[Hawkeye_a]

I dont read much into news about environmental disasters and such, and i definately dont belong to 'green peace' or any other such orginazation. So what im about to say is just from my observations...

Like just looking at the world.....this is whats happened recently:
-Tsunami in indian ocean, followed by at least 2 quakes
-Quakes in Japan, Iran and Turkey
-Flooding in the U.K., Italy, India and Bangladesh
-Tornadoes and cyclones over the U.S.
-Bush fires in Australia
-Volcanoes erupting in Mexico

Most of the things mentioned above have happened in the past 6-8 months ago. I dont know if its the media thats reporting more than usual environmental disasters in the news, but just seems to me that the frequency of environmental disastes is just increasing and quite drastically. On top of that you have thing like 'bird flu', 'mad cow' and SARS. Then there's famines in Africa.

Seems like over population and global warming are starting to have major effects globally. Is this the way it's to be balanced out ? That 'Day after tomorrow' movie was definately an exageration....but it's happening on a smaller scale and picking up in my opinion. what do you guys reckon ?

Cheers

[RAILhead]

Mankind cannot destroy the Earth.
Mankind will not destroy the Earth.
This is not how the world will end.
Mankind is not that powerful.

The cause? You don't want me to answer that with my opinion because all it will do is lead to a religious flame-fest (and no, I'm not implying God is doing this or anything ridiculous like that).

Just don't give Man so much credit, that's all.

Maury

[wdlove]

I just think that with the invention of Cables 24/7 coverage, there is more focus on disasters. Bad news sells. There have been disasters since the beginning of time and there will be to the end of time.

[Mastrap]

Mankind cannot destroy the earth, but mankind can destroy the environment that sustains our species.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Mankind cannot destroy the earth, but mankind can destroy the environment that sustains our species.

No we can't. Again, you think to highly of our species in relation to the planet we live upon.

Maury

[screamingFit]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

No we can't. Again, you think to highly of our species in relation to the planet we live upon.

Maury

I'm the magical man from Happyland in a gumdrop house on lollypop lane!

[greenamp]

You must realize though that we only have reliable data on weather trends dating back to 50 years or so. Who are we to say any kind of weather is "strange" or "abnormal?"

[von Wrangell]

People living in more northern areas notice the difference more than others at the moment IIRC. I've talked to some of the old farmers(who rely on nature and the environment, no factory farming) and they say that they have started worrying. A couple of years ago(10-15) they were happy as they got a lot more from the land than before. Now it's falling back to levels below when they started. Even if they have more technique. Also, every year sees a new heat record beaten here.

But of course, this has nothing to do with humans

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by greenamp

You must realize though that we only have reliable data on weather trends dating back to 50 years or so. Who are we to say any kind of weather is "strange" or "abnormal?"

We have cores from glaciers(e.g. from Greenland) that date back more than 3000 years. We have it pretty well recorded. But you wouldn't want to lose out on a few dollars would you. That would be terrible. Lets just take the chance and if the world gets ****ed at least some rich guys in the West were able to live comfortable during their life time.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

We have cores from glaciers(e.g. from Greenland) that date back more than 3000 years. We have it pretty well recorded.

Yes but glacier data doesn't give you a clue as to specific weather patterns such as, why there may seem to be fewer tornados in kansas (hypothetical) or why the number of oceanic earthquakes seem to be increasing (hypothetical). Sure, this data can give a general idea of the climate and it's changes, but it's hardly sufficient to form any absolutes.

But you wouldn't want to lose out on a few dollars would you. That would be terrible. Lets just take the chance and if the world gets ****ed at least some rich guys in the West were able to live comfortable during their life time.

no clue where you're going here

[RAILhead]

3000 years? So what? If the Earth was only 1 million years old, 3000 years is what, .3% of the time line?

You're basing things on comparing glacier data that's only .3% of the age of the Earth (and that's only if we say the Earth was 1 million years old)? Not only that, you're basing it on what some farmers said about their crops and land from fifty years ago?!?

The general scientific consensus is that the Earth is 4.55 BILLION years old, so you're really talking about data that represents 00006.59340659% of the time line.

Holy crap.

Point being, Man is but a fart in the wind when compared to the Earth and its age and potency. She was here before us, and She'll be here after us -- and She's been through a LOT worse that whatever Man can dream up.

