Most scientists stack up on one side of this issue, that global warming is real, and it is man made..
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
The evidence for man made global warming is huge, yet so many people do not find this issue that important.. Shockingly people find drug use and illegal imigration of more importance then climate change!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx
Many republicans deny global warming all together, but i am impressed by bernies urgency to act on global warming.. I am only 16 years old and i want a safe planet for my children.. And if we dont act now this planet will no longer be safe for man..
The sea levels are rising and the air is becoming less clean... The side affects of not acting on this issue will come much soonee then we think, we might nor be alive, but i want this planet to strive once i am gone...
http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/climate-change-what-happens-after-2100
Many countries and grouos have addressed this issue as a serious threatm even the United States under the presidency of Obama.. But the republicans do not find this issue serious, we must elect a president who finds this issue as it is, may i suggest Bernie Sanders :)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/05/world/global-climate-change-draft-agreement/
What are your thoughts on global warming? And how urgent is it for you?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
As far as it's related to atheism? Not very much at all.
Yes, it's true that there is a pretty strong correlation between willful ignorance of anthropogenic climate change and evangelical ideology, just look at the voting records. Does a belief in a deity have anything to do with that ignorance as opposed to illicit financial incentives? I honestly don't.
When I want to do science I get my science from scientists; not politicians , preachers , or sportscasters. Global warming is not an opinion. It is measurement. Rush Limbaugh is not a scientist. He is a sportscaster.
This certainly may be an issue but not for the staunch atheist. The end of mankind altogether isn't necessarily a goal but because man has no purpose, ergo no credible claim on his own existence, logic tells us our demise is of no consequence.
Regarding a man-made cause, that is a fitting eulogy. I like it. I can see the headstone now: "Here Lies Man. He Advanced Himself To Death"
Pitar, atheism and nihilism aren't necessarily concordant positions.
It's more than just MOST scientists who recognize global warming--it's a rare consensus of the vast majority of scientists who are knowledgeable on the subject. Most of the hold outs are probably getting their pay checks from corporations who stand to lose money if serious measures are taken. I've heard that some of the tobacco propagandists are now using their old stalling tactics to sow confusion about global warming.
When global warming really gets going it's going to shake things up far more than most people realize. The great "bread basket" of the U.S., for instance, may become too warm for wheat. Canadian areas will open up, but they don't have the rich soil. Tropical diseases (and new plant pests) will move north big time even as they are now beginning to do. Weather patterns will change around, upsetting food production everywhere. The whole mess will be compounded by continued population increase. The ocean level will continue to rise, eventually swallowing Florida and numerous other areas around the world.
The really grim news is that modern civilization itself is only possible due to the massive use of non-renewable resources. That's Homo sapiens birthright, a one-shot gift by nature. It might take 500 years for those resources to be used up, but when they are gone the world's civilizations go with it. The few, small pockets of civilization remaining, for whatever reasons, will be overrun by hoards of starving barbarians. And, civilization won't be coming back. (It takes a lot of people and energy to built a modern, industrial civilization.) 500 years doesn't even get us back to the time of Columbus! The population will be reduced to the level it was when farmers used oxen and lacked modern fertilizers. The remaining billions will either starve to death, die in massive epidemics, or die in wars and violence. The great cities will collapse without a modern transportation system to bring in food. Hoards fleeing from New York, Los Angeles, and the other great cities will make life risky even for those living out in the countryside. Kind of gloomy. In the end, Homo sapiens may not come close to living as long as the dinosaurs did.
It's just possible that a huge reduction in world population, some serious recycling, and a very green style of living might allow a much smaller population to continue living in a civilization where knowledge can continue to advance along with technology. With a vastly reduced demand for raw materials, sources not now viable might carry the day, including renewable resources such as solar power. But, then, there is Congress--filled with all those Republicans...
I agree with much of your comment Greensnake, but it's too pessimistic for me.
It is not clear how much human life this planet can support. According to one historian (at least) England was overpopulated in the 17th century when it had a population of about 5 millions. Over-population isn't about absolute numbers but about land use and societal development. The levels these have reached determine the number of people they can support.
I think the planet may support from 5 to 20 billions of people for many centuries or millenia if a stable world government can be achieved. The question that interests me is: will the human race inhabit other planets? I think it is possible and that humans may outlive an inhabitable Earth.
I think the question of global warming needs to be seen in a far longer chronological perspective. We have learned to manage many ecosystems and we must now learn to manage the Earth as a whole ecosystem.
