Global Warning Extinction

Global Warning Extinction

I entered the thread title in the Google Search Engine and got this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=global+warming+extinction&btnG=Google+Search

Look at some of those (many) reports.

They makes absolutely horrifying reading.

Unless our politicians get their act together, stop posturing about who else should do what or protecting some pollution-spilling industry or bleating that they need their share of pollution to bring their standard of living up to that of Hollywood movie-stars, this world is going to change forever as far as the human race is concerned.

Its more important than Saddam what's-his-name or Osama thingy or who won the last World tiddlywinks championship.

Its not the far distant future, its not some half crazy sect enjoying their latest doom & gloom scenario, its current and its near future. It will affect our children and even some of us.

Old attitudes need to be set aside; and quickly.

What are the key matters?

Generation of Energy by Fossil Fuel; accelerate windmills and never mind the NIMBY bleats about the scenery being spoilt, maybe nuclear isn’t so bad after all.

Ban more than one car per family (Wow!).


What else can be done? I think its close to Panic time.

What else can be done?


umm..
stop searching Google for depressing issues


I only trust scientific data written by real scientists
and 'goofball liberal idiot fake scientists' don't count

I don't read scientific data that is printed in British Tabloids

Greenpeace is not a scientist. It is a non-profit organisation

You can also try

o bury your head in the sand - there will be plenty of it soon enough

Kilz – I guess you could not be bothered to read any of the references, but for your information there is an extract for you below.

This is not a report from 'goofball liberal idiot fake scientists' I’m afraid – I wish it was.

Don’t know what you mean by British Tabloids.

Neither is it Greenpeace propaganda.

So if you have the patience, read this, note the sources and then say you’re not just a little bit worried.

Its from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,980561,00.html
================================================

Global warming could trigger mass extinction

Press Association
Thursday June 19, 2003

Rising global temperatures over the next century could trigger a catastrophe to rival the worst mass extinction in the history of the planet, leading British scientists warned today.

Researchers at Bristol University say their studies show that six degrees of global warming was enough to wipe out up to 95% of the species which were alive on earth at the end of the Permian period, 250 million years ago.

Up to six degrees of warming is now predicted for the next 100 years by United Nations scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if nothing is done about emissions of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, the chief cause of global warming.

This compares with a 0.6C rise over the last century, according to the IPCC.

The Permian mass extinction is thought to have been caused by gigantic volcanic eruptions that triggered a runaway greenhouse effect and nearly put an end to life on Earth.

Conditions in what geologists have termed this "post-apocalyptic greenhouse" were so severe that only one large land animal species was left alive and it took 100 million years for species diversity to return to former levels.

This dramatic new finding is revealed in a book by Bristol University's head of earth sciences, Professor Michael Benton. When Life Nearly Died chronicles the geological efforts leading up to the discovery and its potential implications.

Prof Benton, who was scientific advisor to the blockbuster BBC series Walking With Dinosaurs, said: "The end-Permian crisis nearly marked the end of life. It's estimated that fewer than one in 10 species survived.

"Geologists are only now coming to appreciate the severity of this global catastrophe and to understand how and why so many species died out so quickly."

Other climate experts say they are concerned that a disaster of such magnitude could be repeated within this century because of human activities.

Global warming author Mark Lynas, who recently travelled around the world witnessing the current impacts of climate change, said the findings must be a wake up call for politicians and citizens alike.

He said: "This is a global emergency. We are heading for disaster and yet the world is on fossil fuel autopilot. There needs to be an immediate phase-out of coal, oil and gas and a phase in of clean energy sources. People can no longer ignore this looming catastrophe."

I guess what I meant was
Real Scientific Data
written by a Real Scientist or Group of Real Scientists
from a Scientific Journal (not a newspaper)


while these 'Researchers at Bristol University' might be OK
I haven't seen any of thier DATA, and don't I know if these Reserchers really exist.
(can I trust the gaurdian? No, I don't think so)

The Gaurdian says that this data exists...
But... I still haven't seen it.
Nor have I any proof that the data is accurate or made up.

