General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFrankly, the world as we know it is going away, soon.
"Well, there’s a growing consensus that staying above atmospheric concentrations of 350 parts per million will permanently change our climate, and not for the better.
We’re now at 392.41 ppm and rising. This year’s catastrophes are a mild preview of things to come.
So regardless of what we do, we have already altered the climate in ways that will cost us a great deal of money, kill millions if not tens of millions, and create as many as a billion refugees by mid century.
Bad as this sounds, there’s strong evidence it’s about to get a hell of a lot worse."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/25-0
The only hope we have as a species is if we haven't triggered a feedback loop of methane release. A very slim hope. As the author of the linked piece states, if we haven't triggered a feedback loop, then by taking drastic action now, with everybody in the world working together, we might be able to stave off disaster.
In other words, there is no hope at all. Moving quickly on any issue simply isn't going to happen. Governments, by design, are meant to be slow, deliberative bodies. And with corporations large and in charge of governments, we'll be lucky if they move at all. Obama just raised fuel standards to 55 mpg by 2025? Hell, that should have been in place twenty years ago, not thirteen years in the future.
And getting everybody in the world to work together, LOL. Hell, a third of the people in this country alone don't believe in global climate change. China and India are so very intent upon raising their society to the level of Western Standards that they're building a new coal powered electric plant every eight days. Think they'll give that up?
The fact of the matter is that there is no real hope, and humanity is going to not just kill itself, but take a lot of the rest of the life on this planet with it. Perhaps some few humans somewhere will survive somehow. But the hard fact of the matter is that within a couple of a few generations, the vast majority of us are going to be gone.
What we're already experiencing is just a prelude to what's going to happen. The droughts, the floods, all of that is going to get worse. And by the time we get our collective act together enough to start working together, it will be far too late.
Makes me glad that I'm in the latter half of my life, and won't be around to see it when the shit really starts to hit the fan. It is going to be ugly, really, really ugly.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bocks Car
(25 posts)unavoidable fact...even if it takes a million years for evolution to change us or whatever bits and pieces of us survive whatever ELE awaits us. Ain't no big thang...
tabasco
(22,974 posts)
Bocks Car
(25 posts)Am I missing something?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Response to WinkyDink (Reply #22)
truebluegreen This message was self-deleted by its author.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)is the knowledge that we will take so much of the wondrous life on this rare blue planet with us, through no fault of their own.
An old professor of mine once said that, (despite the size of the universe and the odds that entails) he was no longer surprised that we had never detected signs of any other intelligent life. Intelligence, in his view, is not in the long run a survival characteristic.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Two of them are of species that are endangered in their native habitat. But if you stop to think about it, there's been millions of species that have come and gone since the first single-celled things started wriggling their way up the chain of evolution. Why don't we lamanet THEIR passing into history before our bloodlines evern came down out of the trees? No, it's just that we can SEE our own impact on the things we currently share this orb with and we feel a tinge of guilt about it. We realize that as they die off, they're literally like the coal mine canaries we used to sacrafice as safety devices.
Life has evolved ever since it sparked into being here - a constant coming and going of creatures - usually too slowly for anything or anyone to notice. A constant chain of change. And WITH THAT realization - that we don't live in a Noah's Ark "stasis" - we selfishly try to inhibit that which is the way things have gone for eons and will continue to go.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)5 billion years from now, the sun will cease to be a star and will become a black dwarf.....and then, a black hole......and Earth will possibly be toast 4 billion years before then unless we figure out a way to move it or whatever.
kurt_cagle
(534 posts)Sorry to be pedantic here, but the sun will never become a black hole.
1.2 billion years from now, the sun will get hot enough to start evaporating earth's oceans (water vapor becomes energetic enough to escape earth's gravity well), with the earth going through a Venusian Greenhouse stage before eventually losing all of its volatiles by 3 billion year. Figure the biosphere has maybe 1.5 billion years left in it.
In 4.5 billion years, the sun will go nova, becoming a red giant as it begins consuming it's built up helium. The earth at that stage will likely be consumed as the sun expands out to about 110 million miles (still inside the orbit of Mars, which will be about where Venus is now). This will continue for another 1.5 to 2 billion years until helium gets depleted and pressure induced carbon to start fusing. With the mass of the sun, the initiation of the carbon cycle will cause the outer layers of the sun to blow off into space.
What remains will be a white dwarf, which is a star where the material is degenerate (with extreme densities). You can think of a white dwarf as a highly condensed diamond lattice. That white dwarf is different from a red dwarf, which is simply a low mass star such as Proxima Centauri or Gliese that has just enough fusion process to burn for upwards of 100 billion years (one reason Gliese is so much in the news lately, as it is also a star system with at least five and maybe six planets, including one that could be earthlike). Brown dwarves are even lower intensity stars that are at the very threshold of viability as stars - much smaller, and they would up as giant planets.
White dwarves have energy due to gravitational attraction and high density, but it no longer undergoes fusion. This means that it will slowly lose energy and eventually will become a black dwarf, but that process takes a long time - some hundred billion billion billion billion years. Our universe is comparatively young - there are no black dwarves out there yet.
A neutron star is formed when the initial star is between 1.4 and 3.2 solar masses. These are more dense than white dwarves - you can think of them as essentially being giant singleton atoms. They are noted for their incredibly rapid spin, often spinning on its axis several dozens or hundreds of times a second, and their energy jets as the intense magnetic fields of these start draws in material from elsewhere and then redirects it along its rotational axis.
A black hole is not the end state of a black dwarf. The initial star would have to be greater than 3.2 solar masses for one to form. These become so dense that eventually light itself is unable to escape.
Finally, there is a theoretical hyper-dense object known as a quark star with neutron starts close to the 3.2 solar limit (the Chandrasekhar Boundary) where the outer layers of the neutron stars actually degenerate into a quark "crust". This is one of the candidates for dark matter in the universe.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Sorry, Kurt, I'm no expert on this stuff....thanks for correcting that. 
kurt_cagle
(534 posts)Thanks for taking the time to read a long-winded, overblown response.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)
Kennah
(14,578 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Kennah
(14,578 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Hey, he may be socially awkward, but he's practically Einstein....maybe I should watch more of the "The Big Bang Theory", yah? 
NICO9000
(970 posts)I never got into until the reruns started this year and now my wife and I love it. Very funny and sweet (but not in a sickly way).
Vidar
(18,335 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)who drives us with sheldon supervising and me shit faced and naked in the back seat.
Vidar
(18,335 posts)condoleeza
(814 posts)
Javaman
(65,694 posts)the sun goes red giant. Any ideas?
mahina
(20,642 posts)have to worry about climate change"
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/videos/view/19/ It's a few years old and I'm sure he's put updates out there, but I don't expect them to give the all clear, if you read me.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
I hope DU'ers listen and think about this.
We can tell ourselves we'll adapt, but there's no way we can adapt to the scale of change coming.
It's not responsible to future generations to abdicate responsibility, and despair as a regular M.O. is irresponsible too. Not saying I don't have moments. Or days, or weeks, but all the same, no matter how shitty the reality is, we have to do what we can.
Bocks Car, this isn't really directed at your point per se, just need to get this thought out there.
Aloha.
you believe in evolution...maybe we evolve to survive.
cindyperry2010
(846 posts)trees and their photosynthesis processes clean the air why not get more green space and trees in the ground. not that it will take care of it immediately because we damaged the hell out of mother earth we however must turn it around
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)By dumping iron into the ocean. Anyone know if that's still feasible?
RC
(25,592 posts)Dumping iron causes a bloom, the iron get used up or otherwise dissipates. The algae dies and decays, and it it doesn't sink far enough, leaves a big dead spot.
randome
(34,845 posts)I would rather know the truth.
cindyperry2010
(846 posts)and get the hell off fossil fuels also why can't we (like the germans do) have solar powered power plants ?
kurt_cagle
(534 posts)As temperatures rise, trees ability to absorb carbon dioxide drops. Additionally, when it gets too hot, trees begin to get burnt ... the temperature essentially slow cooks the trees. A tree that becomes too burnt will die, at which point it will contribute to greenhouse gases either slowly (as the tree decays or are consumed by insects), or quickly (when trees catch fire). If we're in a regime where we're releasing sublimating clathrates, then reforestation is not going to help.
BellaKos
(318 posts)Humans: Too dumb to thrive.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Humans: were probably the smartest & most civilized species ever to come from Earth but held down by countless conspiracies, fearmongering, etc. Could have had enormous potential.
kurt_cagle
(534 posts)Humans - mostly harmless.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)And what does that have to do with my OP?
You know, not everything in this world has to do with Obama.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)You come in here with a doom-and-gloom, what's-the-use, OP in an attempt to kill optimism and enthusiasm.
As to your OP.... NONSENSE.
Yes... there is climate change, and yes it is man made. But the human race has been around for a couple hundred thousand years and has survived severe ice ages and warming periods and it will adapt and survive this too.
Instead of the Midwest being the breadbasket, such crops will move north to the Dakotas and Manitoba. Instead of Georgia peaches, we'll have Ohio peaches. Apples will be harvested in Newfoundland. Rice patties will be in Siberia.
Yes... there will be disruptions in our way of life, and lots of people will die. But humanity will adapt and go on and thrive as it always does.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)some folks don't like it...
Turn the CO2 and Methane into balloons, energy, and construction materials.
For the gloom and Doom crowd, I can only suggest they each swallow a handful of vicodin, and down a few glasses of vodka.
randome
(34,845 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)but the quick version...
build a balloon, fill it with methane (lifting .054 lbs/ft^3)
plate top and sides with solar panels
power 10 industrial cryochillers with the solar power (each needs 5KW, produces 6 tons CO2/4 tons CH4 per day)
use the methane (CH4) for more lifting gas (store for now)
mine seawater for magnesium
burn magnesium on the dry ice (the frozen CO2)-->this produces grapheme and graphite
use the above to make new balloon
fill new balloon with stored methane
combine magnesium with graphite to form magnesium carbide-->make new cryochiller
repeat
within 40 years total, you've reversed global warming...
For the gloom and doom crowd, I'll offer up vodka and razor blades.
randome
(34,845 posts)Also, what do you think about the idea of dumping iron into the oceans to generate more algae?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)and have each balloon build one balloon per year.
