Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[hellnback]

Hmmm it seems that the low-lying Pacific Islands may not be extinct afterall...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10649349

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10222679.stm

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...inundating-pacific-islands-study-1992428.html

Another nail in the scaremongering coffin???

 

[niky]

I'd say not.

All the studies show is that atolls can rise with the sea, simply because they're surrounded by reefs which provide raw material for island building through the action of waves and typhoons.

And why are they surrounded by reefs? Because they're atolls... islands which are built out of coral. Great for people living on tiny coral islands. Not great for the rest of us who live on regular old volcanic islands and non-coral coastlines.

 

[dxm8975]

And why are they surrounded by reefs? Because they're atolls... islands which are built out of coral. Great for people living on tiny coral islands. Not great for the rest of us who live on regular old volcanic islands and non-coral coastlines.

It's good for people who inhabit such islands that coral reef can be seen from. On the other hand, people who live on volcanic islands would be afraid their mountain suddenly erupts... When it happens they'll be forced to move to another island until their own island becomes clean again..

 

[Famine]

It's good for people who inhabit such islands that coral reef can be seen from. On the other hand, people who live on volcanic islands would be afraid their mountain suddenly erupts... When it happens they'll be forced to move to another island until their own island becomes clean again..

Ah, I think you might have misunderstood. All islands which aren't formed from coral reefs are volcanic (in fact, all land).

The UK is a volcanic island. We have no volcanoes, but 400 million years ago, we had some huge ones. Check out the Scafell and Glen Coe eruptions - which were the equal of the potentional underneath the Discovery Channel's darling caldera at Yellowstone.

 

[niky]

And the "good news" for atolls will come as no joy to most of those worried about rising sea levels... since most populated atolls don't carry more than a couple of hundred people... with the big ones having just a few thousand.

Of course, this will all depend on how big a rise in ocean levels we're actually looking at in the next few decades...

 

[FoolKiller]

Of course, this will all depend on how big a rise in ocean levels we're actually looking at in the next few decades...

Haven't you been paying attention? A giant wave, multiple stories tall, will sweep through all coastal areas, just before a giant ice hurricane freezes it all.

Or have I been watching too many movies again?

 

[niky]

Haven't you been paying attention? A giant wave, multiple stories tall, will sweep through all coastal areas, just before a giant ice hurricane freezes it all.

Or have I been watching too many movies again?

You never know...

 

[Dotini]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ark-energy-matter-exist-claim-scientists.html


Doubt is thrown on dark matter and dark energy. Implications are that the universe is not expanding, there was no big bang, black holes are no longer required, and that the future of science as well as Earth's destiny and climate will be discussed in different terms.

 

[Niels]

Just saw a dutch article on the decline of algue in the sees.
Googled up an english version article for you: http://www.keenesentinel.com/articles/2010/07/31/news/national/free/id_408005.txt

I don't get this, why can't we just start population controll on humans for once?
I thought about it some weeks ago. It's inevitable for us to start using population controll to try to decrease the amount of effect we as humans have on nature. It is simply not possible to continue like this.

 

[Dotini]

Just saw a dutch article on the decline of algue in the sees.
Googled up an english version article for you: http://www.keenesentinel.com/articles/2010/07/31/news/national/free/id_408005.txt

I don't get this, why can't we just start population controll on humans for once?
I thought about it some weeks ago. It's inevitable for us to start using population controll to try to decrease the amount of effect we as humans have on nature. It is simply not possible to continue like this.

You are absolutely right. The problem is one of political correctness...

 

[Sureboss]

Yeah, it went down so well when Hitler did it.

Simples.

 

[Famine]

The planet has the resources to support twice as many humans as now. Why do we need to start getting all eugenical again and what does it have to do with algae?

 

[Dotini]

The planet has the resources to support twice as many humans as now. Why do we need to start getting all eugenical again and what does it have to do with algae?

The food chain is dying from the bottom up.

I believe you have personally acknowledged that there is currently under way an Extinction Event. Extinction Events are said to occur when when a major percentage of the world's plant and animal species perish from the face of our planet.

