Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 14:26:15 GMT -5
FWIW, the graph of carbon dioxide levels, which has fluctuated over a period of the last 3 million years between about 150 and 250ppm has now gone ballistic. [...] A 2 degree Celsius rise in temp by 2050 is now starting to look conservative. For those who are interested in this subject I can recommend " The Uninhabitable Earth," "Falter," and "The Sixth Extinction." One thing I don't like about the climate change "debate", is that some people, usually under the sway of left wing political thinking, mix hard science (eg, combustion releases CO2, certain gasses trap heat from sun, etc) with iffy or wild speculation at about how the complex Earth system will behave. For example, that title about an "uninhabitable" planet. That is not likely to happen. It's more likely that we get a rise in sea level that changes real estate. It's a big deal, but not the end of the world. It's also possible that the earth might "improve" in ways. Eg, a place that was desert could turn green. I'm not advocating inaction. I want people to move to cleaner energy, and we are. I just don't like about the sci-fi doomsday stuff mixed with the political mob. Also worth noting... - These CO2 levels existed before, in prehistoric times, along with higher temps and higher oceans. The Earth can handle it. - If humans were perfect environmentalists, the Earth would still drastically change the climate over 1000s of years. For example, ice ages, some with glaciers covering much of the USA. If we wanted to preserve the status quo, we'd need to take drastic geo-engineering actions to interfere with "nature".
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2019 15:42:02 GMT -5
FWIW, the graph of carbon dioxide levels, which has fluctuated over a period of the last 3 million years between about 150 and 250ppm has now gone ballistic. [...] A 2 degree Celsius rise in temp by 2050 is now starting to look conservative. For those who are interested in this subject I can recommend " The Uninhabitable Earth," "Falter," and "The Sixth Extinction." One thing I don't like about the climate change "debate", is that some people, usually under the sway of left wing political thinking, mix hard science (eg, combustion releases CO2, certain gasses trap heat from sun, etc) with iffy or wild speculation at about how the complex Earth system will behave. For example, that title about an "uninhabitable" planet. That is not likely to happen. It's more likely that we get a rise in sea level that changes real estate. It's a big deal, but not the end of the world. It's also possible that the earth might "improve" in ways. Eg, a place that was desert could turn green. I'm not advocating inaction. I want people to move to cleaner energy, and we are. I just don't like about the sci-fi doomsday stuff mixed with the political mob. Also worth noting... - These CO2 levels existed before, in prehistoric times, along with higher temps and higher oceans. The Earth can handle it. - If humans were perfect environmentalists, the Earth would still drastically change the climate over 1000s of years. For example, ice ages, some with glaciers covering much of the USA. If we wanted to preserve the status quo, we'd need to take drastic geo-engineering actions to interfere with "nature". Good points, though the opposing corner (usually hard neo-liberals) can be annoying too when they deny the planet has a problem. Because whether climate change is real or not, manmade or natural.....we have (and continue to) treat the planet (the oceans, the forests, the land, the animals, the people) like sh/t.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 16:15:19 GMT -5
FWIW, the graph of carbon dioxide levels, which has fluctuated over a period of the last 3 million years between about 150 and 250ppm has now gone ballistic. [...] A 2 degree Celsius rise in temp by 2050 is now starting to look conservative. For those who are interested in this subject I can recommend " The Uninhabitable Earth," "Falter," and "The Sixth Extinction." One thing I don't like about the climate change "debate", is that some people, usually under the sway of left wing political thinking, mix hard science (eg, combustion releases CO2, certain gasses trap heat from sun, etc) with iffy or wild speculation at about how the complex Earth system will behave. For example, that title about an "uninhabitable" planet. That is not likely to happen. It's more likely that we get a rise in sea level that changes real estate. It's a big deal, but not the end of the world. It's also possible that the earth might "improve" in ways. Eg, a place that was desert could turn green. I'm not advocating inaction. I want people to move to cleaner energy, and we are. I just don't like about the sci-fi doomsday stuff mixed with the political mob. Also worth noting... - These CO2 levels existed before, in prehistoric times, along with higher temps and higher oceans. The Earth can handle it. - If humans were perfect environmentalists, the Earth would still drastically change the climate over 1000s of years. For example, ice ages, some with glaciers covering much of the USA. If we wanted to preserve the status quo, we'd need to take drastic geo-engineering actions to interfere with "nature". If you're interested and you have an hour to spare, then I offer you a programme broadcast on British mainstream television, 3 months ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 17:27:00 GMT -5
