Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Well, that's why I suggested changing the title to "Climate Change".

Here's the other thing... climate change happens for all kinds of reasons ranging from geological and atmospheric conditions on Earth to it's motion through space. The Sahara goes through wet cycles every so many thousands of years, glaciers advance and retreat.

Now we start burning dead things for a couple hundred years and suddenly it's our fault?

Come on.

Freakzilla wrote:Well, that's why I suggested changing the title to "Climate Change".

Here's the other thing... climate change happens for all kinds of reasons ranging from geological and atmospheric conditions on Earth to it's motion through space. The Sahara goes through wet cycles every so many thousands of years, glaciers advance and retreat.

Now we start burning dead things for a couple hundred years and suddenly it's our fault?

Come on.

Does burning dead things make the environment any better?

If you like that...

What I actually think will happen is this:

We'll continue to "help" the average temperature rise until enough fresh water melts of the glaciers and polar caps until it alters the salinity of the oceans so much that the cold water on the bottom stops circulating vertically with the warmer water on the top, the Gulf Stream will stop, glaciers will cover Europe and begin lowering the average temperature accelerating the next ice age.

So, we may be hastening what is going to happen anyway eventually.

If we make it through this warming trend we're still going to have to face those glaciers again.

Serkanner wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:Well, that's why I suggested changing the title to "Climate Change".

Here's the other thing... climate change happens for all kinds of reasons ranging from geological and atmospheric conditions on Earth to it's motion through space. The Sahara goes through wet cycles every so many thousands of years, glaciers advance and retreat.

Now we start burning dead things for a couple hundred years and suddenly it's our fault?

Come on.

Does burning dead things make the environment any better?

Did I say it did? Did I say we shouldn't clean up our act?

Freakzilla wrote:Well, that's why I suggested changing the title to "Climate Change".

Feel free to, but I don't really care about the title of the thread... That earlier comment was just me poking fun at all the snow stories, trying to make the above points in less of a ranty way.

Freakzilla wrote:Here's the other thing... climate change happens for all kinds of reasons ranging from geological and atmospheric conditions on Earth to it's motion through space. The Sahara goes through wet cycles every so many thousands of years, glaciers advance and retreat.

Now we start burning dead things for a couple hundred years and suddenly it's our fault?

Come on.

You're damned right about that first part.

As to whether or not it's our fault, here's the way I see it...

I have scientists on one side (mainly a panel founded in 1988, though much work was done before that) who are telling me that global warming is man-made and the cause is carbon emission. The science of the greenhouse effect is something I remember comprehending as a child. And as an advocate of science, I feel compelled to put my trust in the vast majority of scientists around the world who concur with the man-made theory. I have faith that those scientists still carry the spirit of the scientific method, and will rejoice the day when they are proved wrong as any good scientist should.

On the other hand, who are the people telling me that they're convinced that it isn't man-made? Politicians? Pundits? Corporations? Where do their interests lie? Certainly nowhere as noble as the pursuit of truth that scientists adhere to. I'm not saying these people are evil, it's just that their ideals lie along the lines of things like personal liberty and free enterprise, which are both great things but they simply don't take into account the consequences of their actions all that much. Capitalism seems to be carried out in a way that assumes that growth can be infinite, which in my opinion is really short-sighted and has taken a toll on the environment in violent ways other than carbon emissions. They can only function to increase profit, and satisfy shareholders, but that's their function. Also, keep in mind when a politician takes a stance that denies man-made global-warming, consider firstly that their constituents probably want to hear that, and secondly that they could be bought by the powerful oil or auto lobby who will stop at nothing to preserve the status quo.

And can you blame them? I mean, I love money too. I'm already part of that system, both as a consumer and a capitalist who charges freelance clients for creative services. And I admit that science, even collectively, can be very mistaken.

But if had to pick a team, scientists totally win on this issue. They may claim to *know* that global warming is man-made, but I simply can't buy that the opposition *knows* that it isn't.

