View Poll Results: GW in 2100

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1.5 degrees C or less

    5 21.74%
  • 2 degrees

    4 17.39%
  • 2.5 degrees

    3 13.04%
  • 3 degrees

    3 13.04%
  • 3.5 degrees

    2 8.70%
  • 4 deg\rees

    2 8.70%
  • 4.5 degrees

    0 0%
  • 5 degrees

    0 0%
  • 5.5 degrees

    1 4.35%
  • 6 degrees or more

    3 13.04%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 206

Thread: Global warming in 2100

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Maybe it is tens or hundreds of thousands, but I still suspect, that at some point in the near future (near for geological time), that things will return to equilibrium.
    And it's worthwhile remembering that "equilibrium" doesn't necessarily mean what it is today (or what it was a century ago); there have been long periods when the Earth has been both warmer and colder than it is today. An increase of 5 degrees C would be around where Earth was at the peak of the Eemian, about 125 thousand years ago; sea levels then were estimated to be about 20 to 30 feet higher than today. I'd agree that eventually the climate will stabilize, and Earth as a whole will be alright. But there will be a lot of changes to ecosystems everywhere, and we may not like a lot of those changes. Florida and Louisiana have been below sea level before, and the Earth will be fine if parts of them are underwater again, but the people and animals living there might mind a great deal.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    <snip>
    But there will be a lot of changes to ecosystems everywhere, and we may not like a lot of those changes. Florida and Louisiana have been below sea level before, and the Earth will be fine if parts of them are underwater again, but the people and animals living there might mind a great deal.
    Absolutely. No one should take for a moment that because things will eventually stabilize and the Earth won't end up a lifeless rock, that I think any of this is "OK". Humans as a species will be responsible for a global extinction event. As a species we should be ashamed of ourselves. We've been warned about this for decades, and frankly, we failed in our responsibilities. to ourselves and our home.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Absolutely. No one should take for a moment that because things will eventually stabilize and the Earth won't end up a lifeless rock, that I think any of this is "OK". Humans as a species will be responsible for a global extinction event. As a species we should be ashamed of ourselves. We've been warned about this for decades, and frankly, we failed in our responsibilities. to ourselves and our home.

    Ecosystems aren't destroyed overnight and residents in Florida are not going to wake up one morning suddenly underwater. Climate change is so slow, there is plenty of time for humans to adapt and for you to contribute either personally or collectively with other like minded individuals to make necessary changes. Focusing on "doom and gloom" scenarios is wasted energy and frankly to me rides the same lines as political discussions as it serves no purpose other than to sway minds.

    Humans will adapt and if industrial global warming is the short term price to pay for human advancement in civilization until we become technologically advanced to either control climate directly in our favor (or get off this planet to live somewhere else), then that should be accepted and embraced just as human caused global warming is to be accepted/embraced today.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    Ecosystems aren't destroyed overnight and residents in Florida are not going to wake up one morning suddenly underwater. Climate change is so slow, there is plenty of time for humans to adapt and for you to contribute either personally or collectively with other like minded individuals to make necessary changes. Focusing on "doom and gloom" scenarios is wasted energy and frankly to me rides the same lines as political discussions as it serves no purpose other than to sway minds.

    Humans will adapt and if industrial global warming is the short term price to pay for human advancement in civilization until we become technologically advanced to either control climate directly in our favor (or get off this planet to live somewhere else), then that should be accepted and embraced just as human caused global warming is to be accepted/embraced today.
    Overnight? It's been going on for generations, we just haven't been paying attention. The sheer size of the world buffered us from seeing the consequences.

    No, massive disruption of ecosystems and irreversible extinction of species, is the long term price we pay for overpopulation and over- consumption. There are countries in the world that are carbon neutral. There can be plenty of advancement without being irresponsible or uncaring. We can no longer afford to act thoughtlessly, and certainly the ongoing damage we're causing is not something to be embraced or accepted as just "the price of doing business", because there are businesses that have proven otherwise.