I have seen this Global Warming issue debated between some
real intelligant people, and between some unimformed nutcases.
I have seen it dismissed as bulls**t more times than factual.

So show me some real proof
written by a Real Scientist or group of Real Scientists
from something like a Scientific Journal, or at a Foundation,
or a College (not a left-wing newspaper)

try reading something by
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Climatologist Massachusetts Institute of Technology
or a something printed in Scientific American

Originally posted by Klinx
I have seen this Global Warming issue debated between some
real intelligant people, and between some unimformed nutcases.
I have seen it dismissed as bulls**t more times than factual.

intelligant ? This doesn't sound like true scientist then....
Just take a look at your locals university library and do a quick scan through the publications on climate... or just browse some true scientific magazines (ok, nature isn't the best - but the only one wich comes to my mind right now, except maybe Scientific America or what the name for Spektrum der Wissenschaften was...)And don't forget to include Paleodata to compare with current ones in your research....

And by the way do I need to say "club of rome",Global Future&Global 2000....

You will find enough evidence that the problem is real (even if for us europeans the breakdown of the current dynamic system in waterflows in the ocean may lead to another ice-age...)

at this point I'm nuetral on this issue...
but here is something for you to look at

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00095B0D-C331-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
...Looking back at the past decade of climate science, many
researchers say computer models have improved, estimates of
past climate are more accurate, and uncertainty is being reduced.
Lindzen is not nearly so sanguine. In his mind the case for global
warming is as poor as it was when his crusade began, in 1988.
Climate research is, he insists,
"heavily polluted by political rhetoric, with evidence remaining
extremely weak."
To Lindzen, apparently, the earth will take care of itself....



http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
.... Indeed, the whole issue of consensus and skeptics is a bit
of a red herring. If, as the news media regularly report, global
warming is the increase in temperature caused by man’s
emissions of CO2 that will give rise to rising sea levels, floods,
droughts, weather extremes of all sorts, plagues, species
elimination, and so on, then it is safe to say that global warming
consists in so many aspects, that widespread agreement on all
of them would be suspect ab initio. If it truly existed, it would be
evidence of a thoroughly debased field. In....

Misleading Math about the Earth

January 02, 2002
Scientific American...
Misleading Math about the Earth
Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist


GLOBAL WARMING: Neglecting the Complexities

by Stephen Schneider

For three decades, I have been debating alternative solutions for sustainable development with thousands of fellow scientists and policy analysts--exchanges carried out in myriad articles and formal meetings. Despite all that, I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems.

Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming. Will temperatures in 2100 increase by 1.4 degrees Celsius or by 5.8? The difference means relatively adaptable changes or very damaging ones...... read more at
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000

Klinx - I started to trace back data to its source but then I thought --- why?

You can do that as well as I if you are so untrustworthy about what others would regard as respectable sources - do your own homework.

What was that about left-wing newspapers? Is that some sort of americanism? The Guardian is not exactly left wing; as for me I've got one left wing and one right wing.

I see you quote someone who is introduced by Scientific American as "Maverick meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen".

As a matter of fact I don't think the issue is proven either, but that opinion I have is rapidly crumbling and it is too big an issue to ignore.

signing off for tonight

Klinx - one more point - since I did not see your last posting.

In it you quote an article referring to the quote "the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" unquote.

In the article I reproduced for you above was the following (repeated here:

Quote
Up to six degrees of warming is now predicted for the next 100 years by United Nations scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if nothing is done about emissions of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, the chief cause of global warming.

This compares with a 0.6C rise over the last century, according to the IPCC.

Unquote

Gotcha and goodnight

Originally posted by string
As a matter of fact I don't think the issue is proven either...

You sounded pretty convinced (ranting) in the first post..

If we were in danger of killing ourselves off so soon, and some scientists knew this, and had reported it in a manner that proves it, do you honestly think NO ONE in power would do anything about it..? Big business (energy suppliers, etc) would surely give in (or be forced to), if it meant the salvation of the human race (saving the planet can make you rich too). Sure, it's a real issue, that needs to be adressed. But I really doubt our children will get more sunburns than we did because I used some hairspray and drove an automobile this morning.