And as I think SR mentioned earlier, it's quite likely that (whether we contributed or not) undoing more than 100 years of carbon pollution may prove to be impossible. I disagree with the notion that our collective actions are minuscule in the grand scheme. I think as a species we're dangerously efficient in our ability to put our species at risk. So, what politics will likely fail to ever realize is that those who disagree about man-made or not-man-made global-warming, can agree on one thing... At this stage in the game, adaptation and technology might be the only answer.

Also, THIS:

Apjak wrote:

Michael Crichton in the novel Jurassic Park wrote: ...Malcolm said. "My point is that life on earth can take care of itself. In the thinking of a human being, a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago, we didn't have cars and airplanes and computers and vaccines..It was a whole different world. But to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We have been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we are gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us."
"And we very well might be gone," Hammond said, huffing.
"Yes," Malcolm said. "We might."
"So what are you saying? We shouldn't care about the environment?"
"No, of course not."
"Then what?"
Malcolm coughed, and stared into the distance. "Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves."

It just occurred to me that perhaps reading Jurassic Park twice in third grade, and numerous times since, may have had an influence on my view of the world as an adult.

But I wouldn't change that...

Heh, seriously though, that book is PACKED with great shit like that. It's one of the better science-fiction books I can name, and I'm not sure why it isn't considered a sci-fi classic. I guess the movie kind of steals its thunder, which is fair considering the rights were sold before the book was published.

Malcolm's whole speech when he's dying and hopped up on morphine near the end is just brilliant.

I think you may have a slightly idealistic view of science. Even totally legitimate science is going to have its fair shar of idiots. Science is just as susceptible to fads, fashion and philosophical prejudice as any other subject. This is due to the rather unfortunate fact that science is carried out by people, and people always put too much importance on what they do know and not enough on what they don't know.

That being said, I've not researched this topic that much, and I probably won't. Things like efficient energy usage and living in balance with the environment seems to just be the logical thing to do. I'm sure I remember a quote from FH about balancing between uniformity and chaos, stagnancy and creativity, but I can't remember where from. Homeostasis/equilibrium rates as an important concept for me.

Anyway getting away from my own silly thoughts:

If we've been doing things that affect climate even only slightly, and the weather is a chaotic system, then doesn't it immediately follow at least as a possibility that we've pushed the weather system into some sort of unpredictable behaviour? Just wondering...

Someone has to fund the scientists, too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.climategate.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That part of Jurassic Park was probably the single thing that stood out most when I read it back in middle school. I'd like conditions on the planet to stay as comfortable as possible for people because I'm definitely rooting for the human beings. I know Purnima and Suzy Wong were worried about the planktons of the seas.

I blame HARP.

Drunken Idaho wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:Here's the other thing... climate change happens for all kinds of reasons ranging from geological and atmospheric conditions on Earth to it's motion through space. The Sahara goes through wet cycles every so many thousands of years, glaciers advance and retreat.

Now we start burning dead things for a couple hundred years and suddenly it's our fault?

Come on.

You're damned right about that first part.

As to whether or not it's our fault, here's the way I see it...

I have scientists on one side (mainly a panel founded in 1988, though much work was done before that) who are telling me that global warming is man-made and the cause is carbon emission. The science of the greenhouse effect is something I remember comprehending as a child. And as an advocate of science, I feel compelled to put my trust in the vast majority of scientists around the world who concur with the man-made theory. I have faith that those scientists still carry the spirit of the scientific method, and will rejoice the day when they are proved wrong as any good scientist should.

This pretty much sums up what I think, but I'd put a couple of points differently:

* It's not so much carbon emission as carbon *levels*. We're not just adding carbon to the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels, but destroying carbon-absorbing life (trees, oceanic plankton), sometimes even replacing it with carbon-producing life (cattle/sheep/livestock). "Burning dead things for a couple hundred years" is only one man-made factor of many that are changing carbon levels.

* From most recent articles I've read, I think that most climate scientists would say that the statement "global warming is man-made and the cause is carbon emission" is a simplification. The most we can say is that there appears to be a correlation between man-made causes of increased carbon levels and climate change, and it's almost certainly causal. But there are other, longer-term factors at work as well, which is why looking at historical data requires a great deal of work to evaluate the real effect of our influence.