    That's not "Doom and Gloom" and it's not politics. That's accountability for our actions.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,427
    I am reminded of that quote from Ernest Hemmingway "How did you go bankrupt?" ..... "Slowly then suddenly"
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,798
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I am reminded of that quote from Ernest Hemmingway "How did you go bankrupt?" ..... "Slowly then suddenly"
    Or the actor who says "It took me 30 years to become an overnight success."
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Overnight? It's been going on for generations, we just haven't been paying attention. The sheer size of the world buffered us from seeing the consequences.
    Then why aren't we out there protesting that pesky sun with our pickets? After all, it has the audacity to increase luminosity, size and heat by the millenia where in about half a billion years the average daytime temperature will be roughly 160 degrees just from solar output alone. Sure humans of that era (if we survive that long) would have long built underground cities or moved far out into the solar system, but think of the ecosystems destroyed!

    Obviously that was a harsh generalization, but your argument basically leaves no faith in humanity to correct itself. We aren't going to let ecosystems suffer if our survivability depends on it, but at the same time we're not going back to the stone age and stifle human advancement to stop a warming process that cannot basically be stopped, with or without our help. The only logical answer is to ADAPT.


    No, massive disruption of ecosystems and irreversible extinction of species, is the long term price we pay for overpopulation and over- consumption. There are countries in the world that are carbon neutral. There can be plenty of advancement without being irresponsible or uncaring. We can no longer afford to act thoughtlessly, and certainly the ongoing damage we're causing is not something to be embraced or accepted as just "the price of doing business", because there are businesses that have proven otherwise.

    That's not "Doom and Gloom" and it's not politics. That's accountability for our actions.
    This is far too generalistic and why I view this as the same lines of politics. "We can no longer afford to act thoughtlessly". "Accountability for our actions". Sounds like political statements to me. Especially using the term "carbon neutral" because that is a term derived from politicians and there is no industrialized country that is actually "carbon neutral".

    Instead of blanket doom and gloom statements, I'm more interested in a scientific discussion on solutions. What are yours? Who knows, 500 years from now people might look back at this time and wonder why many of this era raised such an alarm. After all, they would refer to the point where humans eventually solved their greenhouse gas issue with atmospheric scrubbers. Or built atmospheric processors. Or moved a portion of the population to Mars. Either way, there should be some faith in humanity.
    Last edited by Exposed; 2018-Oct-28 at 02:23 AM.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,798
    Obviously that was a harsh generalization, but your argument basically leaves no faith in humanity to correct itself.
    We are not correcting ourselves, or at best are making a token effort, and we've known about the problem for several decades.

    We aren't going to let ecosystems suffer if our survivability depends on it, but at the same time we're not going back to the stone age and stifle human advancement to stop a warming process that cannot basically be stopped, with or without our help. ]
    Ah, the old "freezing in the dark" bugaboo. As a child of the Reagan Era, I'm quite familiar with it. It's a strawman, always has been.

    The only logical answer is to ADAPT.
    How specifically? I'm more interested in a scientific discussion on solutions. What are yours?

    I'm more interested in a scientific discussion on solutions. What are yours?
    We already know what to do, we need first to reduce (not eliminate!) our culture of consumption of material goods and energy wastage. We need to replace dependency on fossil fuels with renewable sources; solar, wind, possibly some form of biofuels (not corn ethanol! Sea farmed algae, perhaps), some nuclear if it can get a good enough publicity campaign, a mix of sources that can be absorbed by the biosphere and actually WILL allow it to adapt. Because, see, right now it can't. We are dumping millions of years' of accumulated carbon into a system that's increasingly strained to its limits.

    We know what to do. We just are doing it too slowly and sporadically.

    ADDED: There are a lot of specific regional plans and proposals, way too many to list here. I'm only covering the broadest strokes of the biggest picture, but if you want I can throw some research into the details.

    Especially using the term "carbon neutral" because that is a term derived from politicians and there is no industrialized country that is actually "carbon neutral".
    [citation needed]

    Who knows, 500 years from now people might look back at this time and wonder why many of this era raised such an alarm. After all, they would refer to the point where humans eventually solved their greenhouse gas issue with atmospheric scrubbers. Or built atmospheric processors.
    Perhaps. If we make a lot of changes at least as large as the ones I described PLUS a number of unpredictable technology breakthroughs.

    Or moved a portion of the population to Mars.
    That's great for the survivors! But it will not help those of us stuck on Earth.

