TOO LATE? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

reply to post by RolandBrichter


John Matrix says:
I've been studying the SOHO photos of the sun for mare than a year. I've also studied the news articles relating to the Sun's failure to enter ti's cycle with new solar flare activity. It appears that what I learned in high school during the early 70's is correct. Warming and cooling trends are the result of increase and decrease in sun spots(which are solar flares). The sun is still silent this morning.....no sign of any activity. Do a google and check for yourself......it's the longest period of no sun spots since 1954.

As far as humans contributing to carbon....Mt. St. Helens spewed more carbon into the atmosphere in one day than all the fossil fuels that have ever been burned by man. The earth in fact did cool from it. Then in the early 90's there was another huge eruption in the Philippines. Our summers in North West Ontario turned cold, wet, and windy until around 1998. In January of 1995 we had three days of -54 F. at International Falls Minnesota....which earned it the "ice box capital of the USA".

Now we have no sun spots for more than a year and look at the temperatures in the mid USA and Canada right now. -45 F in Winnipeg this morning. That's unheard of for December. If the sun does not spark back to life with a new cycle we are in deep trouble.

Global warming? Follow the money that goes to research. Those scientists that support the global warming by carbon emissions are the ones that get the doe.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Interesting stuff Anonymous

This won't stop it but at least well know
Radio-controlled helicopter to sniff out rumbling volcanoes
Link

Global warming? Follow the money that goes to research. Those scientists that support the global warming by carbon emissions are the ones that get the doe.

Show it then
Show me the ones that get the Doe.
I mean, it should be pretty easy to show.
And we hear this arguement all the time.
Show me the money!

Link A GW sceptic, and i'll try do the reverse for you. Sound fair.
Then we can review the results.

So its cooling is it, well think again

Cool spell, but the earth's climate is warming

Link

reply to post by Dutty_Rag


Another great post! Starred!

Assuming for a moment the scientists are right, and the climate is going to change quicky (i.e. quicker than we can adapt to), then instead of focusing on one extremely narrow point (cutting CO2), why don't we use our brain power and technological capacity to SURVIVE, by doing things like protecting our coastlines, and other things that really make a difference?

If everything said is true, then we're only looking at an AVERAGE rise of 4°C. I can live with that! So what if low-lying areas flood - they're on the edge of going under anyway. Those that live there will simply have to move. I really don't see the problem. We don't have a problem letting lots of immigrants into the country!!

The whole thing doesn't make sense, unless you look at it from the point of view of $$$.

Originally posted by melatonin
I really don't know, Stellar. The answers and solution to the problem are not my forte.

I apologise for the belated response; this was just about my best effort to avoid this particular subject matter. As i wanted to make even clearer earlier this issue is for me at least ALL about the solutions even if i believe that the problem poses a comparatively small threat as compared to the non 'global warming gases' that are destroying our quality of life or killing us outright.

I don't see why the solutions to climate change would need a significant reduction in living standards.

If this is your position then you have already set yourself apart from the 'doomers' who can not accept a world without peak oil and global warming and can't accept any solution short of forced mass starvation or reduced living standards for 'all' ( meaning poor people somewhere else)>

As I said, I despise the politics.

Much like hating oxygen and refusing to use any more of it one has to 'despising politics' is a huge problem for people such as myself that understand how intertwined science and politics have been for at least the last few centuries. If one discusses science and why it isn't improving our lives faster than it is discussing politics as that's what is holding science to the same old unworkable, profitable 'solutions' that is systematically destroying our planet irrespective of warming or cooling trends or forcing.

I'm all for moving to nuclear energy for the time-being. We have to find renewable energy sources anyway.

If nuclear is the best thing they will allow us then i will accept it but we , the people etc, should be pursuing solar, wind, tidal and hydro at our best pace to arrive at the relative municiple level 'generation' of power that could ultimately allow truly exotic technologies ( 'vacuum' , etc) a breach trough which to enter the market.

We have to make that energy source self-sustainable, as the cheap and dirty energy won't last forever. It was essentially a freebie the earth has given us to for the opportunity to kickstart a sustainable process.

I wouldn't bet on dirty energy not 'lasting' as current estimates for coal paints a somewhat dark picture for us in the coming 200 - 500 years. There is a remote possibility that we might reach a peak oil usage in fifty or so years but is in my reading a worse case scenario and unless we do something oil could be a primary transport and industrial commodity for the rest of this century.

As for population reductions, I think it makes sense for humans to reduce their sprog-output. I don't think it needs anything more than that. Nothing subversive.

Yes, it does make sense to have fewer children and that's exactly what women will have if given access to the freedom of action that economic power allows the women of industrialized societies. The best way to save the planet is to spread just the current wealth fairly but since our current economic model would rather pollute us into oblivion or propose truly subversive population reduction schemes there isn't much hope that anything good will be implemented from the top down. At least we can agree that politics don't yield such positive changes without immense pressure from the bottom up.

This is the reason i have no faith in the 'consensus' reached by the very same European leaders that are so desperately trying to undermine the freedoms their citizens have so far gained. This is why scientific consensus should never be sponsored or imposed by the very same people who don't give us anything positive we ( or our parents before us) didn't fight to achieve. This is why their proposed 'solutions' will benefit them, not us.

Stellar

More doom and gloom

The fate of advanced human civilisation — and perhaps of our species itself — hangs in the balance. Fuelled by human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, global warming is advancing at a pace inconceivable to scientists just a few years ago.

Our Common Cause: Climate change — the danger is now

--------------------------------------

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth.

President 'has four years to save Earth'



OMG; The worst thing about this is it’s a meltdown and I've heard that somewhere before, no one took notice of that one ether.

Doom and gloom

Originally posted by majestictwo
Well I guess I don't fret for myself but I think if this has reached such dire consequences where in the article it is said to be "Too Late" we should regret that we've ruined future generations life style. I can only imagine their forum posts when they speak of us.

does anyone really fret over whan someone may or may not say on a forum in a hundred years- maybe they will all be laugh at our scaremongering, like we laugh at medievel witch hunts

[edit on 26-1-2009 by blueorder]

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by majestictwo
Well I guess I don't fret for myself but I think if this has reached such dire consequences where in the article it is said to be "Too Late" we should regret that we've ruined future generations life style. I can only imagine their forum posts when they speak of us.

does anyone really fret over whan someone may or may not say on a forum in a hundred years

- maybe they will all be laugh at our scaremongering, like we laugh at medievel witch hunts

[edit on 26-1-2009 by blueorder]

May be they will may be they won’t.
The point is if a past generation had ruined the planet for us we would be a bit peeved off I’m sure.