I don't know anything about iron dumping, so I can't speak to it.
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)Something that will make the heat go away, unlike air conditioning, which just moves it to a different place.
Cuz making the heat cease to exist is the only way this plan could work.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)but the shading - via balloons - of the ocean below will cause cooling.
Also, the hot point of the chillers could be mated to more thermocouples, turning the heat into a little more power
This isn't rocket science... I should know, as that's one of my hobbies.
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)You got any calcs showing that the shading will be enough to make a difference?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)As for the calculations, I only have preliminary ones:
if one balloon shades an area of roughly 125663 ft^2, and the cryochillers use (roughly) 50 KW total...
then the total waste heat has to equal 528000 calries/sec, to be considered a waste of time.
as one calorie = (roughly) 4.2 watts of power, I think we've got this covered.
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)Can't really see if the calculated waste makes sense without that info. I assume you're figuring power in minus power used by cryochillers equals power wasted. So what's the power coming in?
And how can you equate calories to watts, when they measure different things? Calories measure energy and watts measure power.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)the ten cryochillers are going to need 50 KW, so we'll need about 25,000 to 50,000 ft^2
(I'm assuming we will have to build the panels ourselves, otherwise we'll need grants from the Gates foundation, or something.)
the shaded area would shield some 200^2*3.14 *144*.3 = 5428672 calories from reaching the ocean.
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)I'm not going to guess what you mean. You can explain it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The problem is a reduction in the Earth's normal heat loss, not increased heat input.
In other words, greenhouse gasses are effectively putting a blanket on the Earth. Remove the blanket, and what's under will cool off. Just like when you are in bed and take off a blanket.
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Thus removing the CO2 from the atmosphere, where it is trapping heat.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)How do we capture all that methane?
How much CO2 will the process of manufacturing balloons put into the atmosphere.
Do we have 40 years? (I doubt it)
Who's going to finance this boondoggle?
Mine sea water for magnesium? How long will THAT plant take to construct? How many tens of thousands of barrels of oil will be burned in the construction of that plant?
Your "solution" is naive in the extreme. It makes good science fiction but... No wait. It doesn't even make good science fiction.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'm already doing it.
I'm gathering the pieces at my place, and setting it up.
I'll send pics and progress reports as needed.
Matter of fact, this weekend is a shopping trip...
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)Oh, what happens when the balloons reach critical altitude and start popping?
And what happens when CH4 leaks through the fabric of the first 2700 balloons faster than it takes you to fill the 2701st balloon?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I was assuming that the "seawater smelter" could serve as variable ballast. That way, you can vary the height of the balloon.
We could get creative, and have a collapsible air bladder, and pressurize it to various multpiles of STP, to add or subtract weight.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)I imagine huge balloons lifting heavy machines would be considered navigation hazards.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)My solution? don't fly within the ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone)
Also, we can paint them in garish colors, with some strobing lights.
For that matter, if we add some stripes of metallic paint, the airborne radar will display these things.
I'd like to keep these balloons at least 200 miles of the coast of the USA, and 10 miles away from the travel corridors.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)The current CO2 emissions world wide total 29,888,121,000 metric tons per year.
At 1 atmosphere (sea level) CO2 has a density of 1.977 kg/m3.
At 1000 Kg per metric ton, that makes 15,117,916,540,212 cubic meters.
That volume increases a lot at higher altitudes, but let's just stick with sea level for now.
Using balloons 10 meters in diameter, with a volume of 523.6 cubic meters per balloon.
That would require 28,873,026,242 balloons.
So if you start filling those balloons right now, at the rate of 1 balloon per minute (which is probably impossibly fast) it would take you 481,217,104 hours, or 20,050,712 days or 54,896 years to fill those balloons.
Now the problem is, you see, that's almost 55 thousand years to capture ONE YEAR worth of CO2 emissions. Which means that after working 55 thousand years to capture CO2 you let 54 thousand years of CO2 go uncaptured.
Or put another way, every whole year spent filling balloons at the rate of 1 balloon per minute will, at the end of the year, have captured the carbon emitted in 10 minutes.
To stay even with current emissions you will need to fill 55 thousand balloons per minute, but staying even isn't enough to reverse global warming. We have to lower CO2 in the atmosphere, and your 55 thousand balloons per minute won't do that.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1 cryo chiller (from alibaba) can extract 10 tons of CO2 per day.
Therefore (via simple math), we get 10 tons per day
That's 3650 tons of CO2 per year, per balloon (and no, you wouldn't use the CO2 to fill the balloons. That's why you would grab the methane in the atmosphere.)
5.45 E11 tons of CO2 / 3650 tons per balloon = 149315068 balloon years
149315068 balloon years / 169 balloons per mile = 6800680 miles^2 needed
that's for the whole of the earth.
6800680/ 40 years = 170017 square miles
170017 / 3000 (NYC to london) = 56.7 miles
It can be done
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)Show me a link to this magical cryo chiller you are talking about.
Show me what the power consumption is in KWH to extract 10 tons of CO2.
Show me what you will do with 36,500 tons of CO2 per cryo chiller per year.
Show me how much electricity will be consumed by 82,000 cryo chillers just to break even on yearly CO2 emission.
Tell me how will generate that much electricity.
Tell me how long it will take you to get 82,000 cryo chillers running.
Tell me how many maintenance people it will take to service 82,000 cryo chiller running 24/7.
When I was 7 years old, inspired by watching Rocky Jones Space Ranger, I was going to build my own space ship. I even went through the latest 1952 Sears catalog picking out all the parts I would need to build it. Your project reminds me of that old project of mine. No offence intended sir, but are you by any chance seven years old?
GCP
(8,167 posts)Exactly. How much buoyancy would these methane balloons have? Would they even get off the ground?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)
Chemisse
(31,341 posts)actually doing something that could help.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)and allows me brag rights over other people...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
abumbyanyothername
(2,711 posts)Even if we are too late, it seems far better to create communities that withdraw from the globalization disaster . . . if only for our own sanity.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'm not the prettiest of people...
Actually, I was thinking of starting up a progress blog, but I've no idea who'd want to look at it.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Where can I get some of those drugs....
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'm straight edge. The only thing I use is this strange stuff called coffee.
If you don't like the idea, at least have enough self respect to own up, and give adult reasons.
(I can at least respect some of my detractors for their straight forward arguments...)
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)but what do I know?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)what do you know?
with your first comment, I'm betting on very little.
If you have constructive comments, do my guest to add them here. If you're here to offer snark, I'm going to take great pleasure in making fun of you.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Let's start with the methane balloon. First of all, plating the structure with solar panels is not advisable. Balloons need to expand and contract. If you're going to install the solar panels you need in order to power an industrial chiller, you will have to build some sort of rather heavy superstructure to support them.
And heavy is going to be a problem. Methane is a really poor lifting gas. At about half the density of air, it has a lifting force of 5.4 Newtons per cubic meter, meaning your payload would be prohibitively small.
Another problem with methane is it's highly flammable. The least spark and you would have Hindenberg all over again. This is not good, since you're stating that you're going to be building these balloons, at least in part, out of graphene, which is one of the best electrical conducting materials out there. Hmm, high altitude, lighting storms, boom.
Then there is the simple environmental consideration that methane is one of the worst greenhouse gasses out there, and you're proposing to put large quantities high in the atmosphere, where it can do even more damage. Not a good idea.
As far as your cyrochillers go, they're pointless, since they are violating the first law of thermodynamics.
Finally, you're energy/pollution equation is way off. In order to produce the materials you need, all that refining, all that energy consumption and subsequent pollution, you're going to be producing more greenhouse gasses than you will get rid of.
You come up with some interesting ideas, I'll give you that. But it is obvious that you are, as you've said, an amateur dabbling in a hobby. Nothing wrong with that so long as you recognize that what looks good to you on paper isn't going to work in reality.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)and i figure it's a hell of a lot better than sitting around and "adapting" to Global Warming.
Again... other than the 5.4 newtons figure, you've only given rhetoric.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Sad that you don't seem to recognize it. But you know what, I've learned with you that it is useless to deal in fact. That is because you have these pseudo-scientific ideas of yours that you think will work, but simply won't because they violate simple laws of physics, like the First Law of Thermodynamics.
You engage in a lot of pseudo-scientific double speak that sounds good and impressive to the layman, but when you dig into the basics, it's just all gobbledey gook. As you've stated in this thread, you do this in order to inflate your image and, as you state, to have "brag rights over other people". That's a great game you're playing, one that far too many people think they can play because of the anonymity of the internet, but recognize that a lot of people see you for what you are, and it isn't a pretty picture.
Now if you're a true devotee of this sort of thing, fine. But get your scientific basics right before you do anything. Questions about the severity of methane as a greenhouse gas, violating the First Law of Thermodynamics, and even the basic questions of environmental cost analysis are all valid, and until you come up with satisfactory, scientific answers all you're going to have is a bunch of useless material that you can't do anything with.
Now, knowing how you operate, I'm going to leave it right here for you. Otherwise you'll simply continue to rant and rave, but provide no solid information, and frankly I've played that game far too many times with internet intellectuals to consider it fun anymore. Get back to me if you ever get this off the ground(or shall I start perusing Craig's List in a month looking for cyro chillers and a ton of methane).
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The professional versions are painfully expensive. (The plans for the corona discharge systems are available, but those aren't very efficient, power-wise.)
Brag rights are a fine and honorable tradition in the geek culture. If we are going to keep getting nasty, as you are... I have to admit, you sound like most of the second rate humanities profs I've dealt with. You see me for what I am? I doubt it.
It really sounds like you are looking for something. (Other than attempting to engage in pop-psychology, and in some of the Schopenhauer's argument ploys.)
I'd love to rant and rave, but sadly, I've simply been explaining how things would work.I've left the ranting and raving to the "philosophical" types like you.
over to you, for more frothy goodness...
muriel_volestrangler
(106,170 posts)They're just not well enough thought through to count as 'geeky'. You're obsessed with filling balloons; but I can't see why that is important. It's far more efficient, and uses less energy (which is vital in this situation) to do this all on the ground. You want to use 'cryochillers' - it seems this is your chosen method of getting the carbon dioxide out of the air by producing dry ice. Again, I'd question the efficiency of that; real investigations into scrubbing CO2 out of the air don't use it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber . You then seem to convert that to methane (which will take energy - is that budgeted for in your calculations?), and then store it. I would suggest that storing the CO2, without having to use extra energy to convert it to methane, would be more efficient. But storing huge quantities of gas (carbon dioxide or methane) is actually the tricky bit - this is what carbon capture and storage is trying to solve, without large scale success, so far.