    Either way, there should be some faith in humanity.
    I go by history, and historically we have not pulled out some 11th hour miracle that saves everyone. Historically, when human civilizations get into a bad circumstance, those civilizations fall, and much of the population dies. I'd like to avoid that with realistic solutions, not faith.
    Last edited by Noclevername; 2018-Oct-28 at 03:14 AM.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,427
    I will try not to be political, there is a tide in the affairs of men and women, groups come and go and there have been climate pinch points in our evolution, probably several times. We have the Hubris to assume our local branch of civilisation has found the formula for longevity when history shows ever shorter cycles in the empires that dominate the surrounding lands and oceans. The global nature of warming is not evenly distributed and nor is the science, nor the technology. We worry about war but starvation and disease are the big killers of sapiens and we should pay attention to the way the shifting climate affects those dangers. In the past we know lush fields were desertified and cities were washed away. We shall all face tests of schadenfreude and nationalism and our hope must be in science and technology, IMO.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,798
    The science of ecology, for example, is not as well supported as it could be, nor are many of the technologies of renewable resources.

    And that's as specific as I can get without going over into forbidden subjects.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    Then why aren't we out there protesting that pesky sun with our pickets?
    Because the sun isn't increasing CO2, humans are. Seriously, how is this even an argument? This is something that a global warming denier would say and think they said something clever. No, it's just really REALLY poorly thought out.


    After all, it has the audacity to increase luminosity, size and heat by the millenia where in about half a billion years the average daytime temperature will be roughly 160 degrees just from solar output alone.
    You are comparing a problem that will take 500 million years to happen to a problem that will take a few decades to happen, and you are SERIOUSLY wondering why we are worried about one but not the other? You can't figure this out for yourself what the difference is between 50 years and 500 million years? Here, you try doing the math and let us know what you come up with. Let me know if you need help.

    Obviously that was a harsh generalization,
    No, that was just your seriously poor attempt at a generalization that fails miserably the moment you put 3 seconds of thought into it. You actually suggested that we "protest the sun" as an equivalence to what we are doing to protest CO2 emissions. Again, 3 seconds worth of thought utterly dismantles this.


    but your argument basically leaves no faith in humanity to correct itself. We aren't going to let ecosystems suffer if our survivability depends on it,
    We are currently doing this, we have done it all the time in the past, and we are now doing it to the entire planet. So sure, put me in the category of "I have no faith that humanity will correct itself" because we have ALREADY failed. As of today, we have already failed. This isn't some future problem that we have plenty of time to fix, we've already caused irreparable damage to our planet and the only argument now is for us to stop doing MORE harm. It's no longer about stopping the harm because, as I said, we have already failed at that. Once you fail at something you don't then immediately get to exclaim "WHY DON'T YOU HAVE ANY FAITH IN ME?!". Because you already failed, that's why.

    but at the same time we're not going back to the stone age and stifle human advancement to stop a warming process that cannot basically be stopped, with or without our help.
    Literally zero people are suggesting this, so for you to bring it up is the classic definition of a strawman.


    The only logical answer is to ADAPT.
    Now that we've damaged the planet beyond the point of no return, yes we will be forced to adapt. First and foremost to adapt is to become carbon neutral so that we don't damage the planet any further, then on top of that we will ALSO have to undergo the massive expense of relocating massive portions of our population and economy to get away from rising sea levels. Oh gee, what fun!!!.......


    This is far too generalistic and why I view this as the same lines of politics. "We can no longer afford to act thoughtlessly". "Accountability for our actions". Sounds like political statements to me.
    Sounds like common sense statements to me. "Don't act thoughtlessly" and "be accountable for your actions" are political statements? Good lord I WISH those there the types of things that politicians lived by.

    Especially using the term "carbon neutral" because that is a term derived from politicians and there is no industrialized country that is actually "carbon neutral".
    Nope, that's also not a political term. Tell me, do you think that a "policital term" is "anything that a politician may have said one time"? Because if so then every statement you can make would be a "political statement", as politicians do tend to talk a lot. You don't just get to label every term you don't like as "oh that's just politics" and then expect you can therefore ignore it. No, carbon neutral is not political, it's a common sense measure that EVERYONE needs to be working towards.

    Instead of blanket doom and gloom statements, I'm more interested in a scientific discussion on solutions. What are yours?
    Many have been stated here and in other threads, but chief among them is to become "carbon neutral". So increase efficiency of cars and factories. Also increase the output of solar panels, wind turbines and any other carbon free sources of energy.