Sang was nice enough to link this online article some time ago. It remains a very interesting resource on the subject of global warming.

"Recently observed change in Arctic temperatures and sea ice cover may be a harbinger of global climate changes to come, according to a recent NASA study. Satellite data -- the unique view from space -- are allowing researchers to more clearly see Arctic changes and develop an improved understanding of the possible effect on climate worldwide.

The Arctic warming study, appearing in the November 1 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, shows that compared to the 1980s, most of the Arctic warmed significantly over the last decade, with the biggest temperature increases occurring over North America.

"The new study is unique in that, previously, similar studies made use of data from very few points scattered in various parts of the Arctic region," said the study's author, Dr. Josefino C. Comiso, senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "These results show the large spatial variability in the trends that only satellite data can provide." Comiso used surface temperatures taken from satellites between 1981 and 2001 in his study.

Researchers have suspected loss of Arctic sea ice may be caused by changing atmospheric pressure patterns over the Arctic that move sea ice around, and by warming Arctic temperatures that result from greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere.

Warming trends like those found in these studies could greatly affect ocean processes, which, in turn, impact Arctic and global climate, said Michael Steele, senior oceanographer at the University of Washington, Seattle. Liquid water absorbs the Sun's energy rather than reflecting it into the atmosphere the way ice does. As the oceans warm and ice thins, more solar energy is absorbed by the water, creating positive feedbacks that lead to further melting. Such dynamics can change the temperature of ocean layers, impact ocean circulation and salinity, change marine habitats, and widen shipping lanes, Steele said."

More.......

RECENT WARMING OF ARCTIC MAY AFFECT WORLDWIDE CLIMATE

He post this thread to prove that he can talk about serious topics too, beacause of a "ban" in his previous thread .

Nevertheless the human activity is affecting the equilibrium of every small subsystem in the world, and almost never for good. And be cautious about that scientific data: the world average perhaps didn't has a noticeable change, but every year we got more polarized effects.

Also, never judge the pollution by your personal experiences, most of the people here life in a developed countries, everyone knows how to read and how to use a computer, but that's not the true a little farther. The poverty sells itself at very low price, and corporations knows that.

This morning it was 20 degrees F. Damn SUV's.

DJ SkaM - you referred to my statement about the (global warming) issue not being proven yet. I should explain that comment, its ambiguous.

I do think there is global warming, but
a) the case has not been presented either clearly enough or often enough for the public to accept it as a fact
b) the extent of the global warning to be expected is not clear yet

But I, like many others, don't want to believe it, because the consequences could be so gruesome.

So I would have more accurately put " I hope the issue is unproven and will go away". I'm tempted to go back and change that wording - but that would be cheating!

Take, for example, the BBC article in the following URL

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3266833.stm

Quoting part of that
==================
Ice melt

It is the Gulf Stream that allows us to live the way we do. But now scientists have found evidence that the current that carries the protective Gulf Stream is slowing down - and may even stop.

Dr Bill Turrell, from the Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen, has measured a drop in the salinity, the first warning sign that the current might collapse.

Dr Bill Turrell is measuring salinity in the North Atlantic
"These changes are fundamental. They are substantial. They are going to impact our climate and the climate our children have to live in," he tells Horizon.

The US space agency (Nasa) has measured big increases in the speed of some of Greenland's largest glaciers, and melt water on the Greenland ice sheet in 2001 was twice that recorded 10 years ago.

Scientists also predict that with an increase in global temperatures will come an increase in rain at northern latitudes.

Huge Siberian rivers are discharging more water into the North Atlantic than ever before, and are predicted to increase their discharge by up to 50% in the next 100 years.

These factors combined could lead to a large amount of fresh water making its way into the North Atlantic.

Climate switch
This particular geographical region of the North Atlantic is vital because it is the point at which the Gulf Stream current sinks and overturns to join the Atlantic Conveyer, a vast rotating belt that takes cold water back to the tropics on the floor of the ocean.

A white sea in front of the White Cliffs?
Sinking - the process vital for powering the conveyer - relies on a change in the density of water. As sea-ice forms at high northern latitudes, it leads to an increase in the salinity of the cold, dense salty water underneath, which sinks down into the depths.

