[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

NY Times Strands - maryte - Apr 20, 2024 - 8:55am
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - Apr 20, 2024 - 8:54am
 
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance - fractalv - Apr 20, 2024 - 8:40am
 
NYTimes Connections - geoff_morphini - Apr 20, 2024 - 8:29am
 
Wordle - daily game - geoff_morphini - Apr 20, 2024 - 8:24am
 
TV shows you watch - maryte - Apr 20, 2024 - 8:13am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - GeneP59 - Apr 20, 2024 - 8:00am
 
Song of the Day - Proclivities - Apr 20, 2024 - 7:38am
 
Remembering the Good Old Days - kurtster - Apr 20, 2024 - 2:37am
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - kurtster - Apr 19, 2024 - 10:41pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Apr 19, 2024 - 9:21pm
 
The Abortion Wars - Red_Dragon - Apr 19, 2024 - 9:07pm
 
The Obituary Page - R_P - Apr 19, 2024 - 8:22pm
 
Words I didn't know...yrs ago - Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 7:06pm
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:59pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - Red_Dragon - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:51pm
 
MILESTONES: Famous People, Dead Today, Born Today, Etc. - Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:44pm
 
2024 Elections! - steeler - Apr 19, 2024 - 5:49pm
 
What Did You See Today? - Antigone - Apr 19, 2024 - 4:42pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Isabeau - Apr 19, 2024 - 3:15pm
 
Ask an Atheist - R_P - Apr 19, 2024 - 3:04pm
 
Joe Biden - oldviolin - Apr 19, 2024 - 8:55am
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 19, 2024 - 7:55am
 
how do you feel right now? - miamizsun - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:02am
 
When I need a Laugh I ... - miamizsun - Apr 19, 2024 - 5:43am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Apr 19, 2024 - 4:43am
 
Israel - R_P - Apr 18, 2024 - 8:25pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 3:24pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:49pm
 
Robots - miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:18pm
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Steve - Apr 18, 2024 - 6:58am
 
Europe - haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:47pm
 
Name My Band - GeneP59 - Apr 17, 2024 - 3:27pm
 
What's that smell? - Isabeau - Apr 17, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
 
Business as Usual - black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:26pm
 
Russia - R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:14pm
 
Science in the News - Red_Dragon - Apr 17, 2024 - 11:14am
 
Magic Eye optical Illusions - Proclivities - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:08am
 
Ukraine - kurtster - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:05am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Alchemist - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:38am
 
Just for the Haiku of it. . . - oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:01am
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:52am
 
Little known information... maybe even facts - R_P - Apr 16, 2024 - 3:29pm
 
songs that ROCK! - thisbody - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:56am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:10am
 
WTF??!! - rgio - Apr 16, 2024 - 5:23am
 
Australia has Disappeared - haresfur - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:58am
 
Earthquake - miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:46am
 
It's the economy stupid. - miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:28am
 
Republican Party - Isabeau - Apr 15, 2024 - 12:12pm
 
Eclectic Sound-Drops - thisbody - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:27am
 
Synchronization - ReggieDXB - Apr 13, 2024 - 11:40pm
 
Other Medical Stuff - geoff_morphini - Apr 13, 2024 - 7:54am
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:50pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Red_Dragon - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:05pm
 
Poetry Forum - oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:45am
 
Dear Bill - oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:16am
 
Radio Paradise in Foobar2000 - gvajda - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:53pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - ColdMiser - Apr 11, 2024 - 8:29am
 
New Song Submissions system - MayBaby - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:29am
 
No TuneIn Stream Lately - kurtster - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:26pm
 
Caching to Apple watch quit working - email-muri.0z - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:25pm
 
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse - Alchemist - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:52am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - orrinc - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:48am
 
NPR Listeners: Is There Liberal Bias In Its Reporting? - black321 - Apr 9, 2024 - 2:11pm
 
Sonos - rnstory - Apr 9, 2024 - 10:43am
 
RP Windows Desktop Notification Applet - gvajda - Apr 9, 2024 - 9:55am
 
If not RP, what are you listening to right now? - kurtster - Apr 8, 2024 - 10:34am
 
And the good news is.... - thisbody - Apr 8, 2024 - 3:57am
 
How do I get songs into My Favorites - Huey - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:29pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Apr 7, 2024 - 5:14pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Isabeau - Apr 7, 2024 - 12:50pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:18am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 15, 16, 17  Next
Post to this Topic
bokey

bokey Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 3, 2012 - 1:53pm

 Manbird wrote:

I like to sit in the front because it's like a roller coaster

 
I call shotgun!