    Who knows, 500 years from now people might look back at this time and wonder why many of this era raised such an alarm.
    More likely everyone will look back on this era and say "what in the world was WRONG with those people? They destroyed their ecosystem and way of life over sheer stupidity! They had plenty of warning and KNEW this was going to happen but instead closed their eyes to the obvious danger that they saw coming decades before."


    After all, they would refer to the point where humans eventually solved their greenhouse gas issue with atmospheric scrubbers. Or built atmospheric processors. Or moved a portion of the population to Mars. Either way, there should be some faith in humanity.
    PSST!! I hate to be the one to tell you this, but "atmospheric scrubbers" are something we currently have that is part of the "carbon neutral" solution that you claim is nothing but politics. But since you apparently agree that we need to have atmospheric scrubbers as part of the solution, I invite you to join the rest of us in insisting that all factories have these installed to reduce the amount of CO2 they put out.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,798
    Atmospheric scrubbers are otherwise known as "trees".

    Good news is, they require no research to develop! They are already fully field tested and ready to implement.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Atmospheric scrubbers are otherwise known as "trees". Good news is, they require no research to develop! They are already fully field tested and ready to implement.
    Not quite so simple. Trees that scrub a lot of carbon tend to displace agricultural crops, grow slowly and can can re-emit the carbon if they burn. The climate problem in using photosynthesis is finding locations with the space, energy and nutrients to scrub 100 GT of CO2e from the air every year, to return to Holocene stability. The task is not carbon neutrality, but carbon removal at gigaton scale.

    With the ocean covering 71% of the planetary surface, and having immense energy and nutrients, ocean technology should be the focus rather than terrestrial trees as a way to scrub carbon on the scale required.

    A conference this week on Negative Emissions will discuss these issues. I am presenting this poster on iron salt aerosol, as a practical scientific way to contribute to securing climate stability.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,636
    Civility, folks. Civility. I wont quote problem posts or warn specific members this time but lets tone down the abrasive, snarky posts.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Not quite so simple. Trees that scrub a lot of carbon tend to displace agricultural crops,
    Then.... don't plant them where crops grow? Just spitballing ideas.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Then.... don't plant them where crops grow? Just spitballing ideas.
    Crops use the best land, and if you want trees to suck up lots of carbon, you need trees that grow fast over a large area. That means either displacing crops or finding some other place. Check out Marine Permaculture as a great example of how ocean forests can suck up carbon at the scale needed for climate impact. We are talking millions of square kilometres, and such a big area is simply not available for new biomass on land. But it is available at sea, where such an approach would also protect biodiversity.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Then.... don't plant them where crops grow? Just spitballing ideas.
    Where is the problem. For example, with the Amazon, the reason the trees are being cut down mainly is to make way for farming (ranching). So because of our consumption, it's getting harder to find places where you can plant trees (places that don't have human settlements or farms and that are amenable to trees). Trees need water, also, and we take a lot of water for irrigation of crops, so that other land gets dry.
    As above, so below

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    Ecosystems aren't destroyed overnight and residents in Florida are not going to wake up one morning suddenly underwater. Climate change is so slow, there is plenty of time for humans to adapt and for you to contribute either personally or collectively with other like minded individuals to make necessary changes.
    That would be nice to believe but I don't know if it's true. Quoting from the British Antarctic Survey:

    During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10C within 40 years.
    I don't really know how well we could adapt. If the temperature were to rise or fall by that amount in a decade, we would have real problems with crops. We would be able to build shelter for ourselves, but our food supply is a big problem.
    As above, so below

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Where is the problem. For example, with the Amazon, the reason the trees are being cut down mainly is to make way for farming (ranching). So because of our consumption, it's getting harder to find places where you can plant trees (places that don't have human settlements or farms and that are amenable to trees). Trees need water, also, and we take a lot of water for irrigation of crops, so that other land gets dry.
    So I now have yet another reason to avoid fast food hamburgers; we're getting our cheap beef from former rainforest land. Stripping immensely valuable biological diversity to grow grass for pasture. Which is kind of like finding gold bricks and selling them as 50 cent paperweights.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    We are not correcting ourselves, or at best are making a token effort, and we've known about the problem for several decades.
    What exactly do we need to "correct"? What happens if we don't correct it? And what studies support this?



    Ah, the old "freezing in the dark" bugaboo. As a child of the Reagan Era, I'm quite familiar with it. It's a strawman, always has been.
    What part of my statement are you referring to?


