Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 02:02pm PT
|
I do love these climate change rantfests. It's all so amusing.
The science is settled.... 97% agree... Florida will be underwater by 2100... blah, blah, blah... blah, blah.
None of it matters because no one (no country) is gonna do jack squat to impact the climate. Is there anything that can be done? Forget about lowering atmospheric CO2 levels. Is anyone offering a plan to keep CO2 levels from rising? If so, I'd love to know how it's coming along.
For decades, we've been hearing about catastrophic global warming. Numerous tipping points have come and gone. Mankind is doomed. Yet, CO2 levels have risen every year. Constantly. This past climate summit result in a lot of signatures to a worthless agreement. And even if everyone honored the agreement, how much global warming would be prevented? By 2100? One tenth of a degree?
There will never be a binding agreement among all the major polluters. Not one requiring a pound of flesh from the signatories. It ain't gonna happen.
I don't dispute claims about man's impact on the climate. I just don't think anything will be done that makes a difference.
Carry on.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 02:04pm PT
|
Numerous tipping points have come and gone.
Really? Which ones?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 02:31pm PT
|
oh, unless you live right along the coast I can see not giving a damn about rising sea levels
as long as this climate change nonsense does not effect me personally, I don't care
but I do care about the extra money I have to pay when crop prices rise because of heat and drought
every year now the planet gets hotter and hotter, setting historic records
but again why should I care?
well, you care if you live in say California where heat and drought have greatly lowered the snow pack in the mountains and severe water rationing is in effect
but I don't live in California so why should I care?
ok forget that one and the other one along the coasts, let's get back to crop prices
it was only some three years ago when the first wave of US crop yields were limited by that pesky climate change stuff of heat and drought and prices went up in supermarkets
for the past three summers the US grain crops have dodged that bullet with good crops, luckily, maybe this summer brings the record heat that the European crops
endured last summer
ok, ok, so maybe there is truth to this climate change stuff and yes the science is settled that human activity has and continues to have a major effect, but what do I care?
money? well if pissing away three trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan is not any big deal because, well, no one is really wringing their hands and stressed out about that,
then why don't we take the attitude that the "tards" have, to just ignore what can be done to mitigate the effects of human caused climate change and instead brush if all off by making nice and shallow statements like what's the big deal, we humans are too dumb to do anything about it anyway, and besides don't you know that there are 10,000 year heating and cooling cycles and we will all be dead anyway, etc, etc
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 02:35pm PT
|
I bet most climate change scientist are listening intently and waiting to hear what Edward T and Escopeta will say next about global warming...!
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 02:37pm PT
|
love that Bernie swept three states yesterday by huge margins, and when I turned on CNN this morning it was literally an hour of them talking about does Donald Trump get too much media coverage; why do we let him play us like this
because Bern is a NOBODY!
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 02:44pm PT
|
Pyro...LOL's
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 02:44pm PT
|
All 3 of our beloved ideological Libertarians have expressed their well founded denial of Climate Change.
"What's bad about it"
"It's not that bad, it's no big deal!"
"There's nothing we can do"
"the climate is always changing"
"it will cost too much"
"species are always dying off, there will be new ones to take their place"
I assume their viewpoint has been well researched. NOT!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 03:01pm PT
|
"What's bad about it"
So far, no non-speciesist answer.
"It's not that bad, it's no big deal!"
No, it IS a big deal to somebody; to others, not so much. It's going to be "bad" for some and "good" for others.
"There's nothing we can do"
False attribution. Over the course of these threads, I've provided several solid things we can do. Seriously. I think there's nothing we're GOING to do, but that's different.
"the climate is always changing"
True. How much "research" do you need to agree with that truism?
"it will cost too much"
Again, false attribution. I've never said nor suggested this.
"species are always dying off, there will be new ones to take their place"
True. Again, how much "research" do you need to believe this truism?
I assume their viewpoint has been well researched. NOT!
LOL... how much "research" do you need to believe in truisms?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 03:43pm PT
|
I said that it's going to "seem" bad to some and "good" to others. I said that a species-centric perspective is not the proper big picture.
Regarding things we COULD do (but won't), I've mentioned national vegetarianism, an absolute commitment to weaning off of fossil fuels within a decade, and putting out ALL of our coal fires and ENFORCING that other nations do so as well.
If we'll go to war to ensure the flow of oil (that increases greenhouse gasses), why not go to war to ensure that coal fires are extinguished? If we'll impose sanctions to keep nations from developing nuclear weapons (which, to many minds is less of a global threat than climate change), why not impose sanctions to insist that the coal fires are put out?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 04:13pm PT
|
Agreed, Moose.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 05:53pm PT
|
healyje posted:
And that risk is compounded by the fact that in industrialized societies the microbiome basis for our immune systems has narrowed in its own species profile thus affording us far less protection from infection and disease than cultures living closer to the earth
This issue has the potential of being the deadliest to us all.
Seems there is some scary new disease popping up every couple of years and we'll soon be losing out with anti-biotics on common infections like MRSA that mutate.
I would say another priority we should pursue is to protect our power grids from Electro-Magnetic Pulse damage.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 08:14pm PT
|
I agree that it is unlikely that there will be international cooperation that will significantly reduce the rate of GHG emissions. This should not deter us from trying. However, what I strongly disagree with is this notion that of course the climate changes, the climate always changes and has been changing throughout earth history. This is a fundamentally meaningless statement in the context of how modern industrial processes are influencing global climate and impacting the ocean environment. The current rate of carbon release is unprecedented during, at least, the past 66 million years of earth history. In 2014 the rate of carbon release reached ~10 Petagrams of Carbon/yr (a Petagram of carbon (Pg)=Gigaton (Gt)=10^15 grams). Needless to say that's a sh*tload of anthropogenic carbon. The closest geologic analogue is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (aka PETM) during which time the carbon release rate was an order-of-magnitude lower (~ 1.1 Pg C/yr) than the current rate.
Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years
Richard E. Zeebe 1*, Andy Ridgwell 2,3 and James C. Zachos 4
1_School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1000 Pope Road, MSB 629, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA. 2_School ofGeographical Sciences, University of Bristol, University Road, Bristol BS8 1SS, UK. 3_Department of Earth Sciences, University of California Riverside,900 University Avenue, Riverside, California 92521, USA. 4_Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz,California 95064, USA.*e-mail: zeebe@soest.hawaii.edu
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 21 MARCH 2016 | DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2681
NATURE GEOSCIENCE | ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience
Carbon release rates from anthropogenic sources reached a record high of ∼10 Pg C yr−1in 2014. Geologic analogues from pasttransient climate changes could provide invaluable constraints on the response of the climate system to such perturbations, butonly if the associated carbon release rates can be reliably reconstructed. The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)is known at present to have the highest carbon release rates of the past 66 million years, but robust estimates of the initialrate and onset duration are hindered by uncertainties in age models. Here we introduce a new method to extract rates ofchange from a sedimentary record based on the relative timing of climate and carbon cycle changes, without the need foran age model. We apply this method to stable carbon and oxygen isotope records from the New Jersey shelf using time-series analysis and carbon cycle–climate modelling. We calculate that the initial carbon release during the onset of the PETMoccurred over at least 4,000 years. This constrains the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate to less than 1.1 Pg C yr−1. We conclude that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented duringthe past 66 million years. We suggest that such a ‘no-analogue’ state represents a fundamental challenge in constraining future climate projections. Also, future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.
The initial carbon release during the PETM onset thus occurred over at least 4,000 yr. Using estimates of 2,500-4,500 Pg C for the initial carbon release, the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate was therefore 0.6-1.1 Pg C yr. Given currently available palaeorecords, we conclude that the present anthropogenic carbon release rate (10 Pg C yr) is unprecedented during the Cenozoic (past 66 Myr).... Regarding impacts on ecosystems, the present/future rate of climate change and ocean acidification is too fast for many species to adapt, which is likely to result in widespread future extinctions in marine and terrestrial environments that will substantially exceed those at the PETM. Given that the current rate of carbon release is unprecedented throughout the Cenozoic, we have effectively entered an era of a no-analogue state, which represents a fundamental challenge to constraining future climate projections.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 09:54pm PT
|
“unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.”
And he might well have been right.
I would say another priority we should pursue is to protect our power grids from Electro-Magnetic Pulse damage.
From my experience with transmission utilities I'd say you'll see that happen just after we respond appropriately to CO2.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 09:57pm PT
|
Either Trump or Bernie would be a shoo-in if America was as lilly white as the state of Washington.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 10:47pm PT
|
Thanks TT-
That video and the recent campaign successes and thinking about what is at stake for the upcoming state primaries made me send in another donation. That's my third big one in as many months.
In 20+ years as a registered voter (mostly democrat, sometimes independent, sometimes green), and many years in the lower end of the 1% earning group, I have never contributed to any political cause or candidate. I have always thought of elections as a choice between lesser evils. I can honestly say that I would be proud to have Bernie represent me and my country to the rest of the world, and that I look forward to his leadership to shape our domestic agenda and shape the dialog for what happens in the next congressional election cycle.
My faith in democracy (and humanity and people's intelligence) is being restored by Bernie's successes so far. We might not win, but it is certainly within realistic reach and far better than any opportunity that has arisen in my lifetime. I don't mean Democrat... I'm not really a partisan guy. For me, it's all about the message and principles that guide our national identity and policies. Most importantly, it's fixing campaign finance and corporate personhood and media monopolies. Then we can have a representative government that does what people actually say they want whether I agree with them or not. This is what Bernie represents to me. If you look at the spirit of what democracy is supposed to be, a government of the people by the people for the people, Bernie is the only viable candidate who actually represents that.
If we don't win, I think it will be because of the bias of mainstream media outlets and people just not being informed about which candidate best fits what they personally want. My aunt (a Republican this morning and now a Bernie supporter after learning the issues) is a perfect example of someone misinformed. She only recently got Internet access, is not computer savvy, so relies on broadcast TV news.
I don't want this election cycle to pass with me thinking I didn't do my part to point our world in a better direction. The more people are aware of issues and vote according to their preference on those issues, the more likely it is that Bernie will be our next President.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 11:06pm PT
|
...and far better than any opportunity that has arisen in my lifetime.
That's what a lot of folks said about Obama, and Sanders won't have the luxury of two years of a majority in both houses. His agenda goes nowhere in the House and he can't win the general - personally I just don't get the unbridled optimism when it's more then apparent he can't deliver. It's Obama 2.0 and we can't afford it right now.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
Mar 27, 2016 - 11:11pm PT
|
That thought re: Obama occurred to me. But he made a tactical mistake to let go of the organization that helped him get elected. It was a new thing, social media, alternative outlets and communication and fund-raising to counter super-PACs.
Bernie won't make that mistake.
It's our country. Fight for the future you want. No guarantees that what you or I want will be achieved, but the odds are a hell of a lot better if we actively participate in our democracy.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|