[memento]

Originally Posted by wdlove

I just think that with the invention of Cables 24/7 coverage, there is more focus on disasters. Bad news sells. There have been disasters since the beginning of time and there will be to the end of time.

exactly. not only more focus, but more immediate access to the news/disaster.

[GSixZero]

Yes RailHead, I totally agree with you. The other week my 70 year old father had awful chest pains, and he wasn't too worried, but I wasn't sure. I though about it for a few minutes, and decided, "Well, he's 70 years old, and he's only had these chest pains for 3 hours now, that's ONLY .00048890195% of his life, so obviously I can't possibly judge that anything is really wrong with him. I'll see what happens for the next few years and then we can decide if he should have gone to the hospital."

[Hawkeye_a]

I think we as humans are part of the ecosystem, and not some outside alien come to destroy it.

But what we also are are 'conscious' self-aware beings, as opposed to other life on this planet. If survival is an instinct to us as a species, well we could be messing that up, with what we are doing now. example: holes caused in ozone due to our use of CFCs, well that means more ppl will die of skin cancers. global warming due to burning of fossil fuels....well you see floods and tornadoes and dramatic weatehr changes. (things like el-nino).

If we feed dead cow carcasses to other cows or try and 'farm' animals that have roamed free on the planet, you get things like mad-cow and bird flue and SARS. This is a cause and effect thing in my opinion. And it's surprising how the predictions of some scientists are coming true. In the future, we wont have the luxury of asking "how could we have known ?" cause we do know, warning have been given. Some choose to heed the waarning, and others choose not to, because paper billbs with numbers and presidents heads printed on them matter more for some reason.

P.S.>> On a side note, these lyrics come to mind:
"words of wisdom all around
but no one ever seems to listen
they're talking about thier planes on paper
building up from the pavement
there are shadows from the scrapers on the pavement
it's enough to make me sigh
but that don't seem like it would make it feel better
the words are still around
but the words are only sounds
and no one ever seems to listen
instead they'll say

well how could we have known?
I'll tell them it's not so hard to tell
if you keep on adding stones
soon the water will be lost in the well" - Jack Johnson ("Traffic in the sky" off of the album "On and On" also available on iTMS)

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

Yes RailHead, I totally agree with you. The other week my 70 year old father had awful chest pains, and he wasn't too worried, but I wasn't sure. I though about it for a few minutes, and decided, "Well, he's 70 years old, and he's only had these chest pains for 3 hours now, that's ONLY .00048890195% of his life, so obviously I can't possibly judge that anything is really wrong with him. I'll see what happens for the next few years and then we can decide if he should have gone to the hospital."

Good lord, don't be such a dolt.

You are equating a required organ in your "dad's" body to Mankind on Earth. Only in the dimmest, darkest, most ridiculous corners of someone's brain can that logic exist.

Maury

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

I'm the magical man from Happyland in a gumdrop house on lollypop lane!

hey, asshat, thank you for demonstrating why we can't have civil discussion regarding these types of issues.



congrats,

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Good lord, don't be such a dolt.

You are equating a required organ in your "dad's" body to Mankind on Earth. Only in the dimmest, darkest, most ridiculous corners of someone's brain can that logic exist.

Maury

You're right, my logic is crap in that analogy. The sad part is yours is just is bad.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

3000 years? So what? If the Earth was only 1 million years old, 3000 years is what, .3% of the time line?

You're basing things on comparing glacier data that's only .3% of the age of the Earth (and that's only if we say the Earth was 1 million years old)? Not only that, you're basing it on what some farmers said about their crops and land from fifty years ago?!?

The general scientific consensus is that the Earth is 4.55 BILLION years old, so you're really talking about data that represents 00006.59340659% of the time line.

Holy crap.

Point being, Man is but a fart in the wind when compared to the Earth and its age and potency. She was here before us, and She'll be here after us -- and She's been through a LOT worse that whatever Man can dream up.

so what? You obviously don't understand too much of this debate.

Yes, we know that the climate changes.
Yes, we only have the last 3000 years(that's disregarding fossils) in data.

But.