The rest of your plan just seems to be 'how to build a cryochiller', which isn't particularly interesting, but why it requires burning magnesium on dry ice I can't tell - are you saying that's how they build them now?
Just to do one calculation: burning methane to produce carbon dioxide produces 50 MJ/kg of methane. Even if we can manufacture the methane from CO2 with perfect efficiency, then the energy needs to produce that 4 tonnes/day of methane is:
50 MJ * 4000 kg = 2*10^11 J
which is a power of:
2*10^11 / 24 / 60 / 60 = 2315 kW
This is considerably more than the 50kW your calculation used, which appears to have been just the power needed to produce dry ice.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I was figuring we'd use the methane (from the air itself) to fill the balloons. (Why not? it's there. It's a greenhouse gas. Why not get some use out of it?)
The chillers were to be powered via solar panel (or solar furnaces, which *I* think make more sense...)
The magnesium on dry ice thing is about getting a steady source of material for the newer balloons (and wiring, and supports, and living materials...)
What's not to like?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,170 posts)When the concentration of the methane is about 2 parts per million (by volume, so about 1 part per million by mass)?
Your 50kW machine is going to process 4 million tons of air, every day? 45 tons of air per second?
You're a couple of orders of magnitude away from reality, at least.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Because you couldn't possibly use discrete panels with expansion zones between them. Or attach the panels using a mechanism that allows slippage.
You might wanna go read a bit about the history of airships. They weren't very light.
Doesn't matter how great a conductor it is when it isn't grounded.
No, he's proposing removing large quantities from the atmosphere and put it in an airship. He's not generating new methane.
The goal of the chillers isn't to cool the Earth. The goal of the chillers is to sequester atmospheric CO2 by turning it into a solid.
Cooling would happen by reducing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, causing more heat to radiate into space. Just like the previous 4.3 billion years.
Because the only way to get energy is to burn coal. There are no other possible sources of energy. Say, attached to the outside of the guy's airships.
Now, I don't see this guy's plan as very practical, but almost all of your critiques of it are utterly wrong. The only one that's relevant is "can Methane lift your apparatus?"
Blanks
(4,835 posts)...is that it seems to require a lot of materials. I'm not trying to discourage you, but I think there are more organic solutions that require less elaborate design.
As everyone should be aware CO2 is a necessary component in photosynthesis and IMHO; the solution to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere is to deliver the CO2 to plants (preferably food plants).
Since methane gas is combustible and the byproduct of that combustion is CO2 and water it makes sense that we would try and push these things together to use methane gas and solar power to generate electricity and divert the exhaust into greenhouses (or at least crop fields).
I'm not saying there isn't room for your idea; I just think it is more elaborate than is necessary.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Grow Kudzu on the rafts.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)...are watercress and duckweed. Watercress contains a lot of nutrients and duckweed can be used to treat sewage. There is research to use Duckweed as an alternative energy source.
Apparently one of the central American civilizations used rafts to grow food for their armies; is that what you have in mind?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)although, I was hoping to design open ocean formats.
That way, the system also functions as a cheap semi reflector.
Duckweed can double it's mass every 4 days, under summer or greenhouse conditions.
You can then harvest the duckweed for methane, or to make a weakly concentrated ethanol.
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)Party on!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The nice thing about kudzu is that it'll grow up to 3 feet a day. It also makes nifty paper, building materials, and you can - sort of - eat it.
Floating rafts, bobbing around on the ocean, playing Genesis...
zappaman
(20,627 posts)nebenaube
(3,496 posts)And it will cause casualties.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)how about using the balloon as a parachute?
how about adding some rotors to auto-gyro in?
hatrack
(64,846 posts)Oh, and just a quick memo - it is not "gloom and doom" to point out, when the house in on fire, that the house is on fire.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) we'd fill the lifting balloon with Methane (which is a lifting gas).
2.) they don't have to rise very far
3.) the doomsters seem to make it a point of honor, to shoot down any and all solutions. (This leads me to believe that they have a hidden agenda...)
With some angle-working, and good ol' American grit, I believe we can beat Global Warming, provide communes/condos with incredible views and fresh seafood, and a long term green power source.
hatrack
(64,846 posts)nt
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I just wish I could figure out a way to make this pay... or act as a massive practical joke.
Oh well... I'll just list it as the world's best condo.
tblue37
(68,431 posts)in the message box.
The point of "nt" (or "eom" is to let the reader know that there is no text ("nt" to read in the message box, so he should not take the time to click the message box open.
When you put the "nt" in the message box instead of the subject line, that defeats the whole purpose of the "nt."
It just frustrates the reader, probably even more than if you didn't bother to put it there at all, because in both cases, the reader clicks open a message that has no message, but when it does have "nt" in the message box, it's almost like mocking him for opening the message that contains no message.
n/t
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But you take the cake, really.
Wait, you've got me cold. I did it, I secretly arranged it with John Atcheson and the editorial staff at Common Dreams to have them publish this piece on this day so I could link to it and post about our future with climate change on an anonymous, relatively powerless political chat board in order to drive down optimism on this week. Yep, did it all about six weeks ago
Do you even hear the words coming out of your mouth, just how crazy they are?
As far as the reality of global climate change, and what is coming our way, you're sounding almost as bad as the climate change deniers. Your solution, move the crops around and let humans evolve to survive
You don't get it, really, you just don't get it. It isn't that simple. A billion refugees, billions more starving, what are you going to do about them? And do you realize how warm it got during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum? Do you recognize that we are now exceeding the parameters that set up the epoch?
Geez! "Move peach trees to Ohio and apples to Newfoundland"
Guess what, we're already growing peaches in Ohio and apples in Newfoundland, the climate has already changed that much.
Get a clue, do some research, and next time, weigh the benefits of an issue on the merit of its actual arguments, not on who presents them.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)and grapes in Great Britain...
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)is coming out in? Tundra up here. Frankly, we can talk about more than one issue. this is important because Mad Hound is right. We are not going to save ourselves. I am sitting here in alaska in shirt sleeve weather in Sept. No ice, snow or freezing cold.
hatrack
(64,846 posts)
Oh, and this just in - atmospheric methane concentrations have more than doubled above the highest levels in about 450,000 years of glacial core records, and have done so in about the last 50 years.
Research and merchant ships (yes) crossing the Arctic Ocean are now reporting areas half a mile or more across where the sea surface is bubbling with methane releases.
But by all means, keep on talking about colonizing other planets, or climate-cooling balloon releases, or how "doom and gloom" all these discussions are.
Have a nice day!
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Ignore/minimize it in the press, unleash a bunch of anti-climate trolls and the problem goes away...right??...RIGHT????
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)I'll cut to the chase....
Severe climate change will lead to world wide droughts and food shortages. That means millions, billions of humans will STARVE TO DEATH. Children will starve to death.
Sleep tight.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And rice patties in Siberia? You know what's up there, right? The Russian and Canadian arboreal regions, known as Taiga, are often called the lungs of the world - as much or moreso than the Amazon and the temperate rainforests.
Rice patties in Siberia likely means the cutting down of trees in that region.
You can do the math from there.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)But I suspect you are not. There will be a lot of migration and death. I read a DOD report on it years ago so the military thinks it will be bad.
Yes small pockets of people may survive... or not. No way to tell, but your way of thinking guarantees the worst case scenario IMO. We need
a huge plan and we need to start it now. The climate change scientists are not so blase and talking about it is just zones moving further north.
patrice
(47,992 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)anymore? Could you maybe make a list of 'safe' topics for us weak-minded, non-thinking morons so we don't stray into the dangerous territory of actually thinking about anything at all.
I look forward to being saved from stumbling into discussing the forbidden, which appears to be just about anything these days.
A list of 'safe' reading material would be helpful also and while we're at it, a list of authors on the Left who should be banned too.
Thanks in advance! No one wants to talk about things that are forbidden, but we definitely need a list!
marybourg
(13,635 posts)invitable that we humans would despoil our birth planet and would have to move on if we are to survive.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But given our progress in the space program, frankly I don't think it will save us.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Check out this article.
Emphasis NOT mine!
I know this may still be a ways off, but it is actually possible that we are only a few decades away from becoming a true, spacefaring species. And THAT has me about as pumped up as a sci-fi geek can get.
Sorry, not trying to derail the discussion, just thought I'd mention it.
theKed
(1,235 posts)Projects in the works, or mothballed, along this line of thought - "warp drive" being the most far-fetched.
Project OrionProject Orion - a design by Freeman Dyson back in 1958 is capable of moving up to 8 million tonnes of material to Mars in 4 weeks, or as an interstellar ark. He even speculated on making the drive-plate out of uranium to supply nuclear fuel upon landing. The propulsion system, though, leaves this as a last-ditch escape plan, most likely, or something built in orbit.
Lunar Solar Array - blast a few self-replicating robots onto the surface of the moon to refine materials, and build a massive solar array belt around its equator, and beam energy back to earth. A bit far-fetched, but the sheep amount of energy produced could stave off environmental damage, or help fuel...
Project ValkyrieProject Valkyrie - a bit more speculative, this one is a very far-fetched idea since it requires something in the range of 400 tons of anti-matter. On the other hand, it can produce speeds of up to 0.98c (98% of the speed of light). The advantage of this over warp-drive is that, since you're actually going that fast (rather than just distorting space), relativistic time-dilation makes the trip ridiculously short for the travellers.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Earth becoming wasteland is a very good incentive.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)into a decent earth, complete with all requisite biofeedback mechanisms, atmospheric requirements, nutritional requirements, ecology, what have you, then to simply stop effing up earth. 