  If you have some nuclear waste or gene mutating experimental food products I'll trade and sit in the back.

Manbird

Manbird Avatar

Location: ? ? ?
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 3, 2012 - 1:43pm

 oldslabsides wrote:
We're all on a bus hurtling toward a cliff and all we can do is argue about who sits where.

 
I like to sit in the front because it's like a roller coaster
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan


Posted: Aug 3, 2012 - 12:41pm

 ScottN wrote:

My personal belief is we passed the tipping point before the subject was even much in dialogue.  The planet, as we live today, simply cannot sustainably support 7-8 billion peeps.  To me, it's a no brainer to think that dumping trillions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually over a couple of centuries won't have significant consequences.  Add to that all the other insults to which we have subjected our only planet and you have an inevitable future disaster.

 
agreed, 100%
ScottN

ScottN Avatar

Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 3, 2012 - 12:07pm

 oldslabsides wrote:
We're all on a bus hurtling toward a cliff and all we can do is argue about who sits where.

 
My personal belief is we passed the tipping point before the subject was even much in dialogue.  The planet, as we live today, simply cannot sustainably support 7-8 billion peeps.  To me, it's a no brainer to think that dumping trillions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually over a couple of centuries won't have significant consequences.  Add to that all the other insults to which we have subjected our only planet and you have an inevitable future disaster.
buzz

buzz Avatar

Location: up the boohai


Posted: Aug 3, 2012 - 12:03pm

 steeler wrote:


I'm not sure it is accurate to term this as an attempt to change the climate from its natural progressions. Rather, it is an attempt not to have man-made activities negatively impact those natural progressions.

You are correct in stating that the science in this subject area is, shall we say, evolving.  The scientific reports I have read state this repeatedly and in no uncertain terms.  That is how science works, and why it takes so long (relatively speaking, since most of us tend to measure things in terms of our lifetimes).

That said, we do have examples of where scientific research and technological advancements have resulted in our ability to better predict and warn of natural disasters such as tsunamis.  I say this because it seems to me a natural progression (pun intended) that we attempt, through scientific research, to better understand how nature works and how we might be able to solve potential problems.  You have recognized that impulse has been with mankind from early on, although I certainly would not equate the scientific research and technological advances of today with human and animal sacrifices.            

 
Monsanto
 
 
 
just sayin...
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan


Posted: Aug 3, 2012 - 11:38am

We're all on a bus hurtling toward a cliff and all we can do is argue about who sits where.
ScottN

ScottN Avatar

Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 3, 2012 - 11:31am

 kurtster wrote:


We are a long way from dilithium crystals and even with those, wars are still fought over securing them.

Energy production is the largest controllable producer of CO2 which is what this debate apparently centers on ?

Working with that premise, using less is the better way to go with our available technology ?

What is the next greatest possibility without reanimating Tesla ?

Super conductivity.  Lossless energy transmission.  We need to figure out if it is commercially viable.  If it is, we can cut our needs in half ( a guesstimate for conversation purposes).  I would like to spend resources on that end.

And once again, we have thorium as miami keeps reminding us.  We have fixes on the shelf that no one someone is willing not letting us use.  
 

Bill Gates could be a real hero if he spent some of his dough supporting thorium.

 
Actually, I believe commercial agriculture, contributing about 40% of green house gas emissions from animals and the energy it requires to provide food, shelter and processing of them.  We feel entitled to our beefsteaks and pork bellies and chicken pies, but they're not cheap as energy consumers. I just heard a speaker on this.  I wish i could cite the source.

Overall non-agricultural energy will much more difficult to cut because of the diversity of need, imo..
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 2, 2012 - 7:53am

 steeler wrote:


I'm not sure it is accurate to term this as an attempt to change the climate from its natural progressions. Rather, it is an attempt not to have man-made activities negatively impact those natural progressions.