The human industrial revolution only started in the last 200 years or so. If we see(like we do) a sharp increase in the last 200 years or so we know with a high degree of certainty that we are responsible. Why? Because many nations have a history that spans more than the 500(being very generous now) years your history spans and because of that has the history written down(climate changes etc) for the historical time. We can compare that to the raw data we have from that time and from that extrapolate what the sudden increase we are seeing is coming from. And since we don't see much change in volcanic eruptions(the one thing that has the biggest effect at once from the nature) we can with a fair degree of certainty prove that we(or rather how we live) are responsible for the warming we are seeing.

Understand?

[GSixZero]

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

[RAILhead]

Problem mien kapitan: there are as many people in the scientific community who DON'T see a "sudden increase" as there are that do.

Further, we're a bit more advanced in monitoring, charting, explaining, etc climate behavior than people 500 years ago.

Understand?
(And there you go again not putting spaces BEFORE your parenthesis!)

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

Maybe if that chart showed, oh, 100,000 years, I'd be interested.

Sorry, but we aren't going to burst into flames any time soon, as much as some of you would like to think.

Maury

[Zenbone]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Maybe if that chart showed, oh, 100,000 years, I'd be interested.

Sorry, but we aren't going to burst into flames any time soon, as much as some of you would like to think.

Maury

You've already burst into flames yourself there, mein lieutenant. Take 'er easy and how about we discuss it without so much reactive stuff?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Problem mien kapitan: there are as many people in the scientific community who DON'T see a "sudden increase" as there are that do.

Further, we're a bit more advanced in monitoring, charting, explaining, etc climate behavior than people 500 years ago.

Understand?
(And there you go again not putting spaces BEFORE your parenthesis!)

1. Complete and utter BS. If you look at the distribution of the scientists for and against you'll see that about 80% of those against come from the US. Now why might that be?

2. It's not about getting precise data. It's about getting the overall climate. Volcanic eruptions get noted. Unusually harsh winters get noted etc etc.

3. I'm sorry but this might surprise you. English is my third language. Putting spaces in front of parenthesis isn't the norm in my first two. But thanks for pointing it out(though you could have done it in a more frien....... never mind.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Maybe if that chart showed, oh, 100,000 years, I'd be interested.

Sorry, but we aren't going to burst into flames any time soon, as much as some of you would like to think.

Maury

Tell me one thing.

What do we have to lose by cutting unnatural emissions that are the result of many of our current day activites?

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Maybe if that chart showed, oh, 100,000 years, I'd be interested.

Sorry, but we aren't going to burst into flames any time soon, as much as some of you would like to think.

Maury

You're missing the point here... The global shift in warming doesn't have anything to do with the last 100,000 years, it has to do with the past 200 years, basically since humans started burning fossil fuels as energy sources.

Is your solution to study the climate for the next hundred millennia and then decide if there's a problem? How long must the current trend to continue for you to realize that humans are actually causing problems. The climate is a totally non-linear, carefully balanced system. How do you arrive at the conclusion that there is no problem?

[ghporter]

Actually we have very reliable, very detailed weather observation data going back to somewhere around 1870 for much of Europe and both U.S. coasts. That data can be examined for trends very easily-it's what a lot of meterologists have been doing for the last ten to fifteen years. The trouble with that span is that while it seems long, it is just a blip; it cannot explain the "Medieval Climatic Anomaly"-the uncharacteristically warm and mild climate in Europe from about the 10th century to the mid-14th century, nor the "Little Ice Age" that lasted from about 1350 to 1850.
See the picture:

credit: "THE LITTLE ICE AGE", Richard D. Tkachuck, Geoscience Research Institute
Basically, we really do not know if the current heating trend has its roots in human behavior or in natural cycles, though the evidence suggests very strongly that human behavior is making things warmer faster than they might otherwise go.

[tie]

Railhead, nobody is claiming that we are going to destroy the earth. Where do you get that from? Making decisions based on what the earth is going to look like billions of years from now is pretty nihilist. Why do anything?

But we have obviously driven multitudes of species into extinction, upset entire ecosystems, and changed earth's climate. In another 5 billion years, this will likely be just a blip, not even noticeable in impact compared to the asteroid which hits us 200 million years from now. But in the short term — my lifetime, and the lifetime of the next few generations — we can and are screwing things up pretty badly.

[mr. natural]

Ignorance Is Strength

[mr. natural]

I guess a hint is needed.