Good points, though the opposing corner (usually hard neo-liberals) can be annoying too when they deny the planet has a problem. Because whether climate change is real or not, manmade or natural.....we have (and continue to) treat the planet (the oceans, the forests, the land, the animals, the people) like sh/t. Agreed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 19:23:12 GMT -5
One thing I don't like about the climate change "debate", is that some people, usually under the sway of left wing political thinking, mix hard science (eg, combustion releases CO2, certain gasses trap heat from sun, etc) with iffy or wild speculation at about how the complex Earth system will behave. For example, that title about an "uninhabitable" planet. That is not likely to happen. It's more likely that we get a rise in sea level that changes real estate. It's a big deal, but not the end of the world. It's also possible that the earth might "improve" in ways. Eg, a place that was desert could turn green. I'm not advocating inaction. I want people to move to cleaner energy, and we are. I just don't like about the sci-fi doomsday stuff mixed with the political mob. Also worth noting... - These CO2 levels existed before, in prehistoric times, along with higher temps and higher oceans. The Earth can handle it. - If humans were perfect environmentalists, the Earth would still drastically change the climate over 1000s of years. For example, ice ages, some with glaciers covering much of the USA. If we wanted to preserve the status quo, we'd need to take drastic geo-engineering actions to interfere with "nature". Good points, though the opposing corner (usually hard neo-liberals) can be annoying too when they deny the planet has a problem. Because whether climate change is real or not, manmade or natural.....we have (and continue to) treat the planet (the oceans, the forests, the land, the animals, the people) like sh/t. In my understanding there is a great danger in making people feel guilty about the situation. To condemn a whole species for what no individual has done is to leave us all trapped for generations. The way forward has to be creativity led and we can only go forward.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 1, 2019 21:38:57 GMT -5
One thing I don't like about the climate change "debate", is that some people, usually under the sway of left wing political thinking, mix hard science (eg, combustion releases CO2, certain gasses trap heat from sun, etc) with iffy or wild speculation at about how the complex Earth system will behave. For example, that title about an "uninhabitable" planet. That is not likely to happen. It's more likely that we get a rise in sea level that changes real estate. It's a big deal, but not the end of the world. It's also possible that the earth might "improve" in ways. Eg, a place that was desert could turn green. I'm not advocating inaction. I want people to move to cleaner energy, and we are. I just don't like about the sci-fi doomsday stuff mixed with the political mob. Also worth noting... - These CO2 levels existed before, in prehistoric times, along with higher temps and higher oceans. The Earth can handle it. - If humans were perfect environmentalists, the Earth would still drastically change the climate over 1000s of years. For example, ice ages, some with glaciers covering much of the USA. If we wanted to preserve the status quo, we'd need to take drastic geo-engineering actions to interfere with "nature". If you're interested and you have an hour to spare, then I offer you a programme broadcast on British mainstream television, 3 months ago. Good video. My degree was in geology, and one of my primary sub-interests was paleontology. There have so far been 5 major extinction events in world history, and three of them are believed to have been caused by global warming due to high CO2 levels. The Permian Extinction was the biggest one, and it wiped out something like 95% of all marine life and 75% of all terrestrial life. Over the last 3 million years CO2 levels have oscillated between 150 and 250 ppm. This oscillation has been caused by many different factors. During the last 30 years CO2 ppm have rocketed up, and about 95% of all climate scientists attribute this rapid increase in CO2 to the burning of fossil fuels by humans. Currently the CO2 level is about 425 ppm and is moving higher at a faster rate than ever. It doesn;t matter whether one is a liberal or a conservative; as CO2 ppm increase, heat is trapped and temperatures rise. As temperatures rise, more ice melts, and less sunlight is reflected away, which causes more ice to melt. As the oceans heat up and absorb more CO2, they become more acidic, which kills coral reefs, and causes other detrimental effects. Not only does a drop in the ph of seawater kill coral reefs, it reduces the ability of foraminifera and other other animals with calcium carbonate structures to expend more energy to form those structures. Bottom line? Without going into detail, it's a downward spiral. I just visited Glacier Bay in Alaska a few weeks ago. In 1860 there was no Glacier Bay because the ice extended all the way to the Pacific Ocean, about twenty miles. Today all of the glaciers that contributed to the main glacier that filled that basin are retreating, and only one of them is still an active tidewater glacier that meets the water. Seeing what's happening in person is rather sobering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 22:32:43 GMT -5