    How specifically? I'm more interested in a scientific discussion on solutions. What are yours?
    The same way humans adapted to the scorching climates of the Savannah to the frigid climates in the extreme regions of North America.


    We already know what to do, we need first to reduce (not eliminate!) our culture of consumption of material goods and energy wastage. We need to replace dependency on fossil fuels with renewable sources; solar, wind, possibly some form of biofuels (not corn ethanol! Sea farmed algae, perhaps), some nuclear if it can get a good enough publicity campaign, a mix of sources that can be absorbed by the biosphere and actually WILL allow it to adapt. Because, see, right now it can't. We are dumping millions of years' of accumulated carbon into a system that's increasingly strained to its limits.
    Where is the studies that this will actually reverse global warming? Or are you referring to just human contributed emissions? Who makes these decisions? Wait pol... you see where this is going?


    We know what to do. We just are doing it too slowly and sporadically.

    ADDED: There are a lot of specific regional plans and proposals, way too many to list here. I'm only covering the broadest strokes of the biggest picture, but if you want I can throw some research into the details.
    So you actually agree with me here. The key statement is "We know what to do. We just are doing it too slowly and sporadically. ".

    We are doing it, based on the understanding we currently have on the global warming process, with the means we currently have, and we're not at the point (yet) where human survivabilty will be compromised.


    [citation needed]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality
    Carbon neutrality, or having a net zero carbon footprint, refers to achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing a measured amount of carbon released with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset, or buying enough carbon credits to make up the difference.

    Does that sound like a natural process or political process to you?


    Perhaps. If we make a lot of changes at least as large as the ones I described PLUS a number of unpredictable technology breakthroughs.
    I agree


    That's great for the survivors! But it will not help those of us stuck on Earth.
    Relocation is the solution if the original problem is overpopulation and over consumption, the very nature will reduce the problem it was meant to address.

    I go by history, and historically we have not pulled out some 11th hour miracle that saves everyone. Historically, when human civilizations get into a bad circumstance, those civilizations fall, and much of the population dies. I'd like to avoid that with realistic solutions, not faith.
    That only applies to war and disease or other events with a rapid procession rate. I like to use Romans as an example, who knew lead in the water supply was a serious health risk. They mitigated this issue by lining pipes used in the aqueducts with calcium which prevented water from contracting lead into the flow despite flowing through lead pipes. Roman fell for other reasons but not from a lead poisoning issue they knew they had.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,798
    Anyway. Getting back to global warming, many low lying islands are losing land, either directly to sea level rise, or to increased erosion due to flooding or storm surge. The Maldives, most of the South Pacific island nations, many Caribbean islands, and coastal or island areas of many continental nations have already been affected and have lost some land area.

    A significant fraction of the world's population lives in coastal cities and towns. Many are not able to afford to pack up and move inland voluntarily. Small island nations may have no 'inland' to move to.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    ... you see where this is going?
    I see exactly where you are going. I will not follow.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    What exactly do we need to "correct"? What happens if we don't correct it? And what studies support this?
    Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth extinction, due to anthropogenic climate change, with extreme risk of tipping into a new hothouse equilibrium.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave241 View Post
    Because the sun isn't increasing CO2, humans are. Seriously, how is this even an argument? This is something that a global warming denier would say and think they said something clever. No, it's just really REALLY poorly thought out.
    You missed the point of my post.


    You are comparing a problem that will take 500 million years to happen to a problem that will take a few decades to happen, and you are SERIOUSLY wondering why we are worried about one but not the other? You can't figure this out for yourself what the difference is between 50 years and 500 million years? Here, you try doing the math and let us know what you come up with. Let me know if you need help.
    What problem will take a few decades to happen? Give me specifics on dates and events please.


    No, that was just your seriously poor attempt at a generalization that fails miserably the moment you put 3 seconds of thought into it. You actually suggested that we "protest the sun" as an equivalence to what we are doing to protest CO2 emissions. Again, 3 seconds worth of thought utterly dismantles this.
    That's the point I made, what exactly are you protesting? And how are you protesting? What is your contribution other than "protesting" on an online forum? Are you active in your personal life either alone or with collective minds on taking actions to actually address this "issue"? If so what actions? Or would you rather "protest" in words on an online forum?



