supply and transitioning to new sources of energy. Fossil fuels will run out regardless of whether its 20 years or 50 years from now. Starting the transition now will keep fuel costs lower given the inelastic nature of energy demand.

2. Saving money with energy efficiency, fewer inputs = same or more outputs. How can this be considered bad? It's free economic growth.

3. Many of the marine organisms at the bottom of the food chain are sensitive to PH levels. If the CO2 levels continue to rise then it may damage the overall ability of the ocean to support the level of fish biomass we remove on a regular basis.

4. Many of the investments in renewable technology look practically free when seen over a 50 or 100 year time scale. In my country the hydro dams costs a mere few cents per KW/H and have been producing electricity for over half a century. Once you've paid for the pylons, all you need to do is stick new ones on after 20 years in the case of wind power and you've instantly gained improved power output and the cost per KW/H would be sickeningly low because all you're paying for is new blades and turbines less the money returned for the old equipment. Solar is a similar deal as well.

5. Nuclear, cool technology. Will look even better with a rational approach to the construction of these plants.

6. More free energy = more cool exotic materials. Most of the really really cool materials you hear about for strength to weight ratios especially never leave the lab because they take so much energy to produce as compared to current materials.

 

[corduroygt]

Here are excerpts from NASA's own climate change page:
http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

Clouds. Clouds have an enormous impact on Earth's climate, reflecting back into space about one third of the total amount of sunlight that hits the Earth's atmosphere. As the atmosphere warms, cloud patterns may change, altering the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth. Because clouds are such powerful climate actors, even small changes in average cloud amounts, locations, and type could speed warming, slow it, or even reverse it. Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently rated clouds among its highest research priorities. NASA and its research partners in industry, academia, and other nations have a small flotilla of spacecraft and aircraft studying clouds and the closely related phenomenon of aerosols.

This is one of the 7 uncertainties that they suggested, but it really stuck out to me. I simply don't trust the models are anywhere near accurate or comprehensive, the current models are probably like the models of the Atom we had in 1800s.

Then, there are the impacts of AGW:
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.

Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.

Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.

Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.

Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.

As you can see, North America is pretty good and even sees an increase in crop yields and the only drawback are some heatwaves we can just A/C our way through, so there is nothing to worry about. It certainly sucks to be in Africa or Asia though, but they can combat that with their own taxes, not mine!

 

[KimB]

As you can see, North America is pretty good and even sees an increase in crop yields and the only drawback are some heatwaves we can just A/C our way through, so there is nothing to worry about. It certainly sucks to be in Africa or Asia though, but they can combat that with their own taxes, not mine!

You are suck a fucking piece of shit. What in the hell is wrong with you?

 

[hoho]

5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions;

Aren't most farming areas requiring artificial watering systems to keep stuff from dying? Combine that with more frequent heat waves requiring even more watering and you'll have a disaster at your hands.

 

[pjbliverpool]

As you can see, North America is pretty good and even sees an increase in crop yields and the only drawback are some heatwaves we can just A/C our way through, so there is nothing to worry about. It certainly sucks to be in Africa or Asia though, but they can combat that with their own taxes, not mine!

That's wrong on so many levels. You and Hitler would have gotten along great, he shared similar views.

 

[corduroygt]

You are suck a fucking piece of shit. What in the hell is wrong with you?

That's wrong on so many levels. You and Hitler would have gotten along great, he shared similar views.

So you guys all send a dollar a day to help the starving kids in Africa to get food, clean water, etc? I find that very hard to believe.
Hitler is a poor analogy, I am not advocating aggression, only apathy. That's really how we all feel about other people in different continents, don't kid yourselves. If you cared, you'd be sending money to Africa right about now.

By the way this sort of attitude and language does not help your cause nor your credibility.

 

[hoho]

If you cared, you'd be sending money to Africa right about now.

Pretty sure my little country gives out quite a bit of foreign help. I wouldn't even be surprised if it's more than US does per-capita.