Perhaps you right about humans not needing certain resources. In the future as in the past we may have to do without cars, planes, oil, internal combustion engines, central heat, roads, dams, cities, nations, manufactured goods, grocery stores, medical centers, video games, bottled beer and condoms.

A minimum number of calories and moderately fresh water is all that is required for the human animal to persist through difficult times.

 

[Famine]

Algae aren't the bottom of the food chain (insofar as food "chain" applies). And even if they were, oh no. Why do we need to get all eugenical again?

 

[Dotini]

Algae aren't the bottom of the food chain (insofar as food "chain" applies). And even if they were, oh no. Why do we need to get all eugenical again?

You don't need to be a scientist to know that the food chain begins with photoplankton. Why do you need to be told? Here's where the troubles begin.

For whatever reason, the photoplankton which are the bedrock of our food chain are declining rapidly. Estimates of the decrease range from a low of 40% to a high of 73%. By any reckoning, this is mass extinction.


http://www.kfwb.com/pages/7791649.php?contentType=4&contentId=6547648

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100728/full/news.2010.379.html

http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/40666-top-of-the-food-chain

 

[Niels]

Seriously, good to see some people reading this topic.
I am getting seriously concerned about this.

I can't really type english well enough for me to stress some urgency intonation.
But besides of this being the 100th time some news spreads around the world about another species dying out, there is some scientific reasons to become worried now.

Especially if it's all true that algae absorb the CO2 to a good degree, produces the majority of the oxigen available on earth, and the main food for almost all marine life in the oceans in many kind of ways.

Seriously man, if algae decline with 1 percent each year...
Am I seriously the only one getting the clue?
If algae absorb lot's of CO2 and produce most of the oxigen and provide most of the basis on wich aquatic life relies, it should be done in under 30 years from now to be honest!

How can this continue any longer without any real things, what are the things actually withholding it from a major climate change in just a couple of decennia?
I'd like to hear that from you Famine, I keep getting scared.

To be honest I'm the kind of guy that puts off stuff untill the very last moment. I work this way, I got wired like this. If I hear this I'm almost like god it looks like.. That is why it worries me so much.
Well I'm pretty scared we already can't do anything about it anymore if it's all correctly..

How could this ever work?

To reply to Sureboss, does it ever come to mind to people how extremely criminal if has to be to produce 10 children in a country like Africa to have complete non stop hunger all over again.
Population controll, dude, the population could be half in 50 years from now. Just don't expect to be able to produce children like no one could really care.

I would do anything for just having 4 billion people on earth instead of 6 and rising...really

Edit 2: rephrasing certain bits

 

[Famine]

You don't need to be a scientist to know that the food chain begins with photoplankton. Why do you need to be told?

I don't. But then there isn't a gap in my knowledge that there seems to be here with yours. Need I remind you that I am, primarily, a biologist?

I'll clue you in. Algae are not the lowest form of life that form part of our food, nor part of the food that things that form our food consume. And "the food chain" is a lovely little misnomer that primary school (grade school) children grow out of quite quickly.

So you're quite right. You don't need to be a scientist to know that the food chain begins with plankton. I didn't think you needed to be one to know that it doesn't either.

For whatever reason, the photoplankton which are the bedrock of our food chain are declining rapidly. Estimates of the decrease range from a low of 40% to a high of 73%. By any reckoning, this is mass extinction.

http://www.kfwb.com/pages/7791649.php?contentType=4&contentId=6547648

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100728/full/news.2010.379.html

http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/40666-top-of-the-food-chain

Peachy. You repeated the exact same thing Niels had already brought up. You avoided the question though - why does this mean we need to start legislating who can breed?

 

[Dotini]

You avoided the question though - why does this mean we need to start legislating who can breed?

I try to avoid silly questions!

One possible answer is that, as we have noted, our world is in the midst of a 65,000,000 year Extinction Level Event (ELE). It's fatuous to pretend that humans cannot be affected. We may fall to pre-1950 (from the current ~7 billion down to ~2 billion) within this century. Possibly to pre-industrial levels within another century. So it can't matter whether you practice eugenics or screw like a bunny. We might as well party like it's 1999. As I said earlier, it's all about political correctness. And who gets funded at the public trough.

