Climate Change

[Boatguy30]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

That is the question on the table. What is the per person carbon allocation needed to solve the problem, to reach atmospheric CO2 equilibrium? How much do I need to give up. If it is better fuel millage for my car, LED lights in the house, yeah we can all be happy with that, no pain. How deep do the cuts need to be.

If it means no heat in the house over the winter or moving to a warmer climate, no AC in Florida, no hot water, no skiing, no travel, no car I submit you and most of us would opt out (this is where the Kool-Aid part comes in.)

Stuff like this thread generally depresses me, but this seems to have weeded out the wackos by this point.

How much to cut? We need to AGREE to SPEND the $$$ on proper science to find out over the next few years. The problem with this is everyone spends so much time I mean MONEY claiming the REAL science is crap.

I firmly believe some dude in a lab has nothing to gain either way and will report his honest findings. There needs to be a major scientific endeveur completed NOW supervised by BBC, Fox News, NPR all the players to reach REAL facts we can mostly (say 85% of people) all agree on.

cheers,
Jeff

[conachair]

Why people ignore science......

http://www.nature.com/news/why-we-ar...change-1.11166

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by capngeo

Now THERE'S an idea! Now whom do we kill off?

I just love the hypocrisy of the GW folks; scream and whine about our impending doom..... on their electrical powered computer, in their air conditioned office to which they drove in their automobile, from the airport where they got off the jet which took them home from their eco-vacation in Alaska. You want people to pay attention? Practice what you preach: live in the Amish style.

To be fair...it doesn't have to be a black or white issue. It can be seen as the size of footprint you leave...

[Celestialsailor]

I like this one.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by hpeer

From post 540.

WOW!

That is probably the most egregiously miss informed post I have ever read.

Peace Bro, and good luck!

Can you point out which facts mentioned in my post are wrong?
Should be easy to prove me wrong if I'm so misinformed.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Can you point out which facts mentioned in my post are wrong?
Should be easy to prove me wrong if I'm so misinformed.

There were no facts, only day dreams.

If you are serious about understanding then you need to do some serious reading about how systems are interconnected. An easy read, but very good is "What's the Worse That Could Happen."
What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate: Greg Craven: Amazon.com: Books
Video link.

What's the Worst that Could Happen? - Part 1 of Selected Content from the Book - YouTube

But just to take the first example...fish farming. Salmon eat smaller fish, which we are sweeping from the oceans. Tilapia and shrimp farms cause massive mangrove destruction, which destroy ecosystems ans leave areas prone to flooding from storms, wiping out other agriculture.

If you want a good survey of 300 years of our marine stewardship read Farley Mowat, Sea of Slaughter. Farley pisses off a lot of people because of his direct manner. He also values the "others" a great deal so he states their case strongly. Though he is abrasive, his facts are correct. It will either scrape the scales from your eyes or you'll poke them out. Not a lot of ambiguity.

If that is not enough, try this, simple applied math, from your friendly physics prof.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rk...%3DF-QA2rkpBSY

[IdoraKeeper]

This thread has been great reading. I am lucky to have the time this year for a good two week trip to BC...I will be thinking about this stuff as I roam from one lovely anchorage to the next. It would be nice if all this was still available throughout my kids lives.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Stuff like this thread generally depresses me, but this seems to have weeded out the wackos by this point.

How much to cut? We need to AGREE to SPEND the $$$ on proper science to find out over the next few years. The problem with this is everyone spends so much time I mean MONEY claiming the REAL science is crap.

I firmly believe some dude in a lab has nothing to gain either way and will report his honest findings. There needs to be a major scientific endeveur completed NOW supervised by BBC, Fox News, NPR all the players to reach REAL facts we can mostly (say 85% of people) all agree on.

cheers,
Jeff

Its has been done several times over. Peer reviewed science is virtually agreed unanimously on AGW. What's not clear , because the models simply arnt good enough , is the magnitude of the effects and the timing of them

Why would you leave a comedy Chanel like Fox news near science

Dave

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by IdoraKeeper

This thread has been great reading. I am lucky to have the time this year for a good two week trip to BC...I will be thinking about this stuff as I roam from one lovely anchorage to the next. It would be nice if all this was still available throughout my kids lives.

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Ingrid 38 huh?

Ever hear of Jay Fitzgerald?

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

(...) It shouldn't cost that much either through better design, new technology, and efficiency.

Look, where we are, it is the sunny country. But the way locals built the facilities, you need fluo light throughout the day. And not only that; they also notoriously leave the light on. We might be the only people here who actually switch the light off on leave. I could give countless examples of this condition.

And this is in a state where EU help was flooding the country for some 10 years and whose students participated in all possible student exchanges or whatever was available to them. A major amount of EU funds, wasted.