Hmmmm...why do I not believe that?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,170 posts)All the talk of "to space! We can live so much easier on an airless planet that is far colder/warmer than we need, than just fix a much smaller temperature/atmosphere problem here" is always a red herring in these discussions.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)We'll be one more, and in good company.
randome
(34,845 posts)The same can't be said for animal life.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)in order to survive. Our uniqueness is our large brain, which has given us culture and everything that goes along with it, and will probably prove the instrument of our demise. We will not survive to see the end of the universe, and probably not the end of the earth.
randome
(34,845 posts)If we can get past climate change, it is still possible we may thrive and settle other worlds.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Sadly, I'm not quite totally optimistic. China will probably keep letting the oligarchs build factories until it implodes in an extremely bloody mess causing tens of millions of deaths and who knows how many more refugees. The summer ice up in the North Pole very well could be gone by 2016-2017. And worst of all, many species have become extinct, most of which can never be brought back, ever.
On the other hand, we are already seeing a massive awakening amongst the members of the public.....so there IS hope. We just need to implement the solutions, and preferably quickly.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)that we are intelligent enough to alter our environment on a massive scale while denying that we are doing it.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)...in his second term, and really change the dialogue, and the action, on climate change, most of the change and hope -- which wouldn't include trashing the 4th Amendment or busting up medical marijuana dispensaries -- will be sadly for naught.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Which is highly unlikely, a good chunk of the country simply won't follow him. Not to mention nothing about the rest of the world. It would take a crash program, involving the efforts of every single person on this planet, starting tomorrow, to stave off this disaster.
That simply isn't going to happen.
villager
(26,001 posts)....which is just as unlikely as every single person, I suppose.
We'll have to see how the upcoming traumatizing events of climate change play out, and what kinds of reactions they provoke in the species as a whole...
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)The National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that we could provide 80% of our power needs using renewable energy by 2050, using today’s technologies.
And there are a variety of policies that would not only make that affordable, it would make it one of our best opportunities for creating jobs.
Strategies like lengthening the amortization period and lowering interest rates on renewable energy could make the cost per month to consumers less than conventional power in many states.
Allowing efficiency and on-site renewables to bid into forward capacity markets makes clean energy competitive with even the cheapest and dirtiest fossil fuel power for utilities.
Feed-in tariffs assure that renewables will pay for themselves.
And fuel standards could be raised to 50 mpg – something that is achievable with several cars now available. And improved batteries have made EVs practical.
Taxing embedded carbon on imports would force exporters to lower carbon emissions, eliminating the fear of foreign “free-riders.”
Agricultural polices could make our farms and forests carbon sinks – actually removing carbon from the atmosphere – while improving the quality and sustainability of our food supplies and soils.
So, yes, we can meet this challenge, if we haven’t bumbled into positive feedbacks like some planetary-scale Inspector Clouseau.
--so this is what we need to be pushing for in the second Obama term
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Unless Apophis hits North America or something, we'll all still be here. Of course, there's always that chance.......
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)out of 7 billion 
We still have time to change course unless we just give up and let the ship hit the pier
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Last time you posted this gloom and doom they were at he Democratic Convention.
This morning I awoke to a thread announcing that Obama had killed 800,000 Pakistanis in drone attacks, supposedly backed up by a prestigious university study- only to find out that it wasn't true.
And now this little bit of cheer. So where in the world are Skinner, EarlG and Waldo this time? We know Elad is here holding down the fort so DU won't implode.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Seriously, this is what I posted this morning.
""Living Under Drones, a new report from Stanford and New York universities, was a difficult piece of fieldwork – I was with the law students in Peshawar as they tried to interview victims of the CIA's drone war. But it has made an important contribution to the drone debate by identifying the innocent victims of the CIA's reign of terror: the entire civilian population of Waziristan (roughly 800,000 people). "
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/25-2
Nowhere does that say that Obama had killed 800,000 people, but rather the use of drones terrorizes the entire population of Waziristan, much like the 9/11 attacks terrorized 300 million people in this country.
But wait, you already know all of this, you're simply being an ass because I post about things that you don't like. Thus, your objective is to trash anything that I post, whether it has to do with Obama, politics, or completely unrelated topics like this one. Sad, really, that you can't argue facts and resort to this kind of slime tactic instead.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Just keep digging that hole there Devon, just keep digging.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)
Agony
(2,605 posts)that
Javaman
(65,694 posts)Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.
Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history.
Not that our leaders seemed to notice. Last month the world's nations, meeting in Rio for the 20th-anniversary reprise of a massive 1992 environmental summit, accomplished nothing. Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn't even attend. It was "a ghost of the glad, confident meeting 20 years ago," the British journalist George Monbiot wrote; no one paid it much attention, footsteps echoing through the halls "once thronged by multitudes." Since I wrote one of the first books for a general audience about global warming way back in 1989, and since I've spent the intervening decades working ineffectively to slow that warming, I can say with some confidence that we're losing the fight, badly and quickly – losing it because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in.
When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math. For the past year, an easy and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by financial analysts in the U.K. has been making the rounds of environmental conferences and journals, but it hasn't yet broken through to the larger public. This analysis upends most of the conventional political thinking about climate change. And it allows us to understand our precarious – our almost-but-not-quite-finally hopeless – position with three simple numbers.
Much much more at link...
Berlum
(7,044 posts)Their willful destructive lying about climate has caused this mess, and made it far worse.
Republicans gonna suffer a Massive Crap Attack of Karma for the EeeeeVil they have perpetrated in service to greed and fear.
EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)is studying us and hopefully learning something of value.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)The look on their faces will be precious when they realize it simply makes them a bigger target.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)
librechik
(30,957 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Scientists have been warning us for 40 years that I know of.
You've demonstrated the real problem right here. To most people nothing is real until it effects them personally. The GOP have lived on this defect for decades.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)scientists have been warning us with with statements like these from 1970:
[div class = 'excerpt']“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
]“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
Stanford's Paul Ehrlich announces that the sky is falling.
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)johnlucas
(1,250 posts)They're human beings. They make mistakes. They make errors. They jump to wrong conclusions.
There is no starvation problem because of Food Shortage.
There IS a Food Distrubtion problem because of greedy people hoarding everything away from those who don't have anything.
THAT'S true.
But there is no food shortage whatsoever.
There's enough food on this planet to make all 7 billion people here 700 pounds obese.
I'm sympathetic to the oil concern & we really need to find a better energy source than that.
But a lot of this is misguided Chicken Little crap.
We're more resourceful than the Chicken Littles give us credit for & so is the Earth & its habitats.
It's a bunch of half-knowledge & half-knowledge is dangerous.
People like to disparage religious figures for their hyperbole.
But scientific figures can be just as prone to that kind of hyperbole.
It's not a matter of religion vs. science.
It's a matter of monkey-brained humankind, plain & simple.
If we don't learn how to adapt to the Earth changes, we won't survive.
The only constant is Change.
Take it from a guy who loves his routine to tell you best.
I like to plan & put down roots & secure everything...but ultimately I know I can't marry myself to that alone.
I better learn how to roll with punches every once & awhile.
It's hard for me deal with when things change so trust me when I tell ya.
Can't always lock everything down. Better learn to be flexible & adaptable when the situation calls for it.
John Lucas
P.S.: Sometimes a homeless man on the street knows more than an esteemed professional with a college degree.
Knowledge is owned by NO ONE.
DinahMoeHum
(23,600 posts). . .and the ones with big $$$ find out too late that they're no exception.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Not to mention a world where life as we know it is a viable possibility. Better than a steaming pile of dirt where ninety eight percent of the world's species are extinct and it is going to take tens of millions of years for the planet to recover to the point where lots of life is actually viable
DinahMoeHum
(23,600 posts). . .just as it has survived the dinosaurs.
"Saving the planet" is a misnomer, anyway. It really is about saving ourselves as a human race. When push comes to shove, I think people will unite and do their part, but with nature (human and otherwise) being what it is, there is NO guarantee of that.
Still, to concede a point, we do have to try.
longship
(40,416 posts)The planet's doing fine. It's humans which are going away.
Maybe the planet just needed plastic.
SunSeeker
(58,263 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)not even the cockroaches will survive...only, maybe, the kind of microbes that live in the hot springs in Yellowstone.
bluedigger
(17,434 posts)There is a difference between the long term viability of our current civilization and the survival of the human species, you know. Humans are remarkably adaptable and hard to kill off en masse. It's a judgment call whether the succeeding civilization will be inferior or superior to the one we presently participate in, but change is inevitable, whether or not climate change is the main driver.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)There is so much denial going on that only proves that any attempt to reverse course and save the human race from extinction would be resisted strenuously from all sides of the political spectrum.
Nobody wants to believe that the human race is doomed to near-term extinction, and therefore almost nobody will even allow themselves to believe it, and therefore, nothing will be done in time, and therefore, the human race is doomed to near-term extinction.
We had a nice run. Wish it could have lasted longer, but alas, greed won out over wisdom in the end. And so I guess we're a flawed species that doesn't deserve to survive after all.
panader0
(25,816 posts)Damn, DU has more influence than I ever dreamt possible.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)In the grand scheme of things DU has little or no influence whatsoever. But the attitudes expressed here are symptomatic of the broader problem of denial.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)it's a symptom that is effecting our ability as a nation and global community from taking measures against this shit.
WestWisconsinDem
(127 posts)Great. That just makes my day.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,316 posts)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)rhetoric. If people, including yourself, actually belived "that the human race is doomed to near-term extinction" then why would they call for any sort of action to reverse that? Those who believe we are doomed would find any efforts absurd, the conclusion is forgone, we are doomed. Doomed does not mean 'in peril' or 'great danger' it means doomed, finished, all hope is gone. Why would you even ask people to take action if they are doomed anyway?
But if you do think we are in great peril and would like there to be action in response to the peril, telling folks you think we are doomed is just not a motivation for most. "Do lots of hard things, although it will do no good, you are doomed anyway." Good luck selling that one....
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)And I hope I'm wrong, I really do.
But mostly I just go on with my life as if I don't believe what I think I probably should believe.
Most importantly, however, I refuse to take myself too seriously. That's just too heavy a trip.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)You pretty much hit the nail on the head here. 
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Near-term extinction? GTFO!
On the Road
(20,783 posts)It's like the articles predicting the meltdown of the stock market that have appeared every single week like clockwork since the great depression. There always seems to be a new class of people that take these things seriously.
Javaman
(65,694 posts)Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.
Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history.