You are correct in stating that the science in this subject area is, shall we say, evolving.  The scientific reports I have read state this repeatedly and in no uncertain terms.  That is how science works, and why it takes so long (relatively speaking, since most of us tend to measure things in terms of our lifetimes).

That said, we do have examples of where scientific research and technological advancements have resulted in our ability to better predict and warn of natural disasters such as tsunamis.  I say this because it seems to me a natural progression (pun intended) that we attempt, through scientific research, to better understand how nature works and how we might be able to solve potential problems.  You have recognized that impulse has been with mankind from early on, although I certainly would not equate the scientific research and technological advances of today with human and animal sacrifices.            

 

We are a long way from dilithium crystals and even with those, wars are still fought over securing them.

Energy production is the largest controllable producer of CO2 which is what this debate apparently centers on ?

Working with that premise, using less is the better way to go with our available technology ?

What is the next greatest possibility without reanimating Tesla ?

Super conductivity.  Lossless energy transmission.  We need to figure out if it is commercially viable.  If it is, we can cut our needs in half ( a guesstimate for conversation purposes).  I would like to spend resources on that end.

And once again, we have thorium as miami keeps reminding us.  We have fixes on the shelf that no one someone is willing not letting us use.  
 

Bill Gates could be a real hero if he spent some of his dough supporting thorium.


steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Aug 2, 2012 - 7:33am

 mzpro5 wrote:

You are correct, we are not capable of solving the problem.

Just capable of making it worse.

 

{#Yes}
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Aug 2, 2012 - 7:31am

 mzpro5 wrote:

You are correct, we are not capable of solving the problem.

Just capable of making it worse.

 
No, we are capable of making it better, and we should have started years ago.

We can make it better if we took some harsh actions that nobody is willing to do, like taking public trans, getting rid of plastic water bottles, cleaning up our rivers and air and stopping companies from spewing, mountain topping, dumping shit in the water, etc.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Aug 2, 2012 - 7:28am

 kurtster wrote:

Thank you for summing up so well what I have been trying to say.

To the bolded, that is why I'm advocating working on things that we can affect, like solid waste pollution.

To the general readers, I have never denied there is warming.  I have never advocated polluting.  I guess it can be said that I do because I don't have a problem with using hydrocarbons for fuel.  If that's the way it rolls then so be it.  We don't live in a perfect world, and nothing can make that happen. 

As new technology comes on line, let's use it.  We are currently shutting down 6% of our electric generation capacity this year, by closing functioning coal burning plants.  No grandfathering clauses are allowed.  We are cutting off our noses to spite our face. 

We are presently in an economic mess.  The only way we are getting out of it is with the use of cheap energy.  Government has been ineffective at fixing the economy so far.  It has to be fixed in spite of the government.  We do not have the luxury of turning off cheap power right now.  After we get things better economically, then we can start to address these things on a broader scale.  Everytime we raise the price of energy, we set ourselves backwards from an economic recovery.  The choice is the stone age or prosperity broadly put.

And again, 5 minutes of one volcanic eruption can undo 1 Trillion dollars of government spending.  Then there are the cycles of the Sun.  Does anyone want to tackle this one and say why risking 1 Trillion dollars we don't have is worth it ?

Humans have been trying to influence the weather since the beginning of time.  Humans have been sacrificed.  Animals have been sacrificed.  'Gods' have been worshipped in the same persuit.  Science has tried.  All have failed to have any lasting influence.  Suddenly we believe that politicians / government can succeed where all else has failed ?  That's funny.

 

I'm not sure it is accurate to term this as an attempt to change the climate from its natural progressions. Rather, it is an attempt not to have man-made activities negatively impact those natural progressions.

You are correct in stating that the science in this subject area is, shall we say, evolving.  The scientific reports I have read state this repeatedly and in no uncertain terms.  That is how science works, and why it takes so long (relatively speaking, since most of us tend to measure things in terms of our lifetimes).

That said, we do have examples of where scientific research and technological advancements have resulted in our ability to better predict and warn of natural disasters such as tsunamis.  I say this because it seems to me a natural progression (pun intended) that we attempt, through scientific research, to better understand how nature works and how we might be able to solve potential problems.  You have recognized that impulse has been with mankind from early on, although I certainly would not equate the scientific research and technological advances of today with human and animal sacrifices.            


mzpro5

mzpro5 Avatar

Location: Budda'spet, Hungry
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 2, 2012 - 7:22am

 drsteevo wrote:

What is natural?  What is unnatural?  Humans are natural, and our activity is not creating any new carbon dioxide, just releasing old deposits. 