    We are currently doing this, we have done it all the time in the past, and we are now doing it to the entire planet. So sure, put me in the category of "I have no faith that humanity will correct itself" because we have ALREADY failed. As of today, we have already failed. This isn't some future problem that we have plenty of time to fix, we've already caused irreparable damage to our planet and the only argument now is for us to stop doing MORE harm. It's no longer about stopping the harm because, as I said, we have already failed at that. Once you fail at something you don't then immediately get to exclaim "WHY DON'T YOU HAVE ANY FAITH IN ME?!". Because you already failed, that's why.
    Again, all I see are blanket "doom and gloom" statements and words like "harm" and "failed" without any meaning behind it. This is a science and technology forum, there shouldn't be any room for abstract arguments. Thus:

    1. What have we failed?
    2. What irreparable damage has humanity caused via direct correlation with human contributed c02 levels?
    3. What do you mean by "stopping the harm?" And why have we failed?



    Literally zero people are suggesting this, so for you to bring it up is the classic definition of a strawman.

    As opposed to your ad hominen attacks?



    Now that we've damaged the planet beyond the point of no return, yes we will be forced to adapt. First and foremost to adapt is to become carbon neutral so that we don't damage the planet any further, then on top of that we will ALSO have to undergo the massive expense of relocating massive portions of our population and economy to get away from rising sea levels. Oh gee, what fun!!!.......
    Citation where massive portions of the population and economy need to be relocated due to rising sea levels. Be sure to include time frames and specific events as well.


    Sounds like common sense statements to me. "Don't act thoughtlessly" and "be accountable for your actions" are political statements? Good lord I WISH those there the types of things that politicians lived by.
    This is a science and technology forum, there shouldn't be any room for abstract arguments or statements.


    Nope, that's also not a political term. Tell me, do you think that a "policital term" is "anything that a politician may have said one time"? Because if so then every statement you can make would be a "political statement", as politicians do tend to talk a lot. You don't just get to label every term you don't like as "oh that's just politics" and then expect you can therefore ignore it. No, carbon neutral is not political, it's a common sense measure that EVERYONE needs to be working towards.
    Or just trade carbon credits in order to be carbon neutral. That does not sound like a natural process to me.


    Many have been stated here and in other threads, but chief among them is to become "carbon neutral". So increase efficiency of cars and factories. Also increase the output of solar panels, wind turbines and any other carbon free sources of energy.
    The strange thing is, this is already in progress. Efficiency in cars (there will only be electric cars before long) and factories, homes in Florida where I live are switching over to solar energy, wind turbines out west and other carbon free sources of energy. Yet it is not a foregone conclusion that will reverse carbon footprint in the atmosphere. In fact, this cannot be directly measured. How do you determine which nation is "carbon neutral"? Why is buying/selling carbon credits part of carbon neutrality? Does that sound like a natural process to you?



    More likely everyone will look back on this era and say "what in the world was WRONG with those people? They destroyed their ecosystem and way of life over sheer stupidity! They had plenty of warning and KNEW this was going to happen but instead closed their eyes to the obvious danger that they saw coming decades before."
    You mean, humans will not adapt when faced with their own mortality? Humans will no longer advance technology wise where problems we have now will still be unsolvable a hundred, two hundred, three hundred, 400 years from now? I'm sure glad those who developed modern medicine (especially diseases due to "way of life") didn't have your pessimistic view of humanity.



    PSST!! I hate to be the one to tell you this, but "atmospheric scrubbers" are something we currently have that is part of the "carbon neutral" solution that you claim is nothing but politics. But since you apparently agree that we need to have atmospheric scrubbers as part of the solution, I invite you to join the rest of us in insisting that all factories have these installed to reduce the amount of CO2 they put out.
    And I invite you to join the rest of us insisting that technology addressing this problem WILL improve over the next several decades, centuries, etc..
    Last edited by Exposed; 2018-Oct-29 at 02:50 AM.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    That would be nice to believe but I don't know if it's true. Quoting from the British Antarctic Survey:



    I don't really know how well we could adapt. If the temperature were to rise or fall by that amount in a decade, we would have real problems with crops. We would be able to build shelter for ourselves, but our food supply is a big problem.
    Correct me if I'm wrong but that was from a rapid warming period which naturally occurs after re-normalization of an ice age.

