The Planetary Emergency

[Old Hippy]

There's currently a climate change denier push to point out the temporary Antarctic Ice gain (which in no way offsets the Arctic loss).

Via SkepticalScience.com the Antarctic trend is losing ice too.

well actually they are saying their is Antarctic ice gain... despite the fact that it is occuring in only one region of the continent, while overal their is still a lose of ice that amounts to more than the small gains in one area ...

 

[Masada]

Can we fix it with nuclear weapons?

 

[Neomega]

It's scary and fascinating how many people are still in denial. It's sort of like being in a burning building trying to raise the alarm and half the people are shouting, "It's not really burning, it's just a theory!"

Yeah, but how many people are actually simplifying for the sake of the environment? Even those who scoff at deniers, often are doing little to nothing to stop it, except perhaps trading carbon credits or buying a Prius.

The mind of modern man is infested with corporate conditioning that has been implanted from birth. He believes he needs shampoo and deodorant and a car with at least a V6, a new jacket every year and a new couch if he gets a tear in the cushion, preferably from Ikea.

Then there is the conditioning of modern amenities themselves, which convinces the modern brain that 55 degrees is far too cold to live in and 85 degrees (Fahrenheit) far too hot, so he uses the heater and air conditioner.

Then there is social conditioning, which tells modern man he needs a large house, with white carpeting and vinyl siding, sheetrock walls and insulation, and a new coat of paint every now and then (along with a new carpet)

His environmental worries are satiated by the fact that companies tell him their products are green, or created from recyclable materials. Most of the time, there is no slowdown in consumer habits, especially if as he matures his spending power increases.

So their are a lot of preachers of environmental catastrophe, but like a Christian that believes in hell, but sins like the devil, Al Gore claims to believe in catastrophic global warming, but his actions say, "naw, I don't believe in all that, if I did, I wouldn't live such a lavish lifestyle"

So then the truly insulting part comes up: People like Al Gore, come up with tax ideas, to make the poor and middle class consume less. This works on a personal scale as well as an international scale, which is one of the reasons many third world countries find the overtures and preachings of the first world about carbon output more than a tad hypocritical.

So I mean, I guess it is easy to castigate the unbelievers, but even if you got the unbelievers to believe, we would never have enough time to change our habits.

As far as I see it, humanity must first learn a very hard lesson before it figures out that the consumerist/dominator culture is the path to destruction. this is the tragedy of man. He will lie on his butt and do nothing until an emergency compels him to act.

And we are all guilty of this. I mean, yes, I've cut out a few things from my life, but when my power bill was being paid, I used the heater quite liberally (we are mostly hydro powered, so it feels a tad better, but I'm not sure if I lived in the midwest I'd go cold when I had free heat just because I thought that coal was ruining the atmosphere.)

Can we fix it with nuclear weapons?

Another Pinatubo or St. Helens would be preferable to nuclear weapons.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

Oh I agree. There are several urgent environmental problems that can really cause serious damage to big regions and millions of people. Water supply issues, over-fishing, you name it. There are many and they are serious.

But because they don't offer the perspective of global apocalypse that alarmists so intensely love, all our focus is on Global Warming.

Keep in mind that global warming will only serve to exacerbate many pre-existing environmental issues. For example, the resulting rise in ocean acidity will put further pressure on fish stocks and probably lead to more extinctions. Increasing droughts will only serve to make social and political tensions over water scarcity even more dire.

Anyone who portrays it as end-of-the-world type stuff is probably just enjoying feel smarter than all the 'ignorant masses,' or something. I don't really know what drives that doomsayer mentality. But Climate Change is in no way beneficial as a whole and, I believe, is poised to catalyze conflict and humanitarian crises across the globe. Also, switching to a non-fossil-fuel economy and society would probably be beneficial anyway.

 

[Arwon]

I kind of like the standard of living I have currently.

That's why we need to do a lot more about global warming. At present we're on track for 4 to 6 degrees of warming. That's very very dislocative. A long way from trivial or slow.

When you consider that all we need to do is overhaul our electricity generation sector and we've stopped a huge percentage of emissions, it's staggeringly dumb that we're not doing it faster.

 

[History_Buff]

I'm not worried and according to alarmists my region will be devastated. Of course, there's no way to know that and anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan.

There's no way to know, but when you've got people who've spent their lives trying to understand climate behavior, I don't know why you'd patently disregard their best guess.

In any relevant timescale the rise will be so small as to only affect very few places. Which is why ocean front properties remain so damn expensive.

What's a relevant time scale? We're looking at 1-2m by the end of the century. Of course, that's global not local, but it's still a fair amount.

His job is be pretentious and blow his importance way out of proportion?

Except that he's not blowing anything out of proportion. 4-6 degrees of global temperature increase is going to be a calamity when it comes. We need to recognize that, and start acting now.

 

[Arwon]

"The dangers of climate change are made up because I don't like some guy's attitude"

 

[TheLastOne36]

In any relevant timescale the rise will be so small as to only affect very few places. Which is why ocean front properties remain so damn expensive

BTW those Ocean Properties you love so much will be directly affected by rising sea levels. Not because Rising Sea Levels will put them under water, but because rising sea levels will destroy beaches. Those nice sandy beaches we love will be sucked by the oceans and the new beaches will be gravel-like for a few thousand years until ocean tides turn them into nice sandy beaches again.

Maybe Saharan and Arabian countries will make an industry out of exporting desert sand to hotels in the Caribbean or something.