 

[Famine]

Why is it silly to ask you to justify your opinions?

Niels proposed human population control in response to declining algae populations. You agreed with him. Since you agree with it, justify human population control. Don't dodge it by saying it's tricky due to "political correctness" (huh?) or who gets "funding". Justify it.

Tell me why we get to say who can and cannot breed - and if you fancy elaborating, tell me why this would be an appropriate response to a decline in algae.

 

[niky]

Trying to implement population control selectively breeds the human species for promiscuity and multiple births. Give it several generations and I bet the propensity for twins or triplets will more than double.

 

[Dotini]

Why is it silly to ask you to justify your opinions?

Niels proposed human population control in response to declining algae populations. You agreed with him. Since you agree with it, justify human population control. Don't dodge it by saying it's tricky due to "political correctness" (huh?) or who gets "funding". Justify it.

Tell me why we get to say who can and cannot breed - and if you fancy elaborating, tell me why this would be an appropriate response to a decline in algae.

Niels said several important things. The collapse of the food chain and current human population being unsustainable I took to be the most important. He did also mention population control, which I took to be family planning, the pill, and condoms. You cannot impute that I was agreeing with eugenics. I don't. Why must you always leap to the most lurid imaginable ideas? You claim to have learned some science. You certainly haven't learned to read, think critically about it, and formulate appropriate, polite and respectful responses. Even so, I will spell it out for you. Eugenics, and other forced means of population control are unworkable, self-defeating, undemocratic and anyway ineffective responses to the predicament. FTW.

 

[Famine]

Niels said several important things. The collapse of the food chain and current human population being unsustainable I took to be the most important. He did also mention population control, which I took to be family planning, the pill, and condoms. You cannot impute that I was agreeing with eugenics. I don't.

You quoted the whole post and added "you are absolutely right". I asked a general question about eugenics with no specific person quoted or addressed. You again quoted the whole post and responded to it.

If you were not defending or supporting eugenics by directly responding postiviely with several points to the question "Why do we need to get all eugenical again?" then you need to be considerably more careful with how you express yourself.

Why must you always leap to the most lurid imaginable ideas?

No leap required. You chose to support the phrase "population control". You chose to respond to an undirected question about eugenics with several positive points. Your lack of ability to clearly express the thoughts in your head (or plain change your mind when challenged - which is considerably more likely) is not my problem.

You claim to have learned some science. You certainly haven't learned to read, think critically about it, and formulate appropriate, polite and respectful responses.

Physician heal thyself.

Oh, and if you decide to place yourself in judgement over another member in this manner again, I will place myself in judgement over your suitability to remain on this site. You have been told before. You will not be told again.

 

[Dotini]

Niels said nothing about eugenics. I said nothing about eugenics. You were the one constantly moaning on about eugenics. What is your problem with eugenics? If you want to ban me from your lemonade stand because of a problem you contrived, there is nothing I can do to stop you.

 

[Famine]

Niels said nothing about eugenics. I said nothing about eugenics. You were the one constantly moaning on about eugenics.

And again, you cannot post without demonising someone with whom you disagree. If you cannot participate in adult debate, I suggest you stop before you get yourself into trouble.

As I said, I brought up eugenics and you responded to that post, quoting it in full. Let me refresh you:

You quoted the whole post and added "you are absolutely right". I asked a general question about eugenics with no specific person quoted or addressed. You again quoted the whole post and responded to it.

If you were not defending eugenics, then quoting a post asking a question about eugenics in full and responding to it with several defensive points is not the way to demostrate this. A lack of care in quoting on your part does not a "leap" make on mine.

The planet has the resources to support twice as many humans as now. Why do we need to start getting all eugenical again and what does it have to do with algae?

The food chain is dying from the bottom up.

I believe you have personally acknowledged that there is currently under way an Extinction Event. Extinction Events are said to occur when when a major percentage of the world's plant and animal species perish from the face of our planet.

Perhaps you right about humans not needing certain resources. In the future as in the past we may have to do without cars, planes, oil, internal combustion engines, central heat, roads, dams, cities, nations, manufactured goods, grocery stores, medical centers, video games, bottled beer and condoms.