Good video. My degree was in geology, and one of my primary sub-interests was paleontology. There have so far been 5 major extinction events in world history, and three of them are believed to have been caused by global warming due to high CO2 levels. The Permian Extinction was the biggest one, and it wiped out something like 95% of all marine life and 75% of all terrestrial life. Over the last 3 million years CO2 levels have oscillated between 150 and 250 ppm. This oscillation has been caused by many different factors. During the last 30 years CO2 ppm have rocketed up, and about 95% of all climate scientists attribute this rapid increase in CO2 to the burning of fossil fuels by humans. Currently the CO2 level is about 425 ppm and is moving higher at a faster rate than ever. It doesn;t matter whether one is a liberal or a conservative; as CO2 ppm increase, heat is trapped and temperatures rise. As temperatures rise, more ice melts, and less sunlight is reflected away, which causes more ice to melt. As the oceans heat up and absorb more CO2, they become more acidic, which kills coral reefs, and causes other detrimental effects. Not only does a drop in the ph of seawater kill coral reefs, it reduces the ability of foraminifera and other other animals with calcium carbonate structures to expend more energy to form those structures. Bottom line? Without going into detail, it's a downward spiral. I've read that the CO2 levels were above 2000-3000 ppm and maybe even higher at times in Earth's history, *way* back, 100s of millions of years. That suggests there are negative feedback loops in addition to the positive feedback downward spiral you describe above. This page [1] even mentions 'evidence' of 6000 ppm. ?? (Again the disclaimer: I don't think we should burn all this crap and tempt fate either. Solar cells and other alternative energy sources seem much better.) [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2019 2:22:37 GMT -5
Good points, though the opposing corner (usually hard neo-liberals) can be annoying too when they deny the planet has a problem. Because whether climate change is real or not, manmade or natural.....we have (and continue to) treat the planet (the oceans, the forests, the land, the animals, the people) like sh/t. In my understanding there is a great danger in making people feel guilty about the situation. To condemn a whole species for what no individual has done is to leave us all trapped for generations. The way forward has to be creativity led and we can only go forward. I think guilt (and remorse) can be a useful prompt to become more positively creative. Collectively, we have numbed ourselves to our guilt. That doesn't mean I think we should STAY in guilt, it's just part of the healing process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 3:17:27 GMT -5
In my understanding there is a great danger in making people feel guilty about the situation. To condemn a whole species for what no individual has done is to leave us all trapped for generations. The way forward has to be creativity led and we can only go forward. I think guilt (and remorse) can be a useful prompt to become more positively creative. Collectively, we have numbed ourselves to our guilt. That doesn't mean I think we should STAY in guilt, it's just part of the healing process. I used to buy the idea that guilt is a great motivator but it isn't, all it produces is more of the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 3:35:12 GMT -5
If you're interested and you have an hour to spare, then I offer you a programme broadcast on British mainstream television, 3 months ago. Good video. My degree was in geology, and one of my primary sub-interests was paleontology. There have so far been 5 major extinction events in world history, and three of them are believed to have been caused by global warming due to high CO2 levels. The Permian Extinction was the biggest one, and it wiped out something like 95% of all marine life and 75% of all terrestrial life. Over the last 3 million years CO2 levels have oscillated between 150 and 250 ppm. This oscillation has been caused by many different factors. During the last 30 years CO2 ppm have rocketed up, and about 95% of all climate scientists attribute this rapid increase in CO2 to the burning of fossil fuels by humans. Currently the CO2 level is about 425 ppm and is moving higher at a faster rate than ever. It doesn;t matter whether one is a liberal or a conservative; as CO2 ppm increase, heat is trapped and temperatures rise. As temperatures rise, more ice melts, and less sunlight is reflected away, which causes more ice to melt. As the oceans heat up and absorb more CO2, they become more acidic, which kills coral reefs, and causes other detrimental effects. Not only does a drop in the ph of seawater kill coral reefs, it reduces the ability of foraminifera and other other animals with calcium carbonate structures to expend more energy to form those structures. Bottom line? Without going into detail, it's a downward spiral. I just visited Glacier Bay in Alaska a few weeks ago. In 1860 there was no Glacier Bay because the ice extended all the way to the Pacific Ocean, about twenty miles. Today all of the glaciers that contributed to the main glacier that filled that basin are retreating, and only one of them is still an active tidewater glacier that meets the water. Seeing what's happening in person is rather sobering.