Humans have only existed for about 3 million years. Early modern culture has only been around for about 400 years. The industrial revolution was 150 years ago. Humanity may be at the start of a journey of many millions of Earth years. Many highly evolved species last many millions of years and there is scope for generally more intelligent humans than us in the future. All this needs to be seen in the perspective of an Earth only 4.5 billion years old so far. Unlike religionists and their Armageddon, I think we should be looking where we're going with some degree of confidence and enterprise.
yep totally agree.
Also consider the discovery(or rediscovery) of free energy which is sitting on shelf's to make corporations rich on oil.
Even worse is if we find oil on other earth like planets in the future.
It be best if oil ends sooner so money starts to be spent on free energy research sooner, thus we might save our planet before we start looking to screw another one.
Jeff - "Also consider the discovery(or rediscovery) of free energy"
There is no such thing.
As far as global warming goes, credible scientist have been pointing out that the Earth has been warming since that advent of the Industrial Age. This warming did not fit the usual pattern in geological history. Thus the cause must be an new factor that has caused and undo imbalance of the natural trend.
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industr...
Sorry you' have to click on the link to see the graphs.
The thing is as early as the 1930-40's scientist knew that man had caused the imbalance and were sounding the alarm even then.
The oil industry fought back with pseudo-science. People that were paid to do fake research to have a finding that was predetermined. It is the same tactic as the tobacco industry.
Most scientist believe that we have already past the point of no return no matter how much the political landscape changes to address this problem. Now we not only need to find and use a clean source of energy, we MUST find a way to clean up the mess we have already made.
Ironically nuclear energy research was about finding a clean source of energy NOT for weapons development.
There are clean sources of energy. They just haven't been implemented into the infrastructure. Combinations of wind, solar, geothermal, wave action energy, would more than supply all our needs, but the change over means a huge commitment socially, politically, economically, and governmentally.
Growing trees and then removing them from the carbon cycle is an excellent way to carbon dioxide but sadly there is no money in it.
Over 85% of our air comes from the oceans and the plant-life that live in them. Trees are very good at processing carbons and making air, but trees alone, even if the entire landmass was completely covered in trees won't produce or process near enough. We need to drastically reduce carbon emissions, to possibly and probably to 10% of what we do now. we need to have zero population growth. We need to clean up the mess we have made, especially the oceans.
Oh what I'm talking about is not covering the Earth with trees. It is growing them, cutting them down, locking them out of the carbon cycle, then growing more. This is what happened in the carboniferous period, which we are undoing by freeing the carbon locked away during that period (by burning fossil fuels). But there is no money to be made in the extraction and securing of carbon from the atmosphere; so it is impossible in the current political landscape.
Leaving trees alive sequesters more carbon than a cycle of cutting and growing more. The root mass below the ground decomposes after cutting releasing carbon back into the atmosphere. A large tree uses more carbon during metabolism than a seedling will use over the years required to gain maturity.
There are underground coal fires worldwide pumping huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. We could make big strides extinguishing those.
chimp3 - "A large tree uses more carbon during metabolism than a seedling will use over the years required to gain maturity"
A quick check of some facts seems to show this statement is off by at least an order of magnitude (at least for oak trees). What I read works out to about 4000kg during its growth (20 years, so about 200kg a year), vs 20kg a year after it is an adult. Also a quick check says that the root system is less than 1/6th of the mass of the tree, so I don't think an appeal to roots is going to reverse the outcome. But I'm not a dendrologist so maybe I totally missed something.
Then again , a study from Nature : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7490/full/nature12914.html
OK Nyarlathotep. I stand corrected. How to remove them from the carbon cycle after cutting? Obviously there is money in the lumber industry. Burying them in the ground to maintain the carbon in the soil food web?
That sounds like something that would theoretically work, but would the trees absorb more carbon from the air or from the soil? I'm thinking in terms of diminishing returns.
Well they have to be stored in an anaerobic environment; you might find this interesting:
http://cbmjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1
I don't like that idea at all. It is not sustainable.
1) You would run out of wood to cut down, therefore ending any more progress.
2) You would run out of places to store the wood unless you dumped them in the deep ocean trenches.
3) As soon as you cut down all the wood you would loose all those ecosystems that depend on them most of which are planet beneficial.
Stupid idea! Counterproductive!
The best thing to do is change over to a non-carbon base fuel system that is renewable and sustainable.
We also need to clean and keep clean the land and the waters of the world, especially the oceans.