 

[classical_hero]

[wiki]USS_Skate_(SSN-578)[/wiki]

On 30 July, Skate steamed to the Arctic where she operated under the ice for 10 days. During this time, she surfaced nine times through the ice, navigated over 2,400 miles (3,900 km) under it, and on August 11, 9:47pm EDT [1] (the week after USS Nautilus) became the second sea ship to reach the North Pole, earning the Navy Unit Commendation award for "... braving the hazards of the polar ice pack...." She did, however, not surface at the North Pole. On 23 August, she steamed into Bergen, Norway. The submarine made port calls in the Netherlands, Belgium, and France before returning to New London on 25 September 1958.

So as you can ee that in a time before the Satellite was up and running the thickness of the ice was s thin that a US submarine could penetrate through the sheets of ice. The record we are seeing is only accurate to the 1970's which is not a very long time, so we are comparing less than half a century worth of data, when on many other things we have so much longer time scales.

We've had claim s that the Arctic will be ice free by certain years, not far in the distance future. 2012, 2013.

 

[History_Buff]

Gods, what a maroon.; you know the ice sheets move right? The way Skate did it was to wait until they found a point of nearly open water, and then surface there. They had a special sonar system designed to do just that. Because, you know, if the ice wasn't that thin, and a sub surfaced into it, there's was a real risk of it sinking. Which is why Nautilus didn't surface on her trip.

 

[Arwon]

Oh wow clearly the scientists didn't think of this



You'll also note it later managed to get through pack ice in the depths of winter when it's at its thickness. Which actually demonstrates that yes, hundreds of tonnes of metal are capable of penetrating several metres of ice given the right conditions.

What exactly do you think this proves?

 

[Core Imposter]

A quick wiki should end this alarmism:

A glacial period (or alternatively glacial or glaciation) is an interval of time (thousands of years) within an ice age that is marked by colder temperatures and glacier advances. Interglacials, on the other hand, are periods of warmer climate within an ice age. The last glacial period ended about 15,000 years ago;[1] The Holocene epoch is the current interglacial.

It is supposed to be getting warmer till it gets colder.

 

[Old Hippy]

It is supposed to be getting warmer till it gets colder.

it is not suppossed to do anything ... climate is merly the reaction to the conditions that prevail...

 

[Arwon]

A quick wiki should end this alarmism:

A glacial period (or alternatively glacial or glaciation) is an interval of time (thousands of years) within an ice age that is marked by colder temperatures and glacier advances. Interglacials, on the other hand, are periods of warmer climate within an ice age. The last glacial period ended about 15,000 years ago;[1] The Holocene epoch is the current interglacial.

It is supposed to be getting warmer till it gets colder.

Go ant tell the Nobel committe, I expect your prize will be forthcoming.

 

[mythmonster2]

A quick wiki should end this alarmism:

A glacial period (or alternatively glacial or glaciation) is an interval of time (thousands of years) within an ice age that is marked by colder temperatures and glacier advances. Interglacials, on the other hand, are periods of warmer climate within an ice age. The last glacial period ended about 15,000 years ago;[1] The Holocene epoch is the current interglacial.

It is supposed to be getting warmer till it gets colder.

A quick wiki should also reveal that

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:
1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

Two can play at that game, and unfortunately, there's simply more on this side.
(Note: I am in no way saying that just this quote proves global warming is a real threat. It's the mountains of scientific proof that do that.)

 

[Yeekim]

I wonder if anyone really believes that the "Planet is in danger" and other such nonsense.

Who the hell cares what will happen in a thousand years? Who the hell is dumb enough to even try to predict?

In any relevant timescale global warming will be an inconvenience for some regions and a net gain for others. It won't cause civilization to collapse, it won't cause millions of deaths, it won't even cause the end of our consumption-based economy.

If anyone believes that crap, move to Greenland or something. Me, I'll stay in the tropics and very near the ocean, which won't rise and engulf me. I wish more people believed that BS so that ocean-front prices would drop, but alas, nobody believes it.

Edit: I especially love this part:

"We are in a planetary emergency," said Hansen, decrying "the gap between what is understood by scientific community and what is known by the public."

Oh, please save us from our ignorance, Mr Important Scientist! We're all too dumb to understand your fancy technologies! Enlighten us, because there isn't enough alarmism in the general public already!

With all the respect I generally have for you, you really come across as a dick here.

 

[Crezth]

Well luiz is right about one thing and it's that scientists don't know anything.

 

[Borachio]

Well, if they don't, who does?

 

[luiz]

There's no way to know, but when you've got people who've spent their lives trying to understand climate behavior, I don't know why you'd patently disregard their best guess.

I only disregard their best guesses when they portray them as something more than exactly that, a best guess. The arrogant scientists on the OP are essentially warning us of an incoming apocalypse, which is absurd and illogical.

What's a relevant time scale? We're looking at 1-2m by the end of the century. Of course, that's global not local, but it's still a fair amount.

But we don't know that at all!

The real behavior of ice sheets have constantly proven the models wrong. Some are melting way faster than the models predicted, other aren't melting at all (or even expanding) despite the fact that they "should" be melting.

Except that he's not blowing anything out of proportion. 4-6 degrees of global temperature increase is going to be a calamity when it comes. We need to recognize that, and start acting now.

Again, neither he nor anyone else knows that. While there is an undeniable long term trend of warming, the extent of this warming and how it develops over time is not understood and has proven all models wrong. For instance, which model predicted that the last years would see no increase in global average temperature? (not saying this proves global warming stopped or anything, just saying it proves how little we know of it and how ridiculous people who pretend to have it all figured out sound).

 

[Murky]

The arrogant scientists on the OP are essentially warning us of an incoming apocalypse, which is absurd and illogical.

A planetary emergency is not an incoming apocalypse. At least not yet. Give it another century of uncontrolled green house emissions then it might be the end of civilization as we know it. A planetary emergency just means that it's going to be a bumpy ride for the next decade or so while we are still trying to get our act together.