Not that our leaders seemed to notice. Last month the world's nations, meeting in Rio for the 20th-anniversary reprise of a massive 1992 environmental summit, accomplished nothing. Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn't even attend. It was "a ghost of the glad, confident meeting 20 years ago," the British journalist George Monbiot wrote; no one paid it much attention, footsteps echoing through the halls "once thronged by multitudes." Since I wrote one of the first books for a general audience about global warming way back in 1989, and since I've spent the intervening decades working ineffectively to slow that warming, I can say with some confidence that we're losing the fight, badly and quickly – losing it because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in.
When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math. For the past year, an easy and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by financial analysts in the U.K. has been making the rounds of environmental conferences and journals, but it hasn't yet broken through to the larger public. This analysis upends most of the conventional political thinking about climate change. And it allows us to understand our precarious – our almost-but-not-quite-finally hopeless – position with three simple numbers.
much more at link...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In the worst-case climate change scenarios, humanity would easily survive.
Not with the current number of humans, but dropping to 3 billion people is hardly "extinction".
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)This OP only "proves" that most of us have far too much time on our hands.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)The fact that we've built our whole society around CARS. This makes it extremely difficult to cut out CO2 emissions. Deep down, people equate CO2 reductions with driving less or who made the choice to live in the exurbs, and those whose egos are tied up in their cars don't want to do that.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Oh, the glee of the "righteous"!
Warpy
(114,602 posts)as barely arable land near the equator becomes desert. Weakened by starvation, they'll become more susceptible to disease and we all know disease travels fast these days.
Stingy first worlders will see their own resources dwindling as food crops fail and first animal protein and then vegetable protein start to skyrocket in price. They will increasingly dole out things like health care according to wealth status even in countries with national health insurance, making sure disease takes hold universally, even among people who aren't starving yet.
Predictions that the human population will be down by a third within the next century are optimistic, IMO. It won't start here but it is going to be very ugly.
And it's not the CO2 any more. It's the methane the warming from the CO2 is liberating from sea beds and permafrost areas. The CO2 made us sweat. The methane will cook us.
defacto7
(14,162 posts)Without the dialogue and the argument we get apathetic.
Doom and gloom or not, a few people are talking about doing something, weighing the data, keeping the seriousness of the subject in the forefront. Sounds good to me.
If you are a pure objective type, you know the OP is right just by the measure of data and history. If you are a subjective type, a fighter, a dreamer, you aren't going to let some gloom keep you down.
I say... keep up the rhetoric, fight, argue and piss... who knows, maybe we'll make a new world that isn't subject to the objective data. But the "maybe not" is still a present danger, it doesn't have to be coffin nail, it can be a game changer.
Warpy
(114,602 posts)and always has been, so I suppose that makes me one of the dreamers.
However, I don't have the conceit it's going to make a lot of difference in the long run. I think we can slow the process down but I no longer think we can stop it.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The one thing we know for sure is the longer we wait the harder this job will be. And frankly, I'm not optimistic about the entire world following up on this: the West may be able to do it(especially much of Europe!), and maybe Japan and Australia + N.Z. too.....unfortunately, though, India's a tough nut to crack and China will probably end up imploding before any major changes happen there. And a civil war in today's China might put serious strain on America's economy once again, and possibly worse than before!
And if China does implode, and it could be within 5-6 years possibly, there could be tens of millions of deaths and tens and tens of millions more refugees. On the other hand, it will remove perhaps the largest non-corporate obstacle to climate progress.....so, take what you will out of that.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)There is NO food shortage on this planet.
Just a food distribution blockage.
Very simple to solve & no one has to starve.
These are geopolitical problems. Solvable geopolitical problems.
We don't look after our fellow man & woman like we should & that's why people suffer.
Lick that problem & we'll be fine.
You gotta share baby & quit putting necessities like food through the profit system. That's all.
The human population CAN be reduced by a third.
Doesn't mean it WILL be reduced by a third.
Too many Chicken Littles around here.
I know they mean well but they are really getting carried away.
John Lucas
Warpy
(114,602 posts)and will be far less inclined to do so when our own food supply is under stress from climate change.
Oh, it's nice to dream of a perfect world but it didn't happen when we were overproducing food and it sure as hell won't happen when we're underproducing it.
And stop acting like I have control of anything but my own larder. I don't.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)So this is good news for them. They will finally get their salvation. Unfortunately they form a powerful voting block for the fossil fuel boys.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Jesus will beam them up to Heaven. Of couse, that will be enough. No questions asked like, what have to done in your life for your fellow man?
On the Road
(20,783 posts)Evangelicals salivate for the rapture. Environmentalists salivate for environmental catastrophe.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)Every year, from the present day right up until they are not longer able to speak, climate scientists will say, over and over, with every new measurement, "nobody expected it to happen this fast." or "This goes way beyond what any of our models predicted."
2014-2015 will see spreading food riots, and possibly "mall riots" in developed countries over rising prices of food and other essentials.
2016-2018 the planetary weather will really star falling apart in a big way. Greenland ice will begin melting at a much faster pace and some low-lying coastal communities will be abandoned due to rising sea levels.
By 2020 world population will be plummeting and economies around the world will be collapsing, if they haven't already collapsed starting in 2016. Florida will be under water.
By 2030, if the planet stabilizes at a new normal that is survivable, the remaining hunter-gatherer tribes will be scattered thinly about the remaining habitable land. If too many tipping points have been passed then by 2040-2050 at the latest, most life, and certainly all mammalian life on planet earth will be extinct.
Or, maybe not. Who knows?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Not a decade. And it's $10 a pop. Pony up with a year and a dime if you want in.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)WestWisconsinDem
(127 posts)Should I euthanize my family too? Just asking...
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)And once we win Wisconsin, you'll have calmed down. Personally, I think this news, as well as the end of the Packer game, have just been too much to handle in a day.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)They might be wrong. And even if they are right, they might have missed the target date by a century or two.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to short term extinction. When you type those words you are typing 'there is no hope'. Doomed means without hope. And you keep insisting that those who do not agree that we are doomed- in the short term- are in denial. Doomed does not mean 'in peril' nor 'increasing danger', it means the deal is done.
I took great issue with your use of that word upthread, and here you are claiming you don't really mean doomed, you mean keep hope, take action. The ease with which people use language of elimination of all that we love is symptomatic of the same lack of balance that causes our environmental destruction.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)porphyrian
(18,530 posts)Some people will watch the train hit them. Some people will get the hell out of the way. A few people may even try to stop the train.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)If I believed this "we are doomed" shit I would have shot myself a long time ago.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)how people who otherwise show enormous empathy with the disadvantaged and have an unwavering commitment to human rights suddenly become callous and atavistic when discussing "the planet."
Iggo
(49,921 posts)Jessy169
(602 posts)I've read many predictions on global warming effects. In general, the predictions go from screwed to totally screwed. This post would be somewhere near the top of "totally screwed" -- maybe even in a brand new category -- "totally fucking screwed".
I wonder if articles like this make people reading them cop an attitude of " fuck it, it's all over with anyway, why vote, why even try". I doubt it, and I hope not. We fail automatically if we stop trying and stop hoping for a better future.
I am about 100% sure that the U.S. and no doubt other governments are preparing for global warming worst case scenario. Articles that I've read in scientific websites and other places speculate on vast underground dwellings being constructed that will run off of the ample supplies of sunshine. A sufficient sampling of the population will be saved in worst case scenario to ensure survival of the human race -- needless to say, there will only be enough room for the best, the brightest, and the healthiest. If it comes down to this, there is a bright side. That is, the human race that one day emerges from that underground sanctuary will stand a good chance of being a vastly superior group of humans than exist on the planet currently, taken in their entirety. It could be a new beginning.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)Basically, if all the governments in the world bust their asses to hold global warming to 2-3 degree celsius (and this would mean a massive cut back in fossil fuel emissions to pre-1990s levels) we would get away with drought, famine, hundreds of thousands of people dying or being displaced and something like 10-20% of the species on the planet going extinct. This is actually the best case scenario run by the Stern Report which was commissioned by the UK government, written by an economist and is relatively conservative. And as the OP correctly points out, holding global warming to this scenario requires a literally unprecedented and frankly unlikely level of international cooperation and coordination. It requires national governments acting against their own best interests and many, many people in the first world accepting significantly more primitive living conditions.
The actual worst case scenario is Earth turns into Venus. People don't survive on Venus- not even in underground caves. And the tipping point for the worst case scenario is so close most peoples' brains literally will not process it.
I think good stuff is being done, but I'm skeptical if it's enough good stuff and if it isn't already too late. Every second we waste means turning things around will be more and more expensive and unlikely. We're getting into serious hail mary territory in terms of technological innovation and the remaining resources to implement solutions. And an obscene number of f'in Congresspeople still won't accept that global warming is happening in the first place.
And as one of the poor people who will probably starve to death, I don't take a hell of a lot of comfort that the "best and the brightest" will be breeding a super-race underground. I'd much rather walk to work, eat beans, not have too many kids and stop buying useless shit now. If only I could trust my fellow 7,068,682,000 citizens to do the same... but how when most of them won't accept the reality of the trouble we're in?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)2-3 degrees Celsius may be somewhat optimistic, that I can agree with(because it's probably true), but Earth isn't going to turn into Venus. Not at all(seriously. Question anyone who says otherwise, especially if they mean it literally.).....but then again, the most plausible actual worst-case scenarios do have us warming up to 6-7, maybe even 8*C by 2100 if the "business as usual" stuff continues and if all the worst plausible feedbacks come to light, AND nothing is done to mitigate it; that's already a true disaster right there.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)political indictment of the poster.
& R
countryjake
(8,554 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 25, 2012, 10:15 PM - Edit history (1)
We will still be here. Let's be realistic about this:
Humanity has suffered disasters, worse than global warming.....most notably Toba, the effects of which killed all but tens of thousands of our ancestors in perhaps less than half a decade, or thereabouts. Hell, life, period, has gone thru disasters worse than what global warming has been or will ever be: even the K/T event wasn't enough to kill all life on Earth, and it was far worse than the Permian event. We won't even come close to the latter.....but then again, that may not be such a good thing.
Even with drastic carbon cuts in this century, we could still reach around 4*C(perhaps 6-7*C if business as usual continues.) if the absolute worst of the plausible worst-case scenarios do pan out(which they may not.). We have reached just under 1*C and some species are already having a hard time(though deforestation, mountaintop removal, etc. has made the damage far worse in many regions), and the weather is already screwing up. Things sadly will get worse before they get better.