We need to stop using fertilizers that are harmful to the waters and the environment.
We need to end closed farming methods and incorporate open farming methods that are friendly to wildlife and can coexist with wildlife.
I have pondered a wild and expensive idea for years now. Here it is:
1) Create a new WPA. This will gainfully employ millions and create the labor force needed.
2) Dig deep canals on every state border to receive fresh water.
3) Build huge and numerous desalination and filter plants at our sea borders. Power thos plants with wind, solar, and tidal wave action electricity.
These plants would create steam in their desalination process. Use that steam to power hydro-electric generators to supply power to the national grid (power problem solved). Fill the canals with the fresh water created from the sea (water shortage solved+ protection against floods). Collect the sea salt that will be a byproduct for uses. Collect the seaweed and harvest it as well.
4) Build bridges and nature bridges across the canals.
Labor problem solved
Salt shortage solved
Fresh water shortage solved
Protection against floods solved
Cheap transportation of goods solve (canal barges)
Electricity shortage solved
I know it would initially be expensive, but in the long run it would drastically reduce need or use of fossil fuels and carbon emissions, and would be beneficial in so many other ways afore mentioned.
So there it is a small part of an idea I have had. Rain down on it all you want, but it isn't any crazier than cutting down all the trees and burying them in the ground. And it is a hell of a lot better for all intensive purposes.
mykckob4 - "Stupid idea!"
Based on your criticism, it is clear you have not actually read the article, you should.
I did read it and i still contend that is not practical nor would it actually solve the problem. it is at best an expensive short-term solution, but i don't think that it would even work. i am not convinced anyway.
mykckob4 - "I did read it"
vs
mykckob4 - "
1) Y̲o̲u̲ ̲w̲o̲u̲l̲d̲ ̲r̲u̲n̲ ̲o̲u̲t̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲w̲o̲o̲d̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲c̲u̲t̲ ̲d̲o̲w̲n̲, therefore ending any more progress.
2) You would run out of places to store the wood unless you dumped them in the deep ocean trenches.
3) A̲s̲ ̲s̲o̲o̲n̲ ̲a̲s̲ ̲y̲o̲u̲ ̲c̲u̲t̲ ̲d̲o̲w̲n̲ ̲a̲l̲l̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲w̲o̲o̲d̲ you would loose all those ecosystems that depend on them most of which are planet beneficial."
The article is not about cutting down wood, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you hadn't actually read it. Now I am at a loss to explain this incongruence.
Even in the article the attributed part of the problem as deforestation. The problem wit removing dead trees is access which is why lumber companies just deforest large tracks of land. It is more economical easier and saves time. I think that the article is overoptimistic and severely underestimated the cost. For example it didn't actually estimate the TRUE cost of storage. Storage cost money even in remote locations. I don't mean to purposely poo poo on the idea, but I think that it is far more unrealistic that it appears. Plus you'd have to enlist the cooperation of everyone. That takes money. What happens if a civil war breaks out in an area that you need to work in? There is no world authority.
Now lets look at just the individual ecosystems that would be destroyed. Clearing forest for any reason and in any manner completely destroys the natural environment.
The best solutions MUST be found on what caused the problem in the first place. The imbalance was caused by man. MAN must be adjusted, NOT nature.
"The best solutions MUST be found on what caused the problem in the first place. The imbalance was caused by man. MAN must be adjusted, NOT nature."
Oh I agree, but we are now at the point that simply stopping isn't enough. We need to do both (stop adding carbon, and start removing it). Of course this idea might not be the best way to remove it, I really don't know.
I also agree that neither are possible in the current political landscape.
Thank you for being so patient and civil. I apologize if I seemed rude in my rebuttals. I agree we must do much more than just reduce use.
This nation put a man on the moon. Survived and beat the Great Depression. We did big and bold things. We can beat this pollution problem if only all the rightwing nuts would get out of the way.
Nyarlathotep - One facet of this tree burial idea we are missing is the benefit of restocking the earths peat supply. Future generations will still have a taste for decent scotch I assume.
E Kirsten Peters is a geologist . It is worth contemplating her hypothesis that we have halted a return to ice age conditions with thousands of years of agricultural practices. Basically, agriculture created conditions conducive to farming. Only in the last 50 years has that climate trend escalated in to the danger zone. This web site is worthy of reading in entirety as is her book "The Whole Story of Climate" :
http://climatewholestory.com/climate-questions-and-answers/