The one thing that can stop the sinking is fresh water.

Fresh water effectively dilutes the salty seawater to the point at which it cannot sink - and the conveyer shuts down. With no conveyer, there is no Gulf Stream, and our benign winters come to an end.

Most ocean scientists believe the conveyer has a crucial freshwater threshold level, at which it will shut off - like a light bulb.

The trouble is no one really knows where that threshold level is.

Past precedent

Dr Joyce says: "The likelihood of having an abrupt change is increasing - global warming is moving us closer and closer to the brink.
==================

It seems that I should be more worried about becoming an icicle than getting sunburnt.

All that is really frightening and maybe could also happen in the North American Northwest where there is a similar warm stream (Japanese Current/ I forget).

On the matter of "ranting" in my first post. - I can rant if I want, but in a first post I think a bit of provocative language is useful.

Regarding your remarks along about people in power not doing anything about it, well internationals are trying the Kyoto thing, for example. But that is blocked by the US whose bad example has infected Russia and others, even Australia I think.

Originally posted by Klinx

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Climatologist Massachusetts Institute of Technology
or a something printed in Scientific American

You got it
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D59D0-965E-1F3A-965E80A84189EEDF&catID=1
Here's Here a big cause of global warming
Global warming causes disease and there's little doubt global warming is happening
oh no! Poor puffins! [/url} etc "Real scientists" understand the dangers of global warming, unlike the 'goofball conservative idiot fake scientists. You're wrong again. You lose. You get nothing. Good day, sir ps....however..Klinx is right about one thing. Although scientific data does indicate there is global warming, a Google Search is not cause for panic. Check your sources. Don't be like Fox New, or Bush, or any other right winger or group of them.

stop searching Google for depressing issues

Ya String, only search the internet for sites that will make it a bit easier to live with your head in your ass... Yea! Go with the K Philosophy!

Actually I was alerted to the extinction thing by a piece on the Tele. So I looked around on the net to get some more background and to understand a bit more. The URL I quoted was merely a device to put in front of people a good starting point for their own researches. Although I'm sure that, as usual, Klinx's remark was kindly meant, I'm not an accident voyer / grave robber or whatever !!

Anyway - to help the debate move on does anyone have any reaction to the remark I made in the opening post:
"Generation of Energy by Fossil Fuel; accelerate windmills and never mind the NIMBY bleats about the scenery being spoilt, maybe nuclear isn’t so bad after all."

I'm particularly interested in reaction to the nuclear thing. Maybe its time to re-visit the trade-off between nuclear waste and the possibility of dealing with that and fossil energy generation and the problems that is causing.

Originally posted by DJ SkaM
You sounded pretty convinced (ranting) in the first post..

If we were in danger of killing ourselves off so soon, and some scientists knew this, and had reported it in a manner that proves it, do you honestly think NO ONE in power would do anything about it..? Big business (energy suppliers, etc) would surely give in (or be forced to), if it meant the salvation of the human race (saving the planet can make you rich too). Sure, it's a real issue, that needs to be adressed. But I really doubt our children will get more sunburns than we did because I used some hairspray and drove an automobile this morning.

While it is not certain whether we're turning up the heat on earth, many people in charge (in politics or in businesses) choose to believe the ones who are denying it or just can't divert their course to a policy of polluting less and using fewer of the earth's resources. Many others prefer to make sure we've done as much as possible to prevent what other scientists are predicting.
There's an energy supplier here in Holland that promotes "green energy" (solar / wind / water / biomass energy) but that also started a competition around Christmas "who has the brightest home", thus encouraging people to consume more energy. I think that's an irresponsible attitude. We shouldn't ban all luxury we're used to (to be honest, I expect more of technological solutions that of a change of people's attitude), but we could at least think about some of the things we do: why use the car if i might just as well grab the bike or make use of public transport for once? why turn on all the lights in the house if i'm the kitchen? why keep the motor of my car running if i'm waiting for the train to pass? why buy a whole bread if i know i can throw away half of it in a few days? why buy vegetables that are wrapped in plastic if i can buy them at the market place? etc. It's not hard to be a little more conscious of the effects of our behaviour.