A minimum number of calories and moderately fresh water is all that is required for the human animal to persist through difficult times.

One question asked in my post and to no-one in particular. Post quoted in full and responded to in yours. If you were not responding to the one question in my post why did you quote it?

 

[Keef]

Niels said nothing about eugenics. I said nothing about eugenics. You were the one constantly moaning on about eugenics. What is your problem with eugenics? If you want to ban me from your lemonade stand because of a problem you contrived, there is nothing I can do to stop you.

His post blatantly supported population control - he used that term exactly - and not safe sex practices. Beyond that he asked when we were going to implement population control, and unless he grew up deep inside the Amazon and stumbled across an explorer's laptop to post in this thread, I imagine he understands safe sex practices are already widely taught and practiced, which means that what he meant by population control was indeed population control.

I'm not sure about a big, colorful city like Seattle, but here in the mid-west we use population control on pesky animals like deer, especially. We have a hunting season and we go kill them. We call it population control. Population control as relating to human kind implies picking and choosing who lives and who dies, whether at birth, or because they're Jewish, or because they smell funny, or because they're old and crippled and can no longer contribute to society, or because they don't like macaroni and cheese, etc.

Speaking of algae, I've been having some problems with it in the pool lately. The water is too warm I suppose. Time to cool the water and strangle that algae, and then pump it full of chlorine and poison it out of this world. Or would you rather come scoop it out for me to replenish the oceans?

 

[Dotini]

His post blatantly supported population control - he used that term exactly - and not safe sex practices. Beyond that he asked when we were going to implement population control, and unless he grew up deep inside the Amazon and stumbled across an explorer's laptop to post in this thread, I imagine he understands safe sex practices are already widely taught and practiced, which means that what he meant by population control was indeed population control.

I'm not sure about a big, colorful city like Seattle, but here in the mid-west we use population control on pesky animals like deer, especially. We have a hunting season and we go kill them. We call it population control. Population control as relating to human kind implies picking and choosing who lives and who dies, whether at birth, or because they're Jewish, or because they smell funny, or because they're old and crippled and can no longer contribute to society, or because they don't like macaroni and cheese, etc.

I can see that "population control" and "eugenics" are highly loaded terms. I regret that I ever set foot in this mess over population. Because of Niels' language difficulty, I attempted to give him the benefit of the doubt. He spoke of population control and Algae. I spoke of nature taking control and plankton. Bad segue. And yes, I was less than completely immediate and specific in condemning loathsome practices of population control. I wanted dearly to avoid the subject because I hate it. Here in Seattle we have pests like raccoons. I had one in the sights of my .22 rifle. But I didn't shoot because it's illegal and I had not chambered the round. It's not even legal to trap them here.

 

[Niels]

It's not possible to concider ethical questions about it.

It's going to be done. I can tell you that.
I won't even tell you that "It's going to have to be done". No, I'm already sure it will be done anyway.

In the end, the conclusion will be always population controll anyway.
Because giving up luxuries but most importantly, technological advantages. Will give possible enemy nations the possibility to overpower your nation. It's not an option to give in on technology.

I won't go here explaining ethics.

1 Child for every 2 parents can limit the ethics at this moment.
Otherwise it's going to have to be selective breeding yes, and the other option isn't the real concideration. It'll already be war if even the idea comes to mind that it'll have to be cut back by force. No one will allow that.
And it will then take place through anargy.

Or the holy solution is still possible. And people start to give up their luxuries finally in the end anyway. But I don't believe that.

 

[Famine]

I think you're considerably overplaying it if you think that enforced human population control is either practical or a proportionate response to a reduction in algae.

China currently has a system similar to the one you describe. I won't even begin to cover what's wrong with it.

 

[Omnis]

This is all nonsense. Algae has nothing to do with fried chicken.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Let's see, more than usual solar flare activity for the past few years and we get some of the hottest temps we've ever had here in SoCal.

This year, very little solar flare activity and we get some of the coldest July temps ever recorded. It's 15-17 degrees lower than normal.

Experts relate 'Global Warming' to solar flare activity several years ago. Mostly ignored by world liberals demanding billions for scientific study of man-made global warming.

Man-made global warming a fraud? Yep. For the most part.