    If that were to occur, and crops were a major concern, we would probably need to bio-engineer certain crops to endure the climate drop/increase or build greenhouses to ensure minimal drop in output.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,798
    Among other factors, there are a large number of "developing' nations now in the process of industrializing; approximately half the population of the planet. How they achieve this goal in the coming generations will also either accelerate, or mitigate, further carbon dioxide release.

    It's not a simple issue. Choosing power sources like wind and solar not only means less carbon for the atmosphere, it also means more localized energy production and less dependence on oil producing entities. Yet only recently has photovoltaic output, for instance, overtopped the amount of energy needed to manufacture the solar panels.

    And of course, the temptation of fossil fuels is, they're already there, they're relatively cheap, their distribution network is well established, and they hold a lot of energy. Coal in particular is widely accessible in much of the developing world, with little technical skill needed to strip mine it. Just shovels and manpower, both plentiful commodities. (Of course, lives are often lost in such large scale low tech mining efforts.)
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    You missed the point of my post.
    Then restate it. This time without suggesting that we "protest the sun because it will kill us in 500 million years".

    What problem will take a few decades to happen? Give me specifics on dates and events please.
    The effects of global warming will happen over the next few decades including rising sea levels, more sever hurricanes, oceans warming and becoming more acidic, methane releases causing feedback loops, polar icecaps melting causing feedback loops, ect. Those things will all happen over the next few decades. You want exact dates for when the icecaps will melt? That would be today, right now, because as I said this is all ALREADY happening.

    That's the point I made, what exactly are you protesting? And how are you protesting? What is your contribution other than "protesting" on an online forum? Are you active in your personal life either alone or with collective minds on taking actions to actually address this "issue"? If so what actions? Or would you rather "protest" in words on an online forum?
    Are you trying to make this personal? Sorry, but I'm not going to answer that.

    Again, all I see are blanket "doom and gloom" statements and words like "harm" and "failed" without any meaning behind it.
    Then you aren't looking very closely, because plenty of actual suggestions have been made. It should also be perfectly clear that I am saying we have HARMED the planet and it's ecosystems and we have FAILED in controlling our CO2 emissions to prevent global warming. That's the meaning behind the "harm" and "failed" that I said, and it was very clear in my post. Don't claim I didn't put any meaning behind it.

    1. What have we failed?
    In stopping global warming from happening

    2. What irreparable damage has humanity caused via direct correlation with human contributed c02 levels?
    The globe will warm by at least 2 degrees C and probably a lot more since we show no signs of actually doing anything about CO2. Did you not know this before I answered your question?

    3. What do you mean by "stopping the harm?" And why have we failed?
    Reducing our CO2 emissions to become carbon neutral, and we have failed because we haven't done this. So, these are 3 extremely simple and basic questions you just asked me, may I now ask you WHY you bothered to ask me any of them? Did you really not know the answers to them?

    As opposed to your ad hominen attacks?
    Which would those be? But I take it this is you withdrawing your previous strawman argument? You didn't bother to defend it or even address it here.

    Citation where massive portions of the population and economy need to be relocated due to rising sea levels. Be sure to include time frames and specific events as well.
    Meh, I'll pass on looking up any citations. But if you are going to claim that sea levels will NOT rise, then that is a decidedly ATM proposal and doesn't belong in this forum. If you admit that sea levels will rise and the ice caps will melt and the temp will go up by a MINIMUM of 2 degrees C, then you just answered your own question.

    This is a science and technology forum, there shouldn't be any room for abstract arguments or statements.
    You mean like you claiming that everything is "just politics"? Yeah, you are correct there is no room for that here.

    Or just trade carbon credits in order to be carbon neutral. That does not sound like a natural process to me.
    Eh, ok sure that's not a natural process.

    The strange thing is, this is already in progress. Efficiency in cars (there will only be electric cars before long) and factories, homes in Florida where I live are switching over to solar energy, wind turbines out west and other carbon free sources of energy.
    Great to hear! Lets keep doing that.

    Yet it is not a foregone conclusion that will reverse carbon footprint in the atmosphere.
    Well, it WON'T reverse the carbon footprint because it's far too late to do that. All that is left is to minimize the damage moving forward.

    In fact, this cannot be directly measured. How do you determine which nation is "carbon neutral"? Why is buying/selling carbon credits part of carbon neutrality? Does that sound like a natural process to you?
    Well, what are your thoughts on this? I mean it's pretty straight forward to estimate how much CO2 each nation is emitting per year. I'm not sure that buying/selling carbon credits will do a whole lot but it's probably useful and will help give incentive to certain industries to clean up their act. Are you under the impression that I think the ONLY thing we should do is shuffle around carbon credits? Because yeah, that by itself won't do much.

