A
Anonymous
Guest
seamaiden":1lk9yc2p said:
So now to prevent the great barrier reef from changing we have to stop feeding cows? 8O 8O
Read! GBR will vanish in your lifetime (most likely)
- Thread starter wade1
- Start date
So now to prevent the great barrier reef from changing we have to stop feeding cows? 8O 8O
blackcloudmedia":3anvaysl said:lol though technically the pioneers wiped out all of the plains buffalo, so really they were the first to take proactive steps to lower atmospheric C02.seamaiden":3anvaysl said:
Wow, we've meandered this course a bit.
Actually - buffalo don't have the gaseous emissions problems that modern cattle have. They've been genetically modified (through breeding or otherwise) to be more productive for meat and milk and their diets have been adjusted for maximum output. Breeding wild populations back into the mix and altering their diet greatly drops the production of the methane they release.
I am bested. I bow to you good sir :lol:wade":3a2b71im said:blackcloudmedia":3a2b71im said:lol though technically the pioneers wiped out all of the plains buffalo, so really they were the first to take proactive steps to lower atmospheric C02.seamaiden":3a2b71im said:
Wow, we've meandered this course a bit.
Actually - buffalo don't have the gaseous emissions problems that modern cattle have. They've been genetically modified (through breeding or otherwise) to be more productive for meat and milk and their diets have been adjusted for maximum output. Breeding wild populations back into the mix and altering their diet greatly drops the production of the methane they release.
Whistling past the graveyard.
The problem is people.
I'd make Pascal's wager with regard to doing something about moderating CO2 emissions. With the exception that if we keep barelling down our cheap energy addicted cvilization we will lose (almost)everything , not nothing, as in the original wager.
The problem is people.
I'd make Pascal's wager with regard to doing something about moderating CO2 emissions. With the exception that if we keep barelling down our cheap energy addicted cvilization we will lose (almost)everything , not nothing, as in the original wager.
Lars":jkbkjqzy said:
It never ceases to amaze me how random unqualified citizens claim to be more informed on climatology than the entire international climate science community and the UN IPCC.
What are the chances that 6.5 billion humans and their industrial activity has changed nothing in a closed ecosystem?
The odds are, we have an impact.
The odds are, reducing our impact is a good thing.
How on earth could reducing the chemical output of the human race possibly do harm to the planetary ecosystem and create disaster? I fail to see that logic.
Piero":1sbgq0pi said:
First, I am not an unqualified citizen. I may be an unqualified scientist or authority but I am definitely not an unqualified citizen :wink: .
Second, scientists have never been wrong before when it comes to predicting the future? All the data in the world thrown into modeling programs simply relies on past information to predict the future. It's definitely a best guess, but 100% accurate? No if's, and's or but's?
beaslbob":2s1xgr42 said:
Where did anyone in this thread say that everything humans are doing is harming the earth?
CO2 levels are going up. No one seems to seriously argue they aren't, the argument seems to center on the source which seems like a distraction to me.
Thales":r1k99td7 said:
I have too agree with Thales. The lack of sticking to the meat of the thread is ruining the thread. CO2 is the meat, and yes temp change is the potatoes, but we are supposed to be talking meat here.
What are the original author's remedy for the acidity of the ocean?
Do we plant more trees?
Personally, I do not subscribe to climate change being caused solely or predominately by humans, but acidity may be cause for alarm for coral reefs. We need to know what the remedy is, but that is not possible without knowing the cause.
ANEMONEBUFF":3qzn6kt2 said:
Well that's the problem I believe, is that we want to do something...but we want to do something without doing anything to change what we do if you catch my drift. "Can't we just plant more trees" "can't we dump a ton of rust in the ocean" "can't we just eat line caught tuna..." regardless of what the cause is, we want to not change fundamentally what we're doing, we want a quick fix.
I personally do not want a quick fix. But this is what I see playing out in the media - "We need to do everything immediately or else...". I want a well thought out plan that addresses real climate issues and doesn't destroy the economy in the process. Thats all. Is that too much to ask? :wink:
First you need to kind of ignore what the media says, it's no state secret they will run with what seems like the most eye catching story just to get ratings. Coupled with that they tend to not be terribly accurate when it comes to scientific stuff, picking and choosing what quotes they see from a paper that seem ok, or down right rewording to make it senseless. Most people get their information directly through the media, so it's really easy to dismiss the nuggets of information that pop through.