Humans cannot stop global warming with the current social structures in place in the world today.  Technology hasn't solved the problem yet either.

Even if we returned CO2 production to the levels of 30 years ago, the earth will still keep warming for over a hundred years.

Humans are simply not capable of solving this problem at the current time. 

 
You are correct, we are not capable of solving the problem.

Just capable of making it worse.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 2, 2012 - 7:14am

 drsteevo wrote:

What is natural?  What is unnatural?  Humans are natural, and our activity is not creating any new carbon dioxide, just releasing old deposits. 

Humans cannot stop global warming with the current social structures in place in the world today.  Technology hasn't solved the problem yet either.

Even if we returned CO2 production to the levels of 30 years ago, the earth will still keep warming for over a hundred years.

Humans are simply not capable of solving this problem at the current time. 

 
Thank you for summing up so well what I have been trying to say.

To the bolded, that is why I'm advocating working on things that we can affect, like solid waste pollution.

To the general readers, I have never denied there is warming.  I have never advocated polluting.  I guess it can be said that I do because I don't have a problem with using hydrocarbons for fuel.  If that's the way it rolls then so be it.  We don't live in a perfect world, and nothing can make that happen.  But every time someone turns on a light, they pollute.

As new technology comes on line, let's use it.  We are currently shutting down 6% of our electric generation capacity this year, by closing functioning coal burning plants.  No grandfathering clauses are allowed.  We are cutting off our noses to spite our face. 

We are presently in an economic mess.  The only way we are getting out of it is with the use of cheap energy.  Government has been ineffective at fixing the economy so far.  It has to be fixed in spite of the government.  We do not have the luxury of turning off cheap power right now.  After we get things better economically, then we can start to address these things on a broader scale.  Everytime we raise the price of energy, we set ourselves backwards from an economic recovery.  The choice is the stone age or prosperity broadly put.

And again, 5 minutes of one volcanic eruption can undo 1 Trillion dollars of government spending.  Then there are the cycles of the Sun.  Does anyone want to tackle this one and say why risking 1 Trillion dollars we don't have is worth it ?

Humans have been trying to influence the weather since the beginning of time.  Humans have been sacrificed.  Animals have been sacrificed.  'Gods' have been worshipped in the same persuit.  Science has tried.  All have failed to have any lasting influence.  Suddenly we believe that politicians / government can succeed where all else has failed ?  That's funny.


ankhara99

ankhara99 Avatar

Location: Over the Rainbow
Gender: Female


Posted: Aug 2, 2012 - 6:11am

 kurtster wrote:


Well the air has been grreatly improved, yes ?  Has it had an effect on Climate Change as we are discussing it now ?  No.  With all that we did to clean up the air, and we did plenty, it has had zero effect on Climate Change.  Nada, null, zed.  No one who has measured the effects of the cleanup of the air from the 50's, 60's and 70's has concluded that it slowed down climate change or even affected it.  I would be happy to see a single study that shows otherwise.  Air quality in the US has been greatly studied since the 60's.  Where is the evidence ?

 
I'm having a hard time with this bit right here.  What exactly are you saying here?  I have a few guesses, tell me which one is right.

1) we've cleaned up air pollution in the U.S. and climate change extremists still say there is a problem, so it must be bunk because we cleaned up air pollution.
My response to this would be that the air pollution we've addressed as a nation in the 70's and beyond was focused on 3 things: acid rain, smog/particulate matter, and ozone depletion.  None of these efforts were focused specifically on greenhouse gases or addressing climate change.  This is a comparison of apples to oranges (one type of air pollution over another).
2) It doesn't matter that the U.S. addresses climate change because the rest of the world is screwing it up and we can't do everything.
This is definitely a global problem.  However, as one of the largest users of fossil fuels in the world (I said one of, not the only), it is our duty to do our part to reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change.  You seem to be arguing that if China won't do anything we shouldn't either.  Where is the compassion for what we leave our children in that self-centered scenario?  Maybe our country should do what is right for once, not just what serves our apparent comfort?  Acting as if our effort would be futile because not everyone has bought into the idea is bunk.  Every effort can help.  Everyone needs to do their part.  Saving those slivers of aluminum foil during WWII wasn't much when it was just one household, but when everyone did it it added up.  