Yeah, those that really observe their natural surroundings all tell the same story. 'Now here's Tom with the weather.'
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2019 3:41:30 GMT -5
I think guilt (and remorse) can be a useful prompt to become more positively creative. Collectively, we have numbed ourselves to our guilt. That doesn't mean I think we should STAY in guilt, it's just part of the healing process. I used to buy the idea that guilt is a great motivator but it isn't, all it produces is more of the same. It can do, but doesn't have to. If the guilt is followed by remorse and change of some kind (could be inner or outer), then guilt won't keep perpetuating (unless and until one breaches their standards again). In essence, the question of the planet is a question of standards. Collectively, we live WAY below our true standards, and we know it, so then we have to assuage the dissonance of that e.g alcohol, addictions etc etc etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 3:45:32 GMT -5
If you're interested and you have an hour to spare, then I offer you a programme broadcast on British mainstream television, 3 months ago. Good video. As the oceans heat up and absorb more CO2, they become more acidic, which kills coral reefs, and causes other detrimental effects. Not only does a drop in the ph of seawater kill coral reefs, it reduces the ability of foraminifera and other other animals with calcium carbonate structures to expend more energy to form those structures. Thanks about the video. I can't watch it to be honest. I couldn't watch it when it came out and I couldn't watch it last night. I just uncontrollably sob. I don't have the luxury of being numb to it all. I just wanted to say that although I have never seen any 'official' research it is said that the coral reefs around Cuba are relatively untouched.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 3:49:32 GMT -5
I used to buy the idea that guilt is a great motivator but it isn't, all it produces is more of the same. It can do, but doesn't have to. If the guilt is followed by remorse and change of some kind (could be inner or outer), then guilt won't keep perpetuating (unless and until one breaches their standards again). In essence, the question of the planet is a question of standards. Collectively, we live WAY below our true standards, and we know it, so then we have to assuage the dissonance of that e.g alcohol, addictions etc etc etc. Try listening to me Andrew. Guilt doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2019 3:56:21 GMT -5
It can do, but doesn't have to. If the guilt is followed by remorse and change of some kind (could be inner or outer), then guilt won't keep perpetuating (unless and until one breaches their standards again). In essence, the question of the planet is a question of standards. Collectively, we live WAY below our true standards, and we know it, so then we have to assuage the dissonance of that e.g alcohol, addictions etc etc etc. Try listening to me Andrew. Guilt doesn't work. I can appreciate your intention, but I would say guilt (and remorse) can be a useful and healthy aspect of healing. In my view it's not really that 'it works or doesn't work', it's more that it is part of who we are as humans, so working with it intelligently is a good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 3:59:00 GMT -5
Try listening to me Andrew. Guilt doesn't work. I can appreciate your intention, but I would say guilt (and remorse) can be a useful and healthy aspect of healing. In my view it's not really that 'it works or doesn't work', it's more that it is part of who we are as humans, so working with it intelligently is a good thing. Explain to me how the melting of glaciers is about healing please. I'm not quite seeing the connection.
|
|