Ok - just short comments on some remarks above....

Politicans would have act by now if provided with real data -> once again, just think about "Global Future" a study that was presented to the US President (ok, out of memory somewhere around the 70's - but I may be wrong on that)... it addressed more problems then just climate - and was centered on a POV from the US... not bad in this case, but nobody acted to it... Then came Global 2000 a study that included what happened since "global future" and has already happened and how the problems have just grown bigger (fossile fuel, foodsupply, overcrowding etc.)as no one has reacted to the first report.... Nada again... So much for Politicians...

Some effects we observe may be in natures cycles - but even then... Unlike Greenpeace I wouldn't call for preserve nature - as nature by itself will adopt..
but that means dying of species (wich can include mankind) - so our goal from a human perspektive should be to preserve an environment wich suits and contains us... (and here there are many facettes that are going absolutely wrong since the industrial age - pollution (in classic term, by EMP, by light) is just one example)... Anyone prepared for the next change (and zero magnetism time inbetween) of the magnetic poles yet (ok, least problem for now as that is centuries to go)... Just think what will happen with the next big volcano polluting the atmopsphere (Just thinking end of the Mesozoikum) - no we humans should do everything on our side to leave enough backup room for nature...

Sang: right - no need for a sudden panic... but fact is that for some of us those riscs were ever present knowledge since childhood... and someday (as the progress is too damned slow) there may be no time for panic anymore In general its not one problems that calls for panic - but it's the sum of it...

Ahyes.. and one on nuclear power - yes from a scientific view it is a clean source - but sadly one that with current mankind isn't acceptable (too many chances for things that can go wrong as always $ is the major player there)... and from a cynical pov a nation that has just one nuclear power plant needs no army - if you stand up to the thread the plant holds - 5minutes and you start a meltdown that cannot be prevented anymore and is then denieing your land to humans for aeons

On the other hand, the coal power plant operated by TVA creates a lovely layer of orange pollution that's best viewed from the banks of the Cumberland River...it's so romantic to admire the smog with your partner Now that Bush is allowing the old polluting plants to not have to upgrade, the smog with become more and have an even more striking orange hue

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon
Bush is allowing the old polluting plants to not have to upgrade

I did not know that - can you point me to a url which gives that story, I'd like to learn about it.

On the nuclear thing, Shandra, I think you're too pessimistic. No maybe that's the wrong word becuase I am about to be pessimistic too - anyway the way I see it is that drastic (and therefore unlikely) action is needed, namely to shut down the fossil fuel energy generators. The one is left with wind & sea power and nuclear power. Or we can forego the energy which means letting go of our technological civilisation. Remember there's a cleaner alternative to the uranium-based nuclear plants in the fusion reactor - if only they can get their act together in time:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3769508/

The trouble is that we (*) should shut down the fossil generators starting from now.

(*) I mean the planet.

string - another go would be towards (I am really mixing it up every time (fussion/fission) - I am reffering to burning up H-molecules) fission plants... Ok, for now we have to focus on the how to stabelize the magnetic field to contain the plasma and such minor details - but the technology is in our hands and only the technique is to be mastered... setbacks would be that we need a very large and stable plain (earthquakes, other tectonic effect, etc. must be considered)... and as said it has to be HUGE to be functional... security questions not in league with nuclear ones - but thinking about that mass of burning plasma set free is an impressive imagination... damned think is even if this type of plant is a lot less trouble then a nuclear plant it needs the cooperation of many nations to be build and sustained...
As you said emergency action they may be... but then only for a certain time allowed to run and under gouvernment control, not corporate... Mh, Microwaved energy from satelitebased solarcells are much to riscy IMHO but another whole mankind project could be the equatorial based spacelift (same here technology yes - technique in progress - at least the new carbonbased strings could be a way to overcome the own-mass vs. sheer/pressure resistance proplem...) and then a more classical approach to bringing down orbital energy.... but yes - if the fission plant is at hand - the lift is just a spin off idea that will someday - if mankind survived that long - be a reality (but not related to the energy problem)...
yup you named it - I am too pesimistic - I simply have no trust in powermongers to aim for a united mankind as I see it (not a united corporate world)... and IF we would stop the pure waste of energy (wich would incorporate to the problem of light pollution of the night sky) there wouldn't be the need for nuclear plants as solar/wind/geothermal/water energy would suffice to our needs...