And what happens when all the island nations (such as MIcronesia) are downed out of the places they live?  What will happen when there are large migrations of people due to sea level rise?  Who will offer them sanctuary when their land is gone?  Governments are already debating this point, by the  way.
3) it's natural and we're screwed regardless of anything we do so we shouldn't bother trying.
We can affect the amount of greenhouse gases we're dumping in the air.  Scientists have linked these gases to climate change (just like they link CFCs to ozone depletion in the 70s).  Just because you don't necessarily understand all the science doesn't mean that it is wrong.  The climate is showing definite proof of warming (look at Greenland) at a rate even faster than the models predict.   These gases have been shown to trap heat, if we reduce them we should be able to reduce the affect of climate change, or at least slow it down somewhat to give us more time to adapt.   I think this is the ultimate in pessimistic views and condemns our children to even more misery.  

So many people believe in so much that science has given us: cancer treatments, computing technology, vaccinations, water treatment - the list goes on and on.  Whenever it is beneficial people believe in science and accept the odds of whatever it is (the odds that certain cancer treatments will work, the odds that what is left in the water after we treat it will not significant lower your life expenctancy). Regardless of whether they understand the science behind it.   However, the minute science says you need to change your ways because the way we're living is having a negative impact that will affect all of us, suddenly science is bad, it is unreliable, it is biased, it is tainted.    

 
HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 2, 2012 - 2:11am


jadewahoo

jadewahoo Avatar

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 2, 2012 - 1:23am


mzpro5

mzpro5 Avatar

Location: Budda'spet, Hungry
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2012 - 7:52pm

 Umberdog wrote:

Maybe YOUR climate. 70% of the country is in drought. I don't think that's true of the last few decades. Of course it might pass, like dust bowls; once we learned not to strip the earth of her balance of nutrients and minerals. For every comfort we take from Nature, there is a sacrifice. If we don't make that sacrifice... well, Lao Tzu said it best, "Heaven's net casts wide. Though it's meshes are course, nothing slips through." The same can be said of Nature.

P.S. Or maybe you were just being sarcastic. It's hard to tell in writing.

 



Just a joke though it has been overly warm here since at least April and we really had no winter in NE Ohio. Believe me I know about climate change.
Umberdog

Umberdog Avatar

Location: In my body.
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2012 - 7:49pm

 mzpro5 wrote:
I have no idea what y'all are talking about. It's been hotter than hell here and dry here for months. There ain't no damn change in the climate. :)
 
Maybe YOUR climate. 70% of the country is in drought. I don't think that's true of the last few decades. Of course it might pass, like dust bowls; once we learned not to strip the earth of her balance of nutrients and minerals. For every comfort we take from Nature, there is a sacrifice. If we don't make that sacrifice... well, Lao Tzu said it best, "Heaven's net casts wide. Though it's meshes are course, nothing slips through." The same can be said of Nature.

P.S. Or maybe you were just being sarcastic. It's hard to tell in writing.


mzpro5

mzpro5 Avatar

Location: Budda'spet, Hungry
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2012 - 7:39pm

I have no idea what y'all are talking about. It's been hotter than hell here and dry here for months.

There ain't no damn change in the climate.

:)
Umberdog

Umberdog Avatar

Location: In my body.
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2012 - 7:22pm

 drsteevo wrote:
What is natural?  What is unnatural?  Humans are natural, and our activity is not creating any new carbon dioxide, just releasing old deposits. 
 
It is natural for humans to develop technologies, but this is where I draw a line. Anything we do with our technologies is unnatural. It's not a direct effect of Nature, but a secondary effect; an effect of our nature. This is just semantics, however. We may not be able to stop tornadoes, earth quakes, tsunamis, or droughts, but we can certainly learn to take care of our earth and prevent oil spills, polluted air and water, and nuclear waste dumped into the future's lap. Or maybe we can't; maybe we're not as great as we thought we were.


Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 15, 16, 17  Next