The clue to unlocking the riddle can be found in the image tag.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Problem mien kapitan: there are as many people in the scientific community who DON'T see a "sudden increase" as there are that do.

That's weird. Must've changed since the last time you read Christian Rapture News Weekly. Interestingly, last months Popular Science had an article on global warming and climate change. According to this, there's a roughly 90% consensus regarding CO2 emissions from human beings and the direct effect it's having on our ecosystem. Just a tad more weighted than 50/50 anyway.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by mr. natural

Ignorance Is Strength

According to the Creation Museum in Cincinnati, Adam and Eve named Tyrannosaurus Rex. And all this time I thought it was Henry Osborn.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Point being, Man is but a fart in the wind when compared to the Earth and its age and potency. She was here before us, and She'll be here after us -- and She's been through a LOT worse that whatever Man can dream up.

Well, we've already had some impacts. I was reading Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond the other day, and (forgive my inadequate exegesis) one thing he mentioned was that the disappearance of large (read: huntable) mammals in N. America and Australia coincides very closely with the appearance of mankind on those continents. They weren't hunted to extinction on the Eurasian continent because those large mammals had co-evolved with man and thus knew to be afraid of them. The lack of large domesticable animals later (Diamond argues) affected the vitality of N. American and Australain civilizations by limiting their population sizes (no readily available source of protein) and decreasing their stock of available diseases (human-animal contact breeds them).

The point being: it's very unlikely that we could extinguish all life on the planet, but we can and already have had significant impacts. Most scientists agree that our activity has warmed the planet; we've measurably reduced biodiversity (esp. in rainforests) by economic activity; etc. The only question is, what consequences our effects are going to have... no one really knows, but I feel uncomfortable just assuming that there won't be any to speak of.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

People living in more northern areas notice the difference more than others at the moment IIRC.

Alaska summers have been getting warmer.
Alaska winters have been getting milder.
Alaska glaciers are receding.

These are all things I've witnessed personally in the last 36 years. Not a long time, sure, but if you talk to Alaskans who have been here even longer than I, you hear the same thing.

The only debate is how fast/how much and what will be the effect, not IF there is or is not global warming.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

No we can't. Again, you think to highly of our species in relation to the planet we live upon.

Maury

Humans are the first species that are able to really alter the Earth. This is why we have such a high potential impact to the Earth. Over the Earth's whole history, no other species has been able to alter it.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by wdlove

I just think that with the invention of Cables 24/7 coverage, there is more focus on disasters. Bad news sells. There have been disasters since the beginning of time and there will be to the end of time.

That and there are more people every where more then before so what would have damaged say a couple thousand homes and killed a few hundred before now damages several thousand homes and kills thousands of people making its impact worse.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by goMac

Humans are the first species that are able to really alter the Earth. This is why we have such a high potential impact to the Earth. Over the Earth's whole history, no other species has been able to alter it.

Not True, plants created the air we all breath, I think that was a big impact on its own it created the enviroment we have now.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Alaska summers have been getting warmer.
Alaska winters have been getting milder.
Alaska glaciers are receding.

These are all things I've witnessed personally in the last 36 years. Not a long time, sure, but if you talk to Alaskans who have been here even longer than I, you hear the same thing.

The only debate is how fast/how much and what will be the effect, not IF there is or is not global warming.

Here in Australia, it's *supposed* to be middle of winter..... which means overcast skies and rain. Its been consistently sunny, with overcast days few and far between. I go out in t-shirts. And rain(which is desperately needed here) is extremely scarse.(This is what prompted me to start this topic).

[screamingFit]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

hey, asshat, thank you for demonstrating why we can't have civil discussion regarding these types of issues.



congrats,

Why, thank you! And instead of ignoring me like everyone else, you had to make the discussion that much more uncivilized. You're a winner, too!

Point is, I'm so sick of these people with their head so far in the sand that debating no longer works and therefore, I used a humorous, somewhat deragatory approach to get a point across.

But, there's no point in debating this subject as it's always a pit against scientists who receive grant/research money from interested groups who wish their opinion to be the right one. Granted, the planet will be here after us but it's foolish to think that the current lifestyle by the West isn't causing damage to our home for the forseeable future.

Those who want to wait for more propogandist data, please pack up your SUVs and leave so our efforts to right your wrongs will not go on being pointless.