Climate change is not a quick fix regardless of what is done. One solution is reduce our consumption of energy/goods, how the hell is that going to be a quick fix? It's not, while some people might go ahead and make changes most will not, look at CFL bulbs how long did it take those to replace incandescent bulbs? No, instead we complain about how it'll damage our economy, we had a 'leader' who said "The American way of life is not negotiable", we blame that China will get an economic edge over us (like they don't already) because they exploit a "developing nation" clause, and you want to talk quick? Carter was practically laughed out of office when he told the American people we consume to much, and history repeats itself when Al Gore did it with most pointing out the hypocrisy considering he flies everywhere and has a mansion that's bigger than most neighborhoods.
No, the only thing we really are capable of doing quickly is making excuses. We want to not destroy the economy? Umm hate to break it to you, but we're really good at doing that without doing anything about climate change, we destroyed our economy to the point where it couldn't recover the minute we demanded cheaply manufactured goods, we destroyed our economy to the point of making more excuses when we put our last eggs into the one thing we had left for making money... which was betting that borrowed money is actually worth something.
So pray tell how will making cars more efficient destroy our economy? How will shifting to energy sources that don't pollute as much destroy our economy? How we spending a bit less than we take in destroy our economy? I hear about how online sales of fish related goods have forever changed local stores and they have to learn to adapt to the different business models or they'll sink, how digital distribution of music requires a huge change in how businesses are run. Why is a paradigm shift away from inefficient beast of cars a bad thing? We did it in the 70's when we had an energy crisis, we switched the other way in the 90s when we were dazzled by the commercials that showed how cool owning SUVs are, why can't we go back? Nope sorry, people want vroom, they want acceleration, and most are unwilling to bend. Hell when governments (local or federal) try to fund clean energy projects we complain even more, it'll kill birds, it's not as cheap as coal, it takes a decade to recoup the cost, it'll ruin my view, the sound is dangerous, someone is getting rich off this 'scam', we can't afford it (as if that has stopped us with anything in the past), like I said we're really good at making excuses quickly.
But in the end it all comes down to us wanting to have everything we have right now and not changing any way we work, and magically want things to get fixed. It makes me wonder, if we've known about the problems for many years, and we were really good at dismissing them, at what point does a quick fix become a necessity and becomes fundamentally ok?
p.s. sorry for being a bit ranty (and yes I freely admit I'm a hypocrite in someways)
Climate change is not a quick fix regardless of what is done. One solution is reduce our consumption of energy/goods, how the hell is that going to be a quick fix? It's not, while some people might go ahead and make changes most will not, look at CFL bulbs how long did it take those to replace incandescent bulbs? No, instead we complain about how it'll damage our economy, we had a 'leader' who said "The American way of life is not negotiable", we blame that China will get an economic edge over us (like they don't already) because they exploit a "developing nation" clause, and you want to talk quick? Carter was practically laughed out of office when he told the American people we consume to much, and history repeats itself when Al Gore did it with most pointing out the hypocrisy considering he flies everywhere and has a mansion that's bigger than most neighborhoods.
No, the only thing we really are capable of doing quickly is making excuses. We want to not destroy the economy? Umm hate to break it to you, but we're really good at doing that without doing anything about climate change, we destroyed our economy to the point where it couldn't recover the minute we demanded cheaply manufactured goods, we destroyed our economy to the point of making more excuses when we put our last eggs into the one thing we had left for making money... which was betting that borrowed money is actually worth something.
So pray tell how will making cars more efficient destroy our economy? How will shifting to energy sources that don't pollute as much destroy our economy? How we spending a bit less than we take in destroy our economy? I hear about how online sales of fish related goods have forever changed local stores and they have to learn to adapt to the different business models or they'll sink, how digital distribution of music requires a huge change in how businesses are run. Why is a paradigm shift away from inefficient beast of cars a bad thing? We did it in the 70's when we had an energy crisis, we switched the other way in the 90s when we were dazzled by the commercials that showed how cool owning SUVs are, why can't we go back? Nope sorry, people want vroom, they want acceleration, and most are unwilling to bend. Hell when governments (local or federal) try to fund clean energy projects we complain even more, it'll kill birds, it's not as cheap as coal, it takes a decade to recoup the cost, it'll ruin my view, the sound is dangerous, someone is getting rich off this 'scam', we can't afford it (as if that has stopped us with anything in the past), like I said we're really good at making excuses quickly.
But in the end it all comes down to us wanting to have everything we have right now and not changing any way we work, and magically want things to get fixed. It makes me wonder, if we've known about the problems for many years, and we were really good at dismissing them, at what point does a quick fix become a necessity and becomes fundamentally ok?
p.s. sorry for being a bit ranty (and yes I freely admit I'm a hypocrite in someways)
Yes but 100 years of data fully encompasses the time span that we as humans have really kicked up a notch in using the oceans as our dumping grounds for our large cities, it encompasses a massive carbon output in the form of cars and our desire for lots of electricity, and most importantly it encompasses a time when that didn't happen in very high amounts at all.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