For some parts we have to stick to fossile fuel until acceptable alternatives are found (No airplanes sounds equal to bringing havock among our current civilisation) - but yes I think we agree on limits to needs, luxury only if it doesn't harm our childrens children....

This discussion is useless.
The "real" scientists some are referring to that deny global warming being caused by humans or even the warming itself, are quite unknown people and became known because of their thesis and the need of some people to make them known.
If you prefer to read the Science magazine, do so. The actual issue is quite interesting to read about that theme.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon
[...] Now that Bush is allowing the old polluting plants to not have to upgrade, the smog with become more and have an even more striking orange hue

I want to note that the german government, the worst government after world war II that we ever had (except for the eastern one), has blamed the US government for doing this in april, and then in june did exactly the same. Obvious for everybody, we have greens in the government...

We surely can't deny the climate is changing, every single summer seems to be hotter! And I don't understand why they don't just introduce the Fuel-cell cars Although they're testdriving some Fuel cell busses in Amsterdam (and some other Dutch cities I believe). When we're finally driving clean cars, the pollution will be less and maybe the ozon (or whatever it's called in english ) will have a chance to "heal" I believe in a better and cleaner world

There's an energy supplier here in Holland that promotes "green energy" (solar / wind / water / biomass energy)

The sun harbors enough energy to run every craving we desire; although the powers that be have not found a way to put a gauge on it yet.
Once the earth begins to run out of supplies that people can sell, I picture an Earth returning to the days of Robin Hood, where the Kings men just go from town to town raping and pillaging to collect their fortunes.

Originally posted by conundrum2most
The sun harbors enough energy to run every craving we desire; although the powers that be have not found a way to put a gauge on it yet.
Once the earth begins to run out of supplies that people can sell, I picture an Earth returning to the days of Robin Hood, where the Kings men just go from town to town raping and pillaging to collect their fortunes.

Yeah, it's really important we're going to use solar power, if we would run out of oil we would be totally lost, since almost everything has oil in it!

Originally posted by Flat Tire
Yeah, it's really important we're going to use solar power, if we would run out of oil we would be totally lost, since almost everything has oil in it!

During the terrible fires here in October, my power was out for five days. If it had not been for my neighbor, who has solar panels on his backyard shed, I would have lost all the food in my refrigerator. He let me put my food in the huge refrigerator/freezer he has running off the panels.

He also has most of his small house running on solar power.

Here in Southern California, there should be solar panels on every house!


P.S. Global Warming Cartoon by Tom Toles

Originally posted by string
I did not know that - can you point me to a url which gives that story, I'd like to learn about it.

Ok

Oh calamity!

So which do I really worry about?
World overpopulation.
Global warming
Large meteorite strike on the planet.
Ditto comet strike.
Tsunamis.
Very large climate threatening volcanic eruption.
Switching of polar magnetic fields.
All "due" anytime soon we`re told,plus one or two I`ve probably forgotten!
BTW,maybe(I`m not sure) the US is the worlds biggest polluter,but so are India and China highly culpable in this respect,as well as Russia,so how do you convince them,or indeed any poor or undeveloped nation to cut back when so many of their people are barely at subsistence level anyway?So many it seems,know the questions,but oh so few, the answers.

All "due" anytime soon we`re told,plus one or two I`ve probably forgotten!

Erm, global climate change is already here....in case you missed it.

Tsunamis happen and are relatively common. Some are devastating large and can drown skyscrappers...most are not.

Oh forget it....

Originally posted by neonman
So many it seems,know the questions,but oh so few, the answers.

Comet and meteorite strikes aside, it is often the case that we have answers - but just don't particularly care for them. We know that it is not in the environment's best interest to capriciously destroy its vegetation, but continue to do so at ever-increasing rates in order to meet the demands of an improvident society. Few would argue that it is wise to pollute the waterways with industrial waste, but there are plenty of rivers, streams, and lakes that are not safe to swim or fish in even today.