    You mean, humans will not adapt when faced with their own mortality?
    Correct, because the humans in my country are currently faced with their own mortality and LARGE portions of my population (including the president) are actively trying to discredit the idea of global warming and prevent any action being taken to reduce CO2 emissions. So yes, an incredibly big YES YES YES to your question. Humans clearly have a huge capacity for self deception, and it's in play right now.

    Humans will no longer advance technology wise where problems we have now will still be unsolvable a hundred, two hundred, three hundred, 400 years from now?
    Oh 400 years from now I'm sure we will do something about this, do you really think that will be acceptable? Do nothing for the next 400 years and THEN try to invent our way out of this mess? Because if that is your point, then you know why I am posting here. However, my point is we have ALREADY passed the point of no return on this. We have ALREADY damaged our planet to the point that it will not repair itself on human timescales even if we snapped our fingers and got every car off the road planet wide right this second. We are still in for global warming and rising sea levels. So yes, when faced with our own mortality humans shrugged their shoulders, refused to research the proper technology and even today this is STILL. GOING. ON.

    I'm sure glad those who developed modern medicine (especially diseases due to "way of life") didn't have your pessimistic view of humanity.
    I have tried, but I cannot make the connection you are trying for here.

    And I invite you to join the rest of us insisting that technology addressing this problem WILL improve over the next several decades, centuries, etc..
    Does that mean you admit that we should have atmospheric scrubbers on every factory, and that we should have had this all along? Because your previous post made it sound like you thought that was some futuristic technology that we would all praise as what stopped global warming instead of something that we've had for a long time and just refused to actually use. Again, humanity failing at protecting it's own mortality. Oh, and why is it that some factories are using atmospheric scrubbers at all? That's right, buying and selling carbon credits!! Maybe that's not so useless after all?
    Last edited by Dave241; 2018-Oct-29 at 06:07 AM.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,798
    Although wind is not an ideal energy source, smaller wind power generators can be assembled cheaply from readily available materials in poor areas; even from bicycle parts (plans are available on Pinterest and YouTube). Making photovoltaics requires a larger industrial base, technically trained experts, and expense, and must be imported by most developing nations.

    There are many other potential sources of renewable or otherwise sustainable power that are not yet matured or not implemented on such large scales as wind and solar. Some are still experimental. Some are not economically viable, some are of course constrained by political or corporate considerations.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Crops use the best land, and if you want trees to suck up lots of carbon, you need trees that grow fast over a large area. That means either displacing crops or finding some other place. Check out Marine Permaculture as a great example of how ocean forests can suck up carbon at the scale needed for climate impact. We are talking millions of square kilometres, and such a big area is simply not available for new biomass on land. But it is available at sea, where such an approach would also protect biodiversity.
    I'm a fan of algae based solutions, particularly foods, fuels and bioplastics. I know DARPA put some money into developing algae based jet fuel, and it was relatively successful. But I don't know where it went after that.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    <snip>
    This is far too generalistic and why I view this as the same lines of politics. "We can no longer afford to act thoughtlessly". "Accountability for our actions". Sounds like political statements to me.
    I've debated for two days whether to respond to this... probably have made the wrong decision, but here goes.

    I do not see these as political statements for two reasons. One, even if politicians and political leaders repeat them, that does not make them politics per se. Second, if one was describing certain actions in response to climate change, certain things nations should, or should not do, that would be advocating a political position. I am not advocating specific actions.

    What I see is that humans have a moral obligation as a species. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are the caretakers of this planet, and the fate of all other species (and entire ecosystems) is dependent upon our actions. Our actions, with regard to climate change, as well as other things (pollution, habitat destruction, etc.) are wiping out other species at an alarming rate. As I and others have said in this thread, the Anthropocene extinction event is well underway and is well documented in the literature.

    People try to examine the benefits of species preservation with logical or scientific arguments, such as pointing out benefits to humans, like finding some antibiotic substance in an endangered species. That is all well and good, however I cannot, nor feel the necessity to defend what I feel is a moral obligation with a scientific argument.

    Given that, I suppose you can equally dismiss what I say. But I felt a need to say my piece.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •