PDA

View Full Version : Endangered polar bears and Americans.


pete66
2007-01-05, 01:31 PM
I've just been watching "Fox & Friends" and it seems blatant to me that the newsreaders are f**king brainwashed morons. They say things that newsreaders anywhere else would laugh at.

Seeing as I think about half the people at unicyclist.com are American, I'm gonna put this poll out and see what happens.

kington99
2007-01-05, 01:38 PM
Unfortunately you were too brainwashed to put the poll on, where is it? :)

pete66
2007-01-05, 01:43 PM
Unfortunately you were too brainwashed to put the poll on, where is it? :)
It took a bit of editing to get the poll options to under 100 characters... its there now though. :)

Zzagg
2007-01-05, 02:03 PM
though I chose the fourth option, your pole seems to miss at least two choices:
"I'm (or not) an american and I think burning fossile fuel doesn't dammage polar caps in any way"

pete66
2007-01-05, 02:19 PM
though I chose the fourth option, your pole seems to miss at least two choices:
"I'm (or not) an american and I think burning fossile fuel doesn't dammage polar caps in any way"
Yeah, you're right. I guess all the hardcore skeptics will have to make do with the "arguably might" option.

Gilby
2007-01-05, 02:30 PM
I'm not completely convinced, but I am reasonably convinced enough to know that we need to take action.

TheObieOne3226
2007-01-05, 02:42 PM
I think the Earth is going through a warm phase, as it has done hundreds of times in the past.

headstone
2007-01-05, 03:24 PM
This isn't something you can just form an opinion on by watching the news.

monkeyman
2007-01-05, 03:26 PM
I think the Earth is going through a warm phase, as it has done hundreds of times in the past.

Obie wins. Thread over. This poll is horrible.

TheObieOne3226
2007-01-05, 03:48 PM
Obie wins. Thread over. This poll is horrible.

I don't know if I agree with that... I just wish there were more options. The warm phase may be caused by humans burning fossil fuels, but I think that a lot of people think it is a bigger problem than it is as of yet. There is sort of a knee-jerk reaction to the words "global warming," fueled largely by doomsday scenarios circulated by the mostly uninformed media, who know they will get more interest with worst case scenarios than simply telling the facts.

Humans haven't really been around long enough to see different "climate phases." We know 2 things:

1) There are more greenhouse gases.
2) The Earth is getting warmer.

They are related, but to what degree we are not really sure. We also know that in the years leading up to Ice Ages (which occur frequently in relation to the Earth's age) there is a marked increase in temperatures.

I'm not saying it isn't going to be a problem. We just don't know yet. I do think we should start making efforts to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and start planting trees. But thats as much to prevent us from running out of either as it is to prevent global warming.

john_childs
2007-01-05, 04:12 PM
I'll jump on the bandwagon if it means we'll get some cool electric plug-in hybrid cars. Bonus points if SUV drivers and full size pickup drivers get shamed so much that those vehicles are no longer fashionable.

Zzagg
2007-01-05, 04:46 PM
Bonus points if SUV drivers and full size pickup drivers get shamed so much that those vehicles are no longer fashionable.JC, you're my hero!:D

Naomi
2007-01-05, 05:02 PM
I'll jump on the bandwagon if it means we'll get some cool electric plug-in hybrid cars. Bonus points if SUV drivers and full size pickup drivers get shamed so much that those vehicles are no longer fashionable.



Nice idea...except that someone did the research on the whole life carbon footprint for these hybrid cars. Manufacturing costs, fuel, batteries etc. included. Total carbon cost of the hybrid cars from their creation to their scrapping was greater than for equivalent sized petrol only cars. Understandable, because they are of course much more complex, and therefore expensive to make, to maintain ( and to buy!)

So anyone who thinks hybrid cars is the answer is going to be disappointed.

Until someone, some brave enough politician with clout, gets the idea into his thick skull, that maybe we should be doing something to dramatically control population growth, global warming will continue to get worse. Of course many of us suspect we are already past the break point. Others of us, call us merchants of doom if you will, predict that no matter what we do, nature and massive resource shortage is going to cut in and very effectively reduce our numbers. If Hollywood wants a script for a REALLY scary film, they are welcome to come see me.

Yes we have had ice ages, and warm spells in the past: they tend to last quite a time. Global cooling is not something we will be able to generate as easily as we are generating global warming, and as such, once properly warmed up, we will have no means to artificially cool things back down.

Anyone prepared to give their estimate of how much time we have left?
I am guessing a population crash will happen during my lifetime.



Nao

Spudman
2007-01-05, 05:21 PM
We know 2 things:

1) There are more greenhouse gases.
2) The Earth is getting warmer.

They are related, but to what degree we are not really sure.

Yup. Also I believe that a lot of the research being done seems to indicate that humans are somewhat responsable for this increase in greenhouse gasses (although, again, we don't know to what degree).

All I know for sure is that the super conservatives that say we aren't responible for anything are wrong, and the ultra-liberals that say we are completely responsible for all of this crap are wrong too. (It seems like any other political dispute, doesn't it?)

I am guessing a population crash will happen during my lifetime.

My house too?

TheObieOne3226
2007-01-05, 05:31 PM
I am guessing a population crash will happen during my lifetime.



Just how long do you plan to live? :)

I don't want to pick a number, but I am optimistic. What do you think will be the cause of this "crash?" Famine? Family planning? War for resources? Nuclear winter?

forrestunifreak
2007-01-05, 05:36 PM
I'm American, and I believe that warm spells and cold spells fluctuate throughout the earth, and I also believe that when something is warm it can actually melt ice.



Why doesn't somebody just go all the way and say what they really mean, "the melting ice is ALL Bushes fault! He's out their melting the ice with a blow dryer, just to spite people blah blah blah blah"

john_childs
2007-01-05, 05:45 PM
Nice idea...except that someone did the research on the whole life carbon footprint for these hybrid cars. Manufacturing costs, fuel, batteries etc. included. Total carbon cost of the hybrid cars from their creation to their scrapping was greater than for equivalent sized petrol only cars. Understandable, because they are of course much more complex, and therefore expensive to make, to maintain ( and to buy!)

So anyone who thinks hybrid cars is the answer is going to be disappointed.

You missed the plug-in part. I'm not talking about the traditional hybrid like the Prius. A plug-in hybrid has a plug-in so you can charge the batteries like a traditional electric car, but then it also has a regular engine that can run like a hybrid. It gives you the best of both types of cars. You get the fuel efficiency of an electric car with the range of a hybrid. You don't have to worry about getting stranded if you run out of battery power on a longer trip. Most car trips are short (commute to work, going to the store, etc.) and within the range of the electric. The hybrid combination makes it possible to take the car on longer drives where you would run out of battery power.

An electric car can be quite fun to drive. Lots of urban driving is stop and go where snappy acceleration makes the car fun to drive. An electric can have strong low end torque and great acceleration. Zoom zoom zooom. It would be fun to drive.

The electricity that feeds the car would also need to be generated from clean sources. That means nuclear along with the traditional green power technologies. No more using coal and natural gas to generate the electricity.

Then this needs to be a global effort. So all countries have to be playing the same game plan. Get people driving plug-in hybrids and generate the electricity using green sources (including nuclear). It doesn't do much good for the US to go all green like that just to have China, India and a bunch of other countries ramp up their use of fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation. That would negate the possible benefits of the US and Europe going green. Fortunately it looks like China realizes that too (http://www.kenyanewsnetwork.com/artman/publish/article_2140.shtml).

So I believe it is quite reasonable and practical to reduce emissions due to transportation and electricity generation. How much of an effect that will have on global warming is debatable. But at least the effort to do so does not need to be economically unfeasible, and in fact can be quite practical.

Shipping is an area that also needs to be addressed. Ocean going ships generate a lot of emissions and lots of our goods come by ship. Trucks for shipping also generate a fair amount of emissions. I'm not sure how to address those problems. Hybrid technology isn't that practical for trucks and useless for ships.

TheObieOne3226
2007-01-05, 05:48 PM
I think in the next 10 years people are going to have a strong change of opinion about nuclear power. It is really good stuff in a lot of ways.

headstone
2007-01-05, 05:58 PM
I don't know if I agree with that... I just wish there were more options. The warm phase may be caused by humans burning fossil fuels, but I think that a lot of people think it is a bigger problem than it is as of yet. There is sort of a knee-jerk reaction to the words "global warming," fueled largely by doomsday scenarios circulated by the mostly uninformed media, who know they will get more interest with worst case scenarios than simply telling the facts.

No, what the media does is give both sides of the story equal time, even thought 99% of scientists agree that we are causing global warming, so it appears that scientists are split 50-50 on the issue.

johnfoss
2007-01-05, 07:57 PM
The warm phase may be caused by humans burning fossil fuels, but I think that a lot of people think it is a bigger problem than it is as of yet.
How big of a problem is it then? What is your response to the current spike (increasing upward curve) in carbon dioxide levels? These can be traced back through geologic time, and show a relatively steady levels, consistent with ice ages and warming trends. The current situation does not match anything known for past CO2 levels.

This isn't something you can just form an opinion on by watching the news.
Sure you can. That's what most of the people in this thread are doing. That's how most people vote for their elected officials. It doesn't mean they are developing *educated* opinions. They are allowing themselves to be led by a media system that's based on ratings, rather than balance and accuracy.

Another way of looking at this global warming stuff is this: How can all this burning we're doing, and pollution of various types we're creating, not have large effects on our environment? Where are the studies that say they're having no effect? Hmm. According to the ice-age cycle, aren't we supposed to be in the beginning stages of one? How come it's getting warmer then?

TheObieOne3226
2007-01-05, 08:45 PM
How big of a problem is it then? What is your response to the current spike (increasing upward curve) in carbon dioxide levels? These can be traced back through geologic time, and show a relatively steady levels, consistent with ice ages and warming trends. The current situation does not match anything known for past CO2 levels.




Actually there have been times when it has been higher than it is today. Lots of things can cause CO2 to increase.

Taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1324379,00.html


"It is possible that this is merely a reflection of natural events like previous peaks in the rate, but it is also possible that it is the beginning of a natural process unprecedented in the record."

Analysts stress that it is too early to draw any long-term conclusions.

Measurements of CO2 levels in Australia and at the south pole were slightly lower, he said, so it looked as though something unusual had occurred in the northern hemisphere.

"My guess is that there were extra forest fires in the northern hemisphere, and particularly a very hot summer in Europe," Dr Cox said. "This led to a die-back in vegetation and an increase in release of carbon from the soil, rather than more growing plants taking carbon out of the atmosphere, which is usually the case in summer."

Dr Cox, like other scientists, is concerned that too much might be read into two years' figures. "Five or six years on the trot would be very difficult to explain," he said.

"I don't think an increase of 2 ppm for two years in a row is highly significant - there are climatic perturbations that can make this occur," he said. "But the absence of a known climatic event does make these years unusual.

"Based on those two years alone I would say it was too soon to say that a new trend has been established, but it warrants close scrutiny."

My response is that nobody knows for sure, and I am reluctant to assume the worst.

Naomi
2007-01-05, 09:23 PM
Just how long do you plan to live? :)

I don't want to pick a number, but I am optimistic. What do you think will be the cause of this "crash?" Famine? Family planning? War for resources? Nuclear winter?



I sincerely hope that you, rather than I , are right, and that your optimism will prevail. I would hope on current statistics to live another 50 years or so if allowed to do so naturally.

Resources, I don't think the war will be required. Family planning, if implemented vigorously, and legislatively, would cause an eventual population reduction, but by itself, because of longer natural lifetimes will not cause a major crash. The crash I fear is of the order of 75% reduction, maybe dramatically more. I can but hope I am wrong.

Think how much fuel is used just in the production of fertilizer, planting, feeding plants, harvesting and de-bugging crops, in fishing etc.. Followed by distribution to countries, towns, cities, villages, shops and homes. Then think how much fuel we have left, and how long it might be before those that have it decide they want to keep what they have left for themselves. Europe is already concerned about continuity of gas supplies from Russia. We can only maintain 6.6 billion on this earth because of oil. Oil--> global warming-->catch 22---> no more oil---> , but it is all far too late already in my opinion. The warnings are not new, but still the politicians only chip away at the edges, whilst puffing out their chests and trying to convince us all that all is fine and dandy. Oh goody, goody, we recycled a few million Xmas cards this year. Saved the world, that has!

Nuclear and wind/wave will not be available soon enough in quantity, and that sort of quantity is doubtful anyway. Unless someone comes up with a controllable, safe and usable fusion process soon, we are in trouble. Sorry if I have spoiled anyone's happy new year, but I do not think I worry without cause.



Nao

Naomi
2007-01-05, 09:30 PM
"I don't think an increase of 2 ppm for two years in a row is highly significant - there are climatic perturbations that can make this occur," he said. "But the absence of a known climatic event does make these years unusual.

.


I just looked up the figures for air composition. CO2 was stated as being 380PPM. So in just two years that makes it roughly a 1% increase.
Seems significant to me. The trouble with many quotes is that they ignore highly relevant and critical detail.


http://www.uigi.com/air.html


Nao

Blegas78
2007-01-05, 09:35 PM
According to the ice-age cycle, aren't we supposed to be in the beginning stages of one? How come it's getting warmer then?

If we are entering the beginning stages of the next ice-age, which I do believe is happening, then we should seriously warm up the planet as much as possible. Soon enough, we are all going to be extremely cold, and if we can do ANYTHING to warm it up, which we most likely cannot, then we should start early. It's really quite nice to think that humans are so powerful to make such huge changes to this big rock we call Earth.

TheObieOne3226
2007-01-05, 09:43 PM
I just looked up the figures for air composition. CO2 was stated as being 380PPM. So in just two years that makes it roughly a 1% increase.
Seems significant to me. The trouble with many quotes is that they ignore highly relevant and critical detail.




I formed my opinion knowing that information. I even did the same rough calculation in my head. I read that fact on a different website, but in the spirit of unifreak7, I chose to omit it because it hurt my argument. :rolleyes:

Any year with El Nino sees a similar increase (for example). CO2 levels were higher during several unique periods long before the existence of man. There are many possible causes. Like I said. I'm more concerned that the rate of increase is increasing and has been for some years now. That bothers me more than a 2 year spike that can easily be attributed to any number of things. How many times do you think there has been a 1% yearly increase in the history of Earth. I would guess about 1 million. A single year is nothing when compared to the Earth.

75%! Yikes. I am faithful that we will find ways to grow and transport our food without using fossil fuels as much as we are today. I don't think you give nuclear power enough credit.

TheObieOne3226
2007-01-05, 09:49 PM
If we are entering the beginning stages of the next ice-age, which I do believe is happening, then we should seriously warm up the planet as much as possible. Soon enough, we are all going to be extremely cold, and if we can do ANYTHING to warm it up, which we most likely cannot, then we should start early. It's really quite nice to think that humans are so powerful to make such huge changes to this big rock we call Earth.


The Earth has been shown to go through an unusually warm period before the start of each Ice Age. Ice Ages aren't as cold as a lot of people think they are. Some are worse than others, but the human race would survive an Ice Age. The last Ice Age is said to have ended 10,000 years ago, so I doubt we are going into one soon. They appear to occur every 100,000 years, although long ago they supposedly occurred every 40,000 years.

James_Potter
2007-01-05, 10:25 PM
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

case closed!

Gilby
2007-01-05, 10:36 PM
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

case closed!

Aha, so the RIAA is the cause of global warming!

ivan
2007-01-06, 09:46 AM
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

case closed!
Hey, I'm a pirate!

pkplonker
2007-01-06, 11:14 AM
The reason the polar caps are melting, and global warming has increased is because there are less pirates.

BillyTheMountain
2007-01-06, 03:06 PM
I think the Earth is going through a warm phase, as it has done hundreds of times in the past.

And MAN will asssure this warm phase never cools down, until MAN is extinct.

Cherry blossoms are out in Wash Dc in December (winter), and in Brooklyn in January. This is the first time since the 1800s that NYC has still had no snow by Jan 6.