What appears to be the case is that increased carbon levels are changing global climate in fundamental ways. Not necessarily making it hotter, or colder, but making it different - and more volatile, in the short term at least. It may be that if we get carbon levels under control, global climate will reach a new equilibrium and we wont get the kinds of extremes we've been seeing in the past decade.

HBJ

all my points sorta got touched on it the last few posts ... or atleast felt-up ....

y'all know this, too, even if you sometimes have a hard time with extrapolation .... a "greenhouse effect" is basic planetary science ...
gases get caught-up in an atmosphere and either settle into a semi-sustainable cycle or they don't - Mars, Earth & Venus are our known
examples .... the term "greenhouse" has been mis-appropriated to now mean an over-production of gases (caused by human industry),
pushing us towards the Venus-side of atmospheres ... presumably, then, something we could "control" ...
(insert :shruggy-shoulders, who-gives-a-fuck-?: smiley here)

and I think the mainstream "reputable scientist" position is that a climate-change towards warmer is underway, that this is a natural event,
and industrial "greenhouse gas" emissions are contributing .... to what degree is the debate (or shoe-throwing argument in some cases)

on the one hand, smoke-stack lighting and on the other, volcanoes ....
the volume of "non-natural" industry-produced gases is significant, not to be discounted,
but not to be over-emphasized, either .... and again (and AGAIN and AGAIN) this is just like the gun-control debate :
TOTAL BULLSHIT and a WASTE OF GOOD OXYGEN because absolutely NOTHING can or will be done about it, anyway ....

most "radical environmentalists" are actually just anti-industrialists and are completely full of shit and useless because they are posting
their diatribes on their computers from their apartments in an urban center and could not survive without the electricity being generated
and all the petrochemical plastic doo-dads produced by CO2-emitting industry - those folks can sit down and Shut The Fuck Up,
they do not have a dog in this hunt until they give up their modern conveniences and go move in the Sasquatches ...

Corporate Robber Barons and Industrialists can sit down and Shut The Fuck Up, too, we know who their dog is; they can just keep
on producing plastic doo-dads and counting their money .... fuck them, they aren't relevant, anyway ...

facebook posting, twittering, mass email-forwarding shitheels on the Right and the Left can fuck off and die in a fire, too -
it's hard to take them seriously when one post is about the polar bear habitat and the next is about Justin Bieber's nut sack ...

so who does that leave ?
me & Steve Hawkins ?
shit, y'all are in trouble, cause I'm a burnt out old redneck drunk, and Hawkins is retarded ...

and ultimately, it does not fucking matter - there is simply no way to stop the human industrial machine, SIG propaganda,
naturally occurring environmental phenomena, or NASA scientists on a roll at a Congressional Budget Hearing ...

so ... Imma have another drink and go wander around in the woods ...

it was 75 F in Atlanta today... the middle of fucking February. And it snowed on God Damned Christmas.

Freakzilla wrote:God Damned Christmas.

Is that some secular version I'm unfamiliar with?

HBJ

No, really, that one made me laugh out loud.

That's the commercial version.

My car called it 86F yesterday.

That's pretty toasty, we're still hovering around -5C.

Freakzilla wrote:My car called it 86F yesterday.

Yeah, we hit 85 yesterday. Today was in the mid 70s. Beautiful moon out. Nice and full. Love the full moon.

Anyone wish to dance by the pale moonlight?

Lots of drumming and dancing naked?

Rob

Robspierre wrote:Lots of drumming and dancing naked?

Rob

Well, I was invited to a moon festival by a wiccan friend of mine but haven't taken him up on it yet. Hehehehehe

I was the largest full moon in 18 years this past Saturday.

Freakzilla wrote:I was the largest full moon in 18 years this past Saturday.

And you didn't get arrested for indecent exposure????

Rob

Robspierre wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:I was the largest full moon in 18 years this past Saturday.

And you didn't get arrested for indecent exposure????

Rob

...

No, but my wife took a picture.

It was still beautiful.