Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
2.2329 * 10^57 cubic metres, according to my calculations
World Meteorological Organization: Carbon Dioxide hits 400ppm, 'Time is running out'
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
2.2329 * 10^57 cubic metres, according to my calculations
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
We are on a time scale of billions of years. Ofc most would be extinct now. Yet still life has adapted. There is still life on Earth. We are the smartest species ever to inhabit this planet.
You say vast majority of species are now extinct due to naturally occuring severe climate change.
Maybe this is one of those times.
WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!! DOOMED I TELL YE!!!
Lets all relax. I don't see us going anywhere for quite a while.
So your suggestion is, we should do nothing because it sounds bad?. Are you this critical of all scientifically accepted theories or just ones which sit against the political ideology you identify with.
No I welcome change. I look forward to scientists cracking wind/ solar / tidal generation. The possibilities will become endless and hopefully it will be in my lifetime.
I just don't like the fact that we have this
'MANKIND CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING AND WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE HORRIBLE DEATHS'
'THE ANTARTICA IS MELTING AND WE ARE ALL GOING TO DROWN'
'THE OZONE IS GOING TO LEAVE US AND WE ARE ALL GOING TO BURN'
Lets tax the **** out of everything and everyone in the name of saving the planet. It's all these knee-jerk reactions that make people lose interest and make credible people seem less credible.
I'm like let's all chill. Let the scientists do their thing, when it comes it comes.
Can I ask what political identity you think I identify with?
Last edited:
Unfortunately, unlike all the other problems humans are causing (big list in an above post of mine) climate change will affect us. By us I mean the western world. "We" don't really care about the other problems like mass extinction and deforestation but "we" care about more flooding of rivers and coastlines in the the UK because that affects us and our economy directly...
No I do agree with you. My point of view is perhaps the costal erosion, increase in floods, etc. etc might have happened regardless.
Instead of spreading blame, and scaremongering why don't we just dress it up another way.
The climate is changing, places are heating up, cooling down, melting, disintergrating. Mankind may have caused it, may have helped it, may have had no part in it. But its happening. What are we as a collective going to do about it.
Or alternatively we still have money but we dont rely on a system that needs to inflate to survive. Our current system is based on our current debts being paid off by inflating them away, whether that be money or people. We're basically blowing up a balloon more and more, waiting for it to pop.
Where do all the other lifeforms fit into your grand plan of deforesting the world to feed an ever expanding population? Where will we get the water to help us grow all the crops in arid parts of the world, which are already having problems (and we're not just talking Africa and poor nations here, there are water issues in places like Spain and even the US)? What do we do with the pollution?
Personally I find it horiffic that 12% of the UKs land has been covered in concrete. How about the amount of land that has been converted to human activity overall? The amount of actual "wild" land in the UK is in the single percentages*, it's one of the reasons most of the British wildlife has been wiped out over centuries and why populations of surviving wildlife are still falling dramatically.
Perhaps you're happy to have your food intensively farmed and any green space set aside for intensive farming, doesn't mean we should allow it. Humans are one of millions of lifeforms on this planet, all of which have just as much right as us to be here. If you don't believe that then I hope you get trampled by a herd of cows, or better yet eaten by a lion, that way they can get their own back...
As an example we could turn over to US cattle farming standards. Would look nice between the town's don't you think?
* Remember, places such as Dartmoor, the Yorkshire moors and Dales and the lake district are all heavily managed, they certainly aren't natural environments. In fact they are some of the least diverse places in the country due to the management practices, many designed to keep biodiversity as low as possible. Much/most of the Scottish highlands are the same, designed for grouse and deer, with everything else, from pine martins to eagles decimated, even with protection orders on them.
There are still some wild places in the world, not many, but a few. We should be fighting to keep then from destruction and trying to stop their decline, better get, allowing them to reestablish themselves without human interference.
I assume you didn't read the article then? The quote was used as a physical example analogous to the problems you have just mentioned...
Exactly!
Part of me is insulted that we think we could cause (fullstop) global warming like many media and political sources propagate - it suits purposes to tax you more if you feel guilty for killing the planet.
Whereas as evidenced through geological surveying, the climate has gone hot - cold - hot - cold since the planet first had an atmosphere. I fully accept that we may have accelerated the process in this interim phase slightly, but the change is/was inevitable. Trying to insinuate otherwise is a fool's game, yet many still buy it and think that the whole reason for climate change is because Jimmy is driving a 300g/km emission car and used deodorant during College.
Indeed, capitalism doesn't have to be as bad as we have it at the moment - if anything it's the perversion of it's original intent which needs to be changed.
We can still keep a form of capitalism-light, regulated & reformed to prevent systemic collapse, the ballooning of debt & socially destructive wealth centralisation.
How about another way. CO2 is normally released with other nasty gasses and particles, such as SO2, soot and CO just as a start. Seeing as most man made CO2 is emitted near or in places most people live (cars and industry in and around cities) should we not think about reducing pollutants and having cleaner air in our cities? It's estimated that tens of thousands dies from poor air quality (especially soot and other particulate matter) in the UK alone. London and several other cities are far above the safe levels set down by European scientists .
Why don't we try and reduce out consumption and emission of noxious fumes by turning to renewable electricity to power our industry and transport, giving us blcleaner air and saving tens of thousands of lives? Or do you still think we should ignore everything and keep burning fossil fuels as much as possible?
I'm a geologist and you're right, the climate has wobbled all over the place. We can tell by many palaeoproxies that the rate of change is significantly greater than would naturally happen without a major climate disaster... The argument is not that change is inevitable, the argument is we are speeding up that change (and it will affect us greatly).
I am all for progression I said this.
Slight tangent. But it's never that easy. To create these renewable energy resources we need to first dig, refine, manufacture, transport, a whole range of materials. Mainly oil. Nothing else will get the job done.
But yes. Fundamentally, we do need to change. And the various ripple effect from making the switch one day will be unimaginable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
One key idea in population studies is carrying capacity
Nah I didn't you're right. But I guessed that was what it was getting at.
I don't think overcrowding / overpopulating will be a problem, that's just my view. I could be wrong.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 2,180
- Location
- Edinburgh
Climate change is not a problem for the planet. Earth has been through change (and through periods of CO2 concentration above 1600ppm).
It's a problem for humans.
It's a problem for humans.
Sounds similar to one of my favourite George Carlin quotes.
It's a good point which many of the climate change sceptics seem to misunderstand, just because the planet won't die - it doesn't mean that a vast majority of the human population (including them, something they also seem to think won't impact on them) won't clock out if it changes quicker than we can adapt.
I mean, even a thermonuclear war which decimates all of mankind & 90% of the species on earth - the planet & life would recover given enough time just fine. But that doesn't mean we should go & start flinging nukes safe in the knowledge the damage will be transitory.
While we can be confident climate change will be indeed transitory for the planet - it may not be for us.
Its not even a problem for humans, just some of them and their living standards etc...