And what doesn't help, are those few but extremely vocal self-satisfied whiners and do-nothings like John Atcheson, Guy McPherson, etc.(and the somewhat naive, though usually well-meaning folks who happen to agree with them for whatever reason), who keep baying on and on about this Armageddon nonsense, how humanity will go extinct and Earth will turn into Venus, which is every bit as unproductive as the propaganda of lying, self-deluded, etc. deniers like Watts Up With That, Chris Monckton, etc.(and the crooks who enable them, i.e. the Koch Bros.), claiming that global warming is a New World Order hoax, etc.; all it does is help turn the public off(as if Big Energy agitprop wasn't bad enough!) and it makes the jobs of people like Peter Sinclair, and the folks over at Skeptical Science that much harder.
And frankly, I'm a little disappointed in Common Dreams for publishing this poorly written piece(albeit with a few occasional good points, it may be granted) of pop literature, mainly because they've done so good in the past. I really do hope this isn't the start of a trend.
Hey, I'm sorry, but I've had my fill of Revelations-type crap for the week. Okay? And I'm not alone, either. 
Delphinus
(12,519 posts)I had not heard the 392 part yet - yikes!
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)I am in my mid-50s. I know things will continue to worsen during my lifetime but may not be catastrophic by the time I croak. I do worry about my nephews, their families and those that come after them.
Mankind may be ingenious but their ingenuity will ultimately lead to their annihilation.
kurt_cagle
(534 posts)CO2 cycle has a lifespan of about 100 years. Methane cycle has a lifespan of about 30 years. Biggest danger to humanity is not from heat (at least not at first) it's from ever more vicious weather. Global oil production has peaked already (2007), and we will probably reach a point where oil is out of the economy by 2035. NatGas may last another ten years after that. Coal will become the dominant power source by 2050, which will increase carbon densities.
Clathrates are beginning to sublimate now, by 2050, methane will be the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Sea level rises, Category 10 hurricanes, Class 8 tornadoes and extreme droughts and flooding will be the norm. At that point, the weather is too intensive to sustain anything beyond an iron age economy. This will have an interesting consequence however. Clathrate sublimation will cascade in a positive feedback loop that will likely last for 30-40 years, but it's worth noting that the Earth is naturally in a very long term cooling cycle. Human contributions to GW will have ceased by 2060, and the amount of clathrates is limited. Without that additional contribution, the methane cycle washes most of the methane out of the atmosphere by 2100. By 2160, the carbon cycle will have also washed out the oversaturated CO2 out of the atmosphere. By that time, humankind has been reduced to small bands of stone-age wanderers, perhaps as little as 10,000 people on the whole planet. Of course, this will likely have also tipped the planet back into an ice age, for which those 10,000 people, used to 140 degree summers, will be ill prepared for.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Category 10 hurricanes? Fujita Class 8 tornadoes? Not going to happen. And we won't be reduced to 10,000 either, barring some truly apocalyptic disasters like Apophis hitting the Earth, Yellowstone AND Toba going off, on top of the worst case global warming, all at the same time.
Keep in mind that Toba was more destructive, and far more sudden, that AGW. And we managed to survive with tens of thousands of our ancestors making it through the bottleneck, out of a population that can't have been much more than about a hundredth of today's.
On the other hand, as for extreme droughts and flooding, I'm afraid that not only are they plausible but they're happening now, I think.
Also, Kurt, I have indeed been fascinated with the theory that AGW may, in the very long term, actually lead to a significant cooling period under the right conditions......can you show me some research in that regard? I'd be happy to look at it. =)
ibegurpard
(17,081 posts)in many more ways than this
countryjake
(8,554 posts)No, not your post and the excellent article you've linked us to, but cause of the flippancy with which so many have always responded to the mere suggestion that we, as responsible stewards of our planet, must "depart from this course", immediately.
Granted, the tone of things seems exceedingly dour these days, and the criticisms fly willy-nilly simply because of that, but they come so fast every time an article with any tone of serious urgency comes out, then with condemnations of crazed frenzy or unnecessary hysteria, even when good, possible solutions are suggested....such indifference shows we have little chance of any hope, at all.
I mourn for the birds.
flamingdem
(40,886 posts)Change always starts with a small group of committed people.
What is lacking in this area is creative leadership.
Maybe we could do something.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Hey it ain't much but its better than nothing I figure.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)I've always believed that eventually time travel would be worked out, but it that were true, we'd be seeing time travelers coming back to this time, which we don't.
So it probably means humans don't survive long enough to figure out time travel.
Darn.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)Why is that?
Because Time is a human-made system to measure Change.
Time cannot be measured without constants.
We based our time systems on the rise & fall of the Sun on Earth's horizon and the rise & fall of the Moon on Earth's horizon.
Either Solar or Lunar calendars we made since the Sun & Moon come up in consistent patterns that can be tracked & measured.
The only way to go back in time is to rewind the clock backwards.
There! You just went back in time!
There is only Change which goes on its own accord.
That's why some 40 year olds look like 25 year olds & some 40 year olds look like 55 year olds.
It's because their biological changes run on their own accord.
Some are baby faced while some are haggard.
That's why some people get gray hair when they're young.
We associate gray hair with aging because we seen the constant of gray hair emerging when people age.
But gray hair is not always necessarily a marker of age.
And some older folks have NO gray hair.
This wish to go back in time comes from human regret.
Because hindsight is 20/20 we wish we could go back do things differently to affect how we are in the now-time.
We regret losing our youth, we regret causing harm to another, we regret missing opportunities, we regret the deaths of our loved ones & wish we can go back to fix the past for the benefit of ourselves in the present.
That show Quantum Leap (one of my favorites) always said "To set right what once went wrong".
I love the sentiment myself. But it will always remain Science Fiction.
The Past is just Now with a different arrangement of the elements.
A different patchwork of changes.
You can always talk with older speaking patterns & idioms, use older technology, dress in older fashions.
But you will always be in the Now.
Time is just a measurement of Change.
And the only TRUE constant IS Change.
John Lucas
Kennah
(14,578 posts)With that said, 80 to 90 percent of humans dying because of heat, starvation, disease, water wars, and the like will be, in technical terms, seriously fucked up shit.
Humans will cause a great many other species to go extinct, but we will survive. 70 kya we survived Toba in the Middle Paleolithic with stone and bone tools. As a species, we will survive this.
With any luck, we will learn from this. I'm really hoping we domesticate large cats. I love dogs, but a 100 pound cat would be one bad assed pet. Now, if someone domesticates a honey badger, well shit, you're set because honey badger don't care.
My hope, at age 45, is that a collapse does not happen for at least another 13 years. My youngest would be 16, so he'd stand a better chance of making it. If we went another 24 years before civilization collapsed, he could perhaps have a Ph.D. and be $3 million dollars in debt for student loans. Can't think of a better time for a collapse. College educated and debt free.
renie408
(9,854 posts)I just want the shit to wait awhile before hitting the fan.
But then it will be my grandchildren dealing with it. It is so sad that my almost 17-year-old daughter asked me the other day if I thought she should have children because "what kind of world would they live in, Mom?" I just told her to cross that bridge in another ten years or so. By then we should have a better idea of what is going to happen and when.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)3 1/2 years until I retire and it'll take me about 1 1/2 years to get set up someplace where I'm a little carbon-neutral flyspeck that nobody will ever notice.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)renie408
(9,854 posts)If, as you say, our destruction is eminent and unavoidable, I will stick to worrying about the things I can do something about.
We need a mass die off anyway. That sounds horrible and I don't want MY people to be the ones to go, but the human race is too much for this planet to sustain in its present numbers. Til then, I am going to keep doing the best that I can with the things I CAN influence.
So, that is fairly depressing to acknowledge first thing on a Wednesday.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Which ones need to 'die off' as you put it?
MzShellG
(1,047 posts)Yet people considered it a conspiracy theory. And many still won't acknowledge that we were forewarned by the Mayan prophecies. I knew that a lot of info about this topic would start leaking out in 2012 & the years leading up to it. All we can do at this point is get our houses in order & prepare for the worst.
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)Mankind (or it's leaders in secret) could decide in order to stop the methane release and runaway greenhouse effect, to use an asteroid to trigger a mini ice age like the younger dryas. This would kill off most of the population but the resulting freeze would seal in the methane and allow the planet to come back into balance on it's own over a period of 2000 years or so. I know it's a wild thought and would probably make a great scifi movie but near extinction is better than total extinction.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Cheney's finger hovers over the button...
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)
defacto7
(14,162 posts)but the fact that Yellowstone in on top of one of the earth's largest Calderas which is known to be the kind that all by itself can implode causing an eruption that would make Krakatoa look like a firecracker. Yeah that would do it... although it would probably wipe out all life on planet borrow cockroaches.
Blessed be the Cockroaches, for they shall inherit the earth.
is near extinction better than total extinction? Especially if only ones surviving are guys like Dr. Strangelove, Romney, etc. as you suggest?
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)While tropical and temperate zones would shrink they would not disappear altogether. And don't forget about the wildlife that would also be saved. When you're talking about a disaster where more than 95% species are wiped out then near extinction is better than total extinction for obvious reasons.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... I could say you are entirely wrong, however I can't. Worse yet, is the amount of denial I see in this thread.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
I'm thinking that we should consider taking this idea of stopping the end of the world a bit "Furthur", rather than just than just throwing up our hands in despair and admitting defeat.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If we throw in the towel now, after the progress we have made, then guess who benefits? Not us, the 99.9%, that's for sure.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Got any good welding gear?
old timber, car parts, small engines, whatever... I have a truck and trailer
MitchS
(4 posts)I remember reading somewhere that earth is not the only planet warming. That global warming was natural and that all we were doing was speeding up the process. Also is this really the thing we should be worried about? What about the supervolcano below yellowstone? If that blows it would be bigger then a nuclear blast. Or if the fault line California is on gives way and falls into the ocean causing a massive tsunami that would kill on both sides of the ocean?
The point is that global warming isn't the largest of our worries. Earth is a violent planet. We have been extremely lucky nothing has happened to us yet. It's only a matter of time before something bigger kills us. Hell, there's a bigger chance of a nuclear war happening before global warming gets us all. The best we can do is ride it out until the earth bucks us off.