So let me put it this way, some people do care and others do not give a hoot. And distribution of such people in some places on earth is somewhat different from that in the other places.

No matter how much you save and restore, there are zillions of others who will consume and tromp. For vast masses do not care, much as they may say they do. Saying is not doing.

b.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

No matter how much you save and restore, there are zillions of others who will consume and tromp. For vast masses do not care, much as they may say they do. Saying is not doing.

I think this speaks to my earlier comments Barn. I think it's less about people not giving a damn, and more about the issue being beyond our evolved capacities to deal with.

Humans evolved to be excellent short-term problem solvers. We're really good at observing what's in front of our faces, and thinking our way through the problem. We can even extend this to broad abstract spaces, like large cities, province/states, and nations. But researchers are finding that beyond the size of a village our skills start to become taxed. The broader the reach, the simpler the solution must be.

The challenge we face with rapid climate change is that the problem is complex, and the solutions are difficult and intricate. Humanity is defined and confined by our evolution, just like all other animals on this planet. Many of the global limits we are hitting (and climate change is just one), may simply be beyond our capacity to deal with in an effective way.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I think this speaks to my earlier comments Barn. I think it's less about people not giving a damn, and more about the issue being beyond our evolved capacities to deal with.

Humans evolved to be excellent short-term problem solvers. We're really good at observing what's in front of our faces, and thinking our way through the problem. (...)

Yes. But it is important to see that "we" are sitting here talking about what we can see and thinking of what could be done to lessen human impact on the planet. Meanwhile 99.9% of human race is busy consuming, multiplying, polluting and IMHO being completely indifferent to things like 'climate', 'change', 'environment', 'sustainability' and the likes.

I strongly believe that human masses can only be effectively controlled by fear. High fines are about the only way to push things in the desired direction.

I know this because I can watch north Europeans visiting a south European destination. They all come from clean and environmentally-conscious countries. As soon as they are in our marina ... they will start doing their laundry on the dock. And believe me - they did not care to bring their bio-degradable detergents along!

I do not believe in enlightened humanity, much as I know, admire and pity the enlightened individual.

b.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Yes. But it is important to see that "we" are sitting here talking about what we can see and thinking of what could be done to lessen human impact on the planet. Meanwhile 99.9% of human race is busy consuming, multiplying, polluting and IMHO being completely indifferent to things like 'climate', 'change', 'environment', 'sustainability' and the likes.

Oh, we're just outliers Barn . You know what to do with data outliers...

But to be serious, this is why I say humans have to become the most unnatural animal this planet has ever evolved. We need to step outside of our nature, and outside of Nature, to do what no animal has ever done. I think it is possible. I think we do have the capacity, as a species, to tackle the self-inflicted problems that face us. Unfortunately, I see see no serious signs that we are actually doing this.

I think we'll continue to behave like all the rest of the animals, and keep doing what we're doing until we have no choice but to change. The unfortunate thing with the climate change problem is that by the time the pain really begins to hurt (and specifically, to hurt those of us with power -- i.e. the richer parts of the world), we'll already be locked into an outcome that science suggests will be rather bad for our species.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I strongly believe that human masses can only be effectively controlled by fear. High fines are about the only way to push things in the desired direction.

I won't disagree with you. Fear is a great motivator. But current research suggests there are other ways to move our elephants as well (referring to Haidt's concept of the rider and the elephant). Stroking someone ego, appealing to their sense of righteousness, utilizing their moral structure ... these also appear to be ways of motivating people.

... but fear is probably easier .

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Yes. But it is important to see that "we" are sitting here talking about what we can see and thinking of what could be done to lessen human impact on the planet. Meanwhile 99.9% of human race is busy consuming, multiplying, polluting and IMHO being completely indifferent to things like 'climate', 'change', 'environment', 'sustainability' and the likes.


b.

Often great change , good and basic, has come from the action of a few motivated people. I'd argue the number of disinterested people is a lot lower then 99.9 .

Dave

[Wrong]

"Bigger cars , maybe, but less so in later years, ( i mean your all driving Jap and German cars anyway!). I still cant understand why modern turbo diesels haven't made a huge inroad into the US. Hence big petrol engines are gone, because the diesels are so much better performers and run cheaper."

First, only about 10 gallons of diesel per barrel of oil is produced by refineries. Csaba Csere: Should American Vehicles go Diesel Just When the World is Running Short of it? – Column – Car and Driver

Second, increased demand for diesel will inevitably drive up the price at the pump faster than gasoline which, depending how the numbers are derived, equal anywhere between 18 and 42 gallons per barrel.Fat Knowledge: How Many Gallons of Gasoline in a Barrel of Oil?

Third, the impetus in policy development and programs best point toward technologies that replace petroleum as the primary energy source in transportation.