Yeah...like the Cumberland River here. Sometimes it smells so bad that it makes me nausous even inside at work, through the building's ventilation systems.....

I don't really think humanity will cause its own total extinction. They'll just be serious quality of life issues

Re: Oh calamity!

Originally posted by neonman
BTW,maybe(I`m not sure) the US is the worlds biggest polluter,but so are India and China highly culpable in this respect,as well as Russia,so how do you convince them,or indeed any poor or undeveloped nation to cut back when so many of their people are barely at subsistence level anyway?So many it seems,know the questions,but oh so few, the answers.

So as long as the others don't - why should we? A cheap excuse IMHO... The "convince" part can only be successfull if the convincing side is allready doing what she wan't the other side to adopt (and even then it would have to include some bribery where sense alone is not enough - greed seem to be a constant in humans (with a few exceptions))...

Sang*: Yeah, maybe not total extinction (that's a possibility in the long run) - but a fight over food sources, last fossile resources, etc... Nah, a DarkFuture/Wastelands/Mad Max Setting doesn't sound any more good then oblivion to me (of course I must confess that Industrial Ruins, abandoned city-blocks, A Wasteland Sunset, etc. do include some romantic moments - but that may only be in the meaning of the old&true romanciers... it's through the touch of Death and Decay...)

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon
Yeah...like the Cumberland River here. Sometimes it smells so bad that it makes me nausous even inside at work, through the building's ventilation systems.....

Sometimes I can smell a stinking sugar factory in my room, even though my window is closed and the factory is on the other side of the town!

I`m well aware that global warming is "here",whatever the cause,but feel that that for example,feeding the worlds ever increasing population of the seriously undernourished,would be a far more important task.Secondly and very related,curbing the worlds seemingly exponential population growth is highly important,and boy,will that really bring unimaginaly huge problems,including the environment,in the not too distant future.No government except China,has so far really bitten the bullet re population control,but sooner or later we`ll all be standing on our own square metre of ground wondering where the next meal,if any,is coming from!Mind you there will be more space nearer the Polar regions,owing to the increase in the worlds temperature,so that`s OK.Anyway, I feel that it is naive to expect the undeveloped nations of the world to follow the rich already nations moral stance on cutting pollution,and why indeed should they?To put it very simply,why should a subsistence farmer in India stop burning noxious cowdung to cook his food,just because LA has introduced an ordinance to ban the highly widespread and polluting barbecue?Oh,I forgot,the Indians maybe also could all go down to Dennys-might cost them several years wages tho!I suspect that China with it`s huge burgeoning industrialised economy would feel similarly disinclined,and I would not blame them.
One has only to look at the EEC to see how difficult it is to stop supposedly civilised nations from promoting self interest at the expense of the common good.Come to think of it that attitude applies generally to the politicians running the EEC as well!Self interest nearly always beats idealism,if indeed idealism existed in the first place.
Don`t get me wrong,I`m all in favour of curbing pollution to the max. and with suitable incentives would give up my gas guzzling car for a FIAT Panda,if everone else did the same,but we all know that is just not going to happen-and it would be a very brave and soon unemployed politician that introduced it!I quite like modern windmills,but the total use for electricity generation is just not possible.If cars were largely abandoned,public transport could just not cope with the millions pouring into our cities every day.Nuclear power to many is a non starter now. And so the problems go on.
BTW,did the NIMBYS in the 17th Century Netherlands oppose the widespread use of windmills to drain the land I wonder? I suspect the Dutch were/are too sensible for that!

Neonman

You wrote

So which do I really worry about?
1 World overpopulation.
2 Global warming
3 Large meteorite strike on the planet.
4 Ditto comet strike.
5 Tsunamis.
6 Very large climate threatening volcanic eruption.
7 Switching of polar magnetic fields.

(my numbering).

Of course you are right and others can supplement your list.

But the trick is to assign probabilities to all of these things, assign priorities, and attack those with the highest priority, same as you do in any problem situation. In that sense your first two, Over Population and Global Warming both stand out, with 100% for each.

