Nothing will drastically change until it is too late. The people who control the oil, control the sheeple, and it's ALL for MONEY and POWER. Sad to say, but oil has transformed our lives for the better but it will also transform our lives for the worse when it becomes too expensive to extract.
Impact of climate change may be underestimated - Article worth reading
by cantleave 90 Replies latest social current
-
-
tootired2care
@talesin:
The statement "up to 50% of the human population was wiped out by plague over several centuries" doesn't add up. The black plague mostly was confined to Europe which never has held the majority of earths population. Sorry but that argument just doesn't hold water.
-
mP
Sweet:
The projects that you mention the gov spending money are token. Government is often involved in many token nonsense projects to justify some operation, but in the end its always about money, case in point Speed Cameras. Tey arent about saving lives or stopping speeding they are a money grab.
@Tales
So, the Earth cooled *coincidentally* as up to 50% of the human population was wiped out by plague over several centuries, which reduced the output of CO2 that had been steadily increasing over thousands of years.
TooTired:
The statement "up to 50% of the human population was wiped out by plague over several centuries" doesn't add up. The black plague mostly was confined to Europe which never has held the majority of earths population. Sorry but that argument just doesn't hold water.
MP
Are we to truely believe our impact in contributing carbon is anywhere equivalent to the amount that was reduced when your black deaths killed all those people ? Of course not, anyone can see for themselves our foot print is significantly larger. Did wiping out 30 million in the 1300-1500 really reduce temperature by the same amount that 600m in Europe in the 1900 added ? Does that make any sense, how could 30m dying take away as much as 600m today add ?
-
Paralipomenon
I get a ton of heat for my opinion on this but here we go again.
I support laws for the reduction and polution. I think it is a good goal to aspire to.
I am not convinced that we as a species should take action to adjust the climate artificially due to a highly political subject. The more political money you throw at the scientific community for the sake of politics, only muddies the result.
Right now we are convinced that we are heating up the earth and there are talks on how to cool it down. Given that the earth has been around for MILLIONS of years before us, I think it is irrational we should do anything ON PURPOSE to alter it's climate based on the findings of a mere century.
That comment usually gets change advocates to toss me into the "deniers' camp.
I don't think we don't have an impact on the climate, but I am for more of reduction of our footprint over the politically charge discussion of making infrastructure changes aimed at cooling the planet.
If you give a pack of scientists a stack of money and tell them to prove climate change, they will come back with very convincing charts and data supporting it. If you give the same scientists a stack of money and tell them to prove the opposite, they will come back with the opposite data.
It needs to be less political and more about facts since we are talking about a potentially irreversable change that may affect our survival as a species.
It can only be less political when the left and the right stop thowing money around to prove their slant of the facts.
-
mP
Sweet:
Also not true. Why are you spreading counter-knowledge and misinformation? It's not hard to get the facts.
Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO 2 emissions
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO 2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO 2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO 2 that dwarfs the annual CO 2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
The published estimates of the global CO 2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO 2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO 2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO 2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).
In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kilauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO 2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kilauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO 2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO 2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO 2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).
MP
Strange wiki says 30B and your scientist says 35B tonnes of CO, while he says 130M to 440M tonnes from volcanos. Theres quite a difference between 0.13 to 0.44 by a factor of 3.5 and your quotes are off by almost 15% from my source in wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Rank Country Annual CO2 emissions [7] [8]
(in thousands of metric tonnes)Percentage of global total World 29,888,121 100% 1 China [9]7,031,916 23.33% 2 United States5,461,014 18.11% - European Union (27)4,177,817 [10] 14.04%
It doesnt take a genius to see that one in Iceland sent an ash cloud that covered from Iceland all the way across siberia, amounts to a very large number of ommitted mass and gasses. Are we too bleieve that almost no bad gasses that affect the climate made their way out ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_eruptions_of_Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull
The grounding of European flights avoided about 344 × 10 6 kg of CO 2 emissions per day, while the volcano emitted about 150 × 10 6 kg of CO 2 per day. [1]
What about the other gasses ? Here in Iceland we have one lousy volcano almost the equivalent of all planes in Europe. As we know there are lots of volcanos around the earth, while not errupting they do on occassion errupt giving enormous amounts of matter. Carbon is not the only thing released by them. that affects the weather.
JKust look at Krakatoa, in one erruption global temperatures dropped 1.2 degrees, that change completely shames mans industrial revolution impact!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa
Global climate
In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) . Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount ofsulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfurous acid (H 2 SO 3 ) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloudreflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation. [10]
Now thats power, sorry puny humans dont impact the world in the same way quite as dramatically. WHile i do hate pollution, one shouldnt lie about global warming. The world has been warming on the same trend much before the industrial age.
-
mP
SBC
You have completely ignored the fact that volcanos spew out other gasses that affect the environment. Volcanos spew out vast amounts of sulfur etc, to think that only carbon affects the weather and environment is shallow.
Take a look at this year and the previous, Europe had record winters, and we in the southern hemisphere didnt have a summer at all. There were almost no days in the mid 30's C, when in past years we would always have 30s in January. Does that really sound like global warming ?
I cant help but wonder if yor business interests have led you to believe the hype for personal benefit. Do yo believe because its good business ?
-
moshe
Next year a cloud of interstellar dust could drift into our solar system putting us into a ice age almost overnight- it is thought to have happened before. Humans just can't predict the future of our climate very well.- and don't forget polar reversal, that is sure to happen, but probably after I am dead. Climate is impossible to steer on a scale that is measured in human generations.
What we can control, is the overpopulation of our planet that is consuming all our natural resources- this we can control, but most countries are turning a blind eye to this issue.
-
tootired2care
The problem is anytime someone offers some real data that refutes anything in the liberal ideaology that one is immediatly labeled stupid and full of mis-information. Speaking of mis-information-the scientists have manipulated the data of global warming err climate change to support their politics, see www.climategate.com. And honestly who could trust that Al Gore slimebag? He created a carbon trading market before certain legislation was to be passed tell me how is this whole thing not about money and control?
-
biometrics
I'm a Global Warming (now "Climate Change") apostate. That being the case I fully expect some of you to shun me for my difference in beleif. Because make no mistake it is another belief system.
Global Warming (or whatever you like to call it) has been invented to extract more taxes, a global tax if you will. Every cent extracted in taxes ultimately come from the little person. The fact that there's enough people for "climate change" initatives (aka taxes) doesn't make its message any more beleivable, it simply shows how controlled people are by mainstream media.
-
Glander
How much do you pay for me to read this dreck?