I'm only 17. I don't expect to live to be 50 with the way the earth looks now. And I know it isn't global warming that's going to cause it.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)The National Weather Service has only been around since 1870 & people are freaking out about the changes that have gone on since that 150 year period.
The Earth ALWAYS changes & always WILL change.
We just have to build better civilizations that can better withstand those changes.
All I see when I hear people wigging out about Global Warming is Egos run amok.
WE'RE the cause of Earth's changes. WE rule the Earth.
No the Earth rules US. Always has. Always will.
At our current level of technology we can't withstand much of anything at an Extinction Level Event status.
The only reason life formed on this planet is because Earth was JUST STABLE ENOUGH, JUST STILL ENOUGH for the mold to form.
Think of water you leave sitting unmoved for a period of time. All kinds of creatures start popping up in those still waters.
Keep the waters moving & no mold, no wiggly-wigglies can set up shop.
Earth was JUST still enough, JUST warm enough yet JUST cool enough to allow life to form.
It's the Goldilocks planet where the porridge is just right.
But every planet is nothing more than a cooled off star piece.
Stars are turbulent combustion engines of elements. Violent raging balls of fire.
Planets are just smaller cooler version of stars.
4 states of matter from hottest to coldest: Plasma, Gas, Liquid, Solid.
Our Earth's crust & mantle are just the cooler exteriors of a hotter core.
Same elements except in a cooler state so the molecules tighten up becoming solids.
Gas erupts into the air from the Earth's inside becoming our atmosphere then cools down becoming liquids like our bodies of water.
But the fact that we have eruptions like volcanoes (both above ground & below sea) & crust/mantle shaking earthquakes is because like all baby stars Earth is a violent raging ball of fire inside.
The videogame Super Mario Galaxy pretty much spells out how the universe's galaxies & solar systems form.
All those little Star Bits that become all different sorts of planets.
And everytime Mario gets a Starman he becomes invincible to the touch.
You can't get up close to a Star like our Sun, can you?
I'm more worried about geopolitical destruction to humanity for our short-term future. Wars & stuff.
All we have to do on the ecological plane is create better balance with the barely stable Earth we live on.
Before we even THINK of trying to "Save the Planet" we better learn to get along with each other first.
John Lucas
stuntcat
(12,022 posts)I had already been learning about environmental stuff for decades, watching as the predictions came true, the extinctions sped up, and everyone around me kept ignoring it, consuming like there's no tomorrow.
Some comments here are depressingly stupid and embarrassing.
I already know that most humans can't fathom how our population has jumped and what it means.
I already know that most do not mind wiping out species who were perfectly suited for this world and who've been here way longer than ours.
I already know that most can't imagine past next year, or put our present time in perspective.
I already know that most will not change anything about their consumption, no matter what it could mean.
If I haven't already lost hope in humanity then the comments here from fellow Democrats would make me sad.
One species convinced itself that it's godlike, then it's causing one of the fastest mass-extinctions the planet's ever had.
Our tiny cell of life that's zooming through space is being trashed, it's so cosmically wrong to me. It almost makes me believe in Evil.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Sure, they won't be for a while, but CO2 is a necessary component in photosynthesis and methane gas is flammable, combustible and therefore an energy source (which produces CO2 as a byproduct).
CO2 is water soluble so if we required automobiles to capture it, store it in water and dump the solution each time we fueled up we would not only reduce the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere we would be creating a new product (an acid). With a small amount of adjustment to our daily routine; we would begin reducing CO2 buildup in the atmosphere without requiring higher mileage.
The coal power plants in India and China can be retrofitted with concentrated solar power and methane. Coal power plants convert heat energy to electric energy; concentrated solar power is heat energy. Heat energy can be created from combusting methane gas. Put the methane gas generating 'problems' near the power plant and a device that takes advantage of photosynthesis (lets call these 'devices' food) near the exhaust of the methane gas generating plants and you've reduced the methane gas, the CO2 and the hunger problems.
The solutions are out there; what is missing is the political will to make it happen.
I remember when there was a huge concern because of the 'projectant' used in aerosol cans (refrigerant). It was creating a hole in the ozone (probably still is). The point is: when the solution was forced upon industry by the government; not only did they discontinue the forbidden practice, they were in compliance before the deadline.
We are right to be concerned, and point out the dangers, but don't get overwhelmed by the dismal projections. We can turn this around and will; if we push the issue to the forefront.
This is the moon mission of our time.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)250 pounds of CO2 gas. So you're going to capture that by forcing the exhaust gas through water?
And the methane that worries everyone is seeping out of just about the whole region north of the Arctic Circle...
Where are people getting these "I could fix this with some backyard tinkering" memes? Are the RW radio hacks spreading this bullshit?
Blanks
(4,835 posts)There's 250 lbs of CO2 in a tank of gasoline that weighs at most 80 lbs? (a gallon of water weighs about 8 lbs so 10 gallons of gasoline which no doubt has a lower specific gravity than water would be less than 80 lbs). That sounds more like magic than science.
Are the right wing hacks spreading this shit?
No mostly the environmental engineering community. There are study questions for the Professional Engineers exam that use the characteristics of solid waste to calculate the output of CO2 and methane gas quantities for solid waste. I suppose they utilized these calculations when they determined the number of generators that they use to generate electricity here locally.
I imagine that these generators are similar to the generators used on the sewage treatment plant in Portland Oregon.
A minuscule amount of research would point you to several places where systems can be designed to convert manure from feed lots (which, from my research, is the largest contributor of methane gas). The research would also tell you that the two primary gasses from anaerobic digestion are CO2 and methane gas. The research would also tell you the methods to separate CO2 from methane.
There are a couple of really good videos on YouTube: one shows how a community in England has their entire community geared toward sorting trash and converting it to methane gas and another has a dairy farm that converts all of its manure into methane gas for farm use (through a grant from the Feds). I'll share the videos with you if you'd like.
As far as the 'region north of the Arctic Circle'; I understand that's a problem, a problem brought on by global warming. This is why we need to start reversing the greenhouse gasses, but let's be realistic and informed about how much CO2 a car is contributing.
The solutions are out there. They just need to be implemented.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn't come from the gasoline itself, but the oxygen in the air.
When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).
A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and each oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).
Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7.
....
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml
Blanks
(4,835 posts)It's been a while since I've done any stoichiometry and I'd forgotten that combustion would have to remove the oxygen from the air. In fact it seems that I had heard that before, and I feel a bit foolish for having forgotten it. Although, I'd like to point out, your link doesn't perform the full balance (neglects the mass of the hydrogens in the fuel, assumes a gallon of gasoline is pure carbon); I will acknowledge that the exhaust is heavier than the gasoline itself.
However, the point is still valid. Coal power plants can be equipped with scrubbers to reduce the amount of pollutants and the pollutants that are removed can be incorporated into other products (concrete or sheetrock for example). Capturing all of the CO2 on board a car would still not be an unrealistic thing to accomplish. It would be the equivalent of carrying a person and his/her books.
Even carrying a little water on board to discharge with the CO2 so that it was swept away in the storm sewer system would reduce the buildup in the atmosphere.
The point is: so what; if a tank of gas exhausts 250 lbs of CO2; there is still a solution.
I was wrong, it happens, I thought the Metric system would catch on too. That doesn't mean that the solutions aren't out there.
BTW, here are those videos (whether you're interested or not).
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If there is anything that they say when they DO acknowledge global warming, this is about what they'll say: We can't fix it. It's too hard. It's too expensive. We don't need to fix it. Mankind can't alter the climate anyway, only Gawwwwwd can. Don't you get this, man? It's pretty fucking obvious to most people who care about this subject; RW hacks who do acknowledge global warming don't believe that we CAN fix anything and frankly, many don't even want us to, because it's "too hard", or "against the Lord/Word/Bible(what the fuck ever!)", or "Communist!", or whatever the fuck else you can come up with.
C'mon, man, get a clue. I saw this happening a few years ago.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But my point is still very valid. I have been around enough skeptics to know, and in fact, I used to be one myself, albeit of the "if it is real, all we need to do is adapt" variety.
Jessy169
(602 posts)There will come a point, hopefully in the near future, where the world's elite -- wealthy, politicians and others -- will wake up one day and realize that there is no more pressing issue -- probably that will happen when the starving mobs are storming the walls with pitchforks and axes. We can limit the damage. While realizing that we are going to see huge problems in the future, we as people need to believe in the power of technology. Technology got us into this mess, and there is a good chance that technology can be deployed to mitigate the worst-case scenario effects.
Chico Man
(3,001 posts)If a giant volcano explodes. That does happen from time to time. It is difficult to predict. Just saying. We live in a quantum universe.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Apparently the sulfur in the atmosphere can cause some sun blockage and result in global cooling.
Not a solution, but it happened in recent history.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Toba came damn close to killing all humanity and a good chunk of life on this planet when it blew 70k years ago. The one bit of solace I can take from this is that unlike a Yellowstone eruption, global warming won't be quite as bad and we can indeed mitigate, halt, and even reverse many of the changes(can't bring back most of the species that have been lost, though, sadly. 
).
librechik
(30,957 posts)coming in 3...2...1...
Actually, starving to death and drowning are two of the easier ways to go. At least we will all go together.
Sweet dreams! And remember to count the bees. That will be our first sign when the end is coming. (supposedly Einstein said that)
HDCowboy
(45 posts)CO? CO2? O2? He?????? Pretty important bit of info missing there eh?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Start to realize that those of us who are reiterating the "conspiracy theory of what we are not supposed to say," are speaking the truth, everything is moot.
Driving a Prius is not going to offset the fleets of jets overhead in our skies that spew aluminum, barium, and jet fuel continually, but every elected official in office says they aren't doing that, and it hasn't happened.
Like Orwell said - "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it."
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)yesterday's world is not today's world.
The world of 100 years ago is very different that today's world.
In the world of a few million years ago, modern humans would have a very hard time.
Someday the sun will expand and destroy all life.
Then things will be the same for a long time.
Quit worrying so much about it.
You'll spend your life worrying and then someday you'll be dead and it won't matter.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)If you want to do something about that, go talk to the Chinese Gov't and the western bankers who financed construction of all those coal and oil-fired plants. You might also get GM to stop making and selling cars over there - they love Buicks in China. Good luck.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Every catastrophic weather event MUST be blamed on Republicans.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Couldn't have anything to do with globalization, could it?