So both of these need most urgent action.

Unfortunately the alarming message in the recent spate of scientific announcements on Global Warning put a much shorter timescale on it than had hitherto been thought, both globally and locally here in Europe with the potential rapid Gulf Stream change.

It may well be that Global Warming will solve the population problem for us sooner than we would like.

Further information for those interested is available in the online issue of nature 8th Jan 2004:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/dynapage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v427/n6970/index.html

article 145 entitled: Extinction risk from climate change
.... scroll down the page till you find (or CTRL F- 145)

Another great Tom Toles' cartoon:

 

tolesoffroadkill.gif

Here's some new developments

Fuel Cells Turn To Alcohol:[/b]

"Researchers in the US and Greece have invented a reactor that can produce hydrogen from ethanol. Lanny Schmidt of the University of Minnesota, Xenephon Verykios of the University of Patras and co-workers say their reactor is both efficient and cost-effective, and that it represents a major step towards a realistic hydrogen economy.

Schmidt and colleagues passed an ethanol-water-air mixture over a porous metal catalyst containing rhodium. The reaction on the rhodium surface heated the catalyst to 800°C and produced a mixture of hydrogen, recyclable carbon dioxide and some minor by-products in a few milliseconds. The conversion rate of ethanol to hydrogen was over 95%. Furthermore, the process minimized the build up of carbon - normally observed when ethanol burns - that would have deactivated the fuel cell. This allowed the reactor to operate for as long as 30 hours."

Physics Web

Originally posted by Xian
Here's some new developments

Fuel Cells Turn To Alcohol:

"Researchers in the US and Greece have invented a reactor that can produce hydrogen from ethanol. Lanny Schmidt of the University of Minnesota, Xenephon Verykios of the University of Patras and co-workers say their reactor is both efficient and cost-effective, and that it represents a major step towards a realistic hydrogen economy.

Schmidt and colleagues passed an ethanol-water-air mixture over a porous metal catalyst containing rhodium. The reaction on the rhodium surface heated the catalyst to 800°C and produced a mixture of hydrogen, recyclable carbon dioxide and some minor by-products in a few milliseconds. The conversion rate of ethanol to hydrogen was over 95%. Furthermore, the process minimized the build up of carbon - normally observed when ethanol burns - that would have deactivated the fuel cell. This allowed the reactor to operate for as long as 30 hours."

Physics Web [/B]

Not too mention; solar panels are now more affordable than ever!

26/2/04
It is a long held belief of mine that climate change will be the demise of the earths human population. Not by human polution as those who say "man is destroying the earth" believe, any conflict between man and earth will be won by the earth.

History proves that natural catastrophe, floods, volcanic and meteoric events occur due to the cyclic variation in the position of our planetary neighbours, moon and tides the most obvious. Thus any report of climate change should be noted and not treated with skepticism.

Locally, this summer has seen floods and wind velocity never recorded in places where February temperatures are 10'C"below"the usual. Of course there are those who say "its just the weather". For myself I have a great respect for the weather.

What better way to cleanse the earth of the hapless human species and its God of wealth and power. In fact it is the only way?

No scientist, politician is going to jeopardise their position by agreeing to this. They will lie and hope for the best, then when it becomes obvious they will claim it as theirs. Unfortunately there will be nowhere for them to run to.

There is nothing that mankind can do, sorry, the time for religion, politics and science are numbered like dates on a calendar. A new age is on the way.

Currently my only comment on global warming is:

It's getting hot in here.... So take off all your clothes...

I am getting so hot, I'm gonna take my clothes off.

-- WillYum
P.S.

any ne remember the song ( Blinded by the light ) will yum get them clothes back on grins
Im gonna spank ya

LOL! -- I'd enjoy that far too much, justa.

-- WillYum

this is like the blinded leading the blind hey your friend
is she your age ?

Yes, mostly... We are about 2 and 1/2 years apart.

-- WillYum

justaposition / WillYum - Isn't it nice to think that while the Earth lurches towards "extinction of life as we know it", there will always be room for some flirting !

string, without it, we would already be extinct

-- WillYum