Beijing Rush Hour 1992:
2012:
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)American "culture" is like an addictive disease. Hell, IS an addictive disease.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)We're not all going to die. The Earth has been warming for about 13,000 years. Human activity has accelerated the warming.
It's all happened before. I treasure every day of life. I was pretty gloomy when I was much younger. I figured out that was a waste of time.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)On one hand I respect people who care about the environment.
You don't want smog in the air choking you & nasty poisonous chemicals getting into your system.
We should care a little about these things.
But it's arrogance to think we can totally shape the course of the planet Earth itself.
Global Warming? Meh.
Carbon Footprint? Silly.
Here's the truth. We have only been studying the climate/weather in detail for only a little over 100 years.
The weatherman/weatherwoman/meteorologist always tells us the "Normal" temperature on the 6PM weather forecast.
How in the hell are they gonna know what the "normal" temperature is based off of what they saw in the 1800s?
Was that temperature the norm in 1500 BC? How about 100,000 BC?
The Earth Changes.
No matter WHAT we do.
We have to adapt to IT. We can't force Earth to adapt to US.
Human ego is such a drawback sometimes. We really think we're bigger than what we are.
Now in the immediate sense we should try to minimize environmental damage for OUR sake.
Our civilizations don't work once we consume too much without replenishing.
We have to come up with better energy sources than oil from deep in the ground.
But we ain't hurting the Earth one bit.
Global Warming may be exacerbated by humankind's industrial excesses but it's probably part of the ongoing evolution of the planet's climate. Just like the Ice Age of the past—the Global Cooling.
All planets are just cooled off starbits. Little pieces of a star.
That's why the core is hot liquid magma, searing gas & heated plasma while the crust is lukewarm solid rock.
Stars are turbulent combustion engines & planet cores are no different.
That's why we have earthquakes, volcano, tsunamis, hurricanes/typhoons, & all that jazz.
The only reason life was able to form on this Earth is because it was just calm enough for mold to grow.
That mold evolved into every piece of life on the planet.
The other planets in our Sun System are either burnt up from being too close to the sun like Mercury...
...froze up from being too far from the sun like Neptune & Pluto...
...or clouded in turbulent elemental storms like Jupiter & Venus.
Earth is just far enough from the Sun to be cool enough for life to form & just close enough to be warm enough for life to form.
It's also turbulent enough to shake off stagnancy yet calm enough to maintain stability.
It's the Goldilocks planet where the porridge is just right.
But never forget that this crust we stand on rests above a turbulent star core.
That turbulence will keep the Earth changing as time passes by.
We can't control those changes AT ALL in our current state.
We probably SHOULDN'T have access to that control in our current state.
We don't know how to treat each other yet but we want be God over the configuration files of Planet Earth?
We don't have the admin password to access those config files.
The best we can do with environmental awareness is to be in better balance with the Earth we live on.
If we take away we must replenish & keep in balance.
It's only to prolong our inevitably dying civilizations.
They will all die eventually even if that death goes 10,000 years into the future.
We built those civilizations on what we thought was bedrock but was really mushy swampland.
The ecology we assembled our empires on is not EVER going to stay the same.
Hold it together the best you can but be prepared for the inevitable change that CANNOT be prevented.
Adaptation is the key.
That's the Inconvenient Truth.
John Lucas
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Damn. Why didn't I think of that!
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)At the end of the day, scientists are still fallible human beings.
They can study for 1,000s of years & Earth'll throw them for a loop in one instance.
What happened when the scientists discovered that each day doesn't necessarily run 24 exact hours?
That EVERY day is slightly different in length from the other & is always in some minor state of flux?
What does that do to our time system that we swear upon?
Human beings see, hear, feel, taste, smell.
But reality goes FAR BEYOND our limited senses.
We can't even see all there is to see...even with our special instruments.
We can't hear all there is to hear. We can't feel all there is to feel.
We can't taste all there is to taste & we can't smell all there is to smell.
We are trapped within our select perceptions of the world around us.
We build our systems based on our perceptions of reality.
But we'll NEVER know full reality because of our limitations.
We try to point out what's normal & what isn't when we never had all the information to make that determination.
"We can be anything we want to be if we work hard!"
No...you can't. Even if you work hard.
We have done great things in striving to achieve that ideal but don't let it go to your head.
This planet is WAY MORE advanced than the little creatures crawling upon it.
For us to have the notion that we can direct the fate of the planet is naïve at our current stage of development.
How are we gonna do that if we don't even know what's at the bottom of Earth's ocean floor?
When the Earth's climate changes there is little we can do to stop the negative effects upon us.
All we can do is try not to waste what the Earth provides us. To replenish what we take away for the sake of our survival.
The Earth becoming colder or warmer is out of our hands. All the smog in China won't rock this planet.
When you look at Earth from outer space, you can't see any trace of us or what we put together.
You can't even see The Great Wall of China.
You can only see vast blue oceans, gray/white mountain ranges, brown/green landmasses, & white cloud formations.
Puts it in perspective, doesn't it?
John Lucas
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Beijing Rush Hour before globalization:
Beijing Rush Hour after globalization:
Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)
Meteors used to crash into this planet & heatwaves ignited unchecked forest fires that produced similar smoggy effects as that 2nd pic of yours showed.
What's bad about the smog picture is HUMAN safety & longevity.
We should eliminate pollution like that for OUR sake.
But we aren't hurting the Earth itself.
The Earth will balance that out in time & refresh itself.
I have no problem with controlling emissions & reducing pollution of the water, land, & air.
But it is ONLY for OUR benefit. For the benefit of our civilizations.
Our civilizations are as fragile as our lives so we have to make sure we protect ourselves from ourselves.
We learned how to build big machines & factories. Now we should learn to build better machines & factories that don't pollute as much.
Americans have little room for talking about protecting the environment.
Our general technology-filled lifestyles make a lot of waste.
And just existing helps contaminate the atmosphere.
Imagine 311 million humans farting.
Now imagine 7 billion humans farting.
Methane & sulfur. That's an emission. Wanna reduce the number of humans on the planet? Of COURSE not!
The Earth can handle anything we put out.
BUT our civilizations CAN'T.
We built our civilizations upon what we thought was a solid bedrock.
We built them off of an ecology that had to be 'just so'.
But ecology changes & when it does we are ill-prepared to deal with those changes.
THAT is where our focus should be.
In the short-term we can futilely try to maintain the ecological conditions we built our civilizations on.
But in the long-term we must build more flexible civilizations that can handle the Earth's natural changes.
It's like people in California building more earthquake-proof houses.
Or the Japanese building paper houses instead of stone houses in the wake of their historic tsunamis & earthquakes.
What we think of as normal climate may just be a phase of Earth's varying climactic changes.
We may not be able to stop Global Warming. We may be overstating our effect on the planet.
We are CORRECT in pointing how our pollution affects our human lives & civilizations.
We may be INCORRECT in saying our pollution is vastly changing the planet.
I understand the fallibility of human systems.
We can only create them from stable elements.
If the sun & moon didn't go across our horizons in the pattern they did, we could never come up with the Concept of Time.
Time is fake. It's a human system. It is only a Measurement of Change.
And change doesn't follow the pattern our limited human brains may seek out.
It's easy to go back in time. All you gotta do is take the minute hand & rotate it counter-clockwise. Violá!
I'm a musician & recognize the irregularity in music theory—AKA the theory of sounds.
We named 7 tones A, B, C, D, E, F, G then called the next A an Octave since it was number 8 (octopus–8 arms, octagon–8 sides).
But later found 5 more tones & didn't know what to name them so we named them according to how they juxtapose our traditional 7 tones.
If it's behind one of the tones it's a Flat (b). If it's ahead of one of the tone it's a Sharp (#).
So we get confusing names like C#/Db, D#/Eb, F#/Gb, G#/Ab, A#/Bb.
But when we listened to the sound of those "new" tones compared to the "old" ones, we understood that C to C# seems to be the same sonic distance as B to C & E to F.
So does that mean B is Cb (C-Flat) & C is B# (B-Sharp)? Does that also mean that E is Fb (F-Flat) & F is E# (E-Sharp)?
Doesn't this mess up our neat little system, all these "new" sounds?
And wait if there are 5 other tones why do we still call the distance from A to the next A an Octave?
We recognize 12 notes so shouldn't this be a Duodecive?
But wait there are tones in between our "old" tones—the "Naturals" & our "new" tones—the "Sharps & Flats".
Some music systems separate sounds into 19 equally separate tones. Some into 57 equally separate tones.
What do we name all of them & how can we keep our little system intact by adding these even "newer" tones?
There's nothing "new" ABOUT the tones. They were already there. Our feeble systems just couldn't handle the complexity.
It's the same reason why Americans hold onto the English measuring system instead of switching to Metric.
The same reason why we STILL call September, October, November, December the 9th month, 10th month, 11th month, & 12th month when the names of the month actually say (sept) 7th, (oct) 8th, (nov) 9th, & (dec) 10th.
It's the same reason why we don't recognize the inherent insolvency of the Money System which is by design Zero-Sum.
You can't help The Poor without taking from The Rich one way or another.
Whether you have The Rich give their money DIRECTLY to The Poor through charity, taxes, funding programs, etc...
Or INDIRECTLY by creating more money for The Poor to use which reduces the value of the money The Rich already have (AKA Inflation).
You can't really fix economies. You can only suspend their inevitable collapses.
The national debt & deficit can NEVER be repaid. Not as long as Rich people want to remain rich.
Human beings are slaves to our symbols & our systems.
We built settlements around rivers & never thought about the consequences of having children for generations at those rivers.
We never thought about what happens if we take too many trees to build houses, make tools, create paper.
We never thought about how the habitat could support our need to eat & drink the more people we had in these ever-advancing settlements.
Technology was the response to drying habitats.
The Sahara Desert was once the Sahara Forest & the Egyptians (the Kemet folks) were desperately trying to prolong & sustain their established way of life.
So they found ways to channel water in a method called Irrigation.
They came up all kinds of systems to measure climate & stars to better know how to prepare sustenance.
Still the Sahara ended up being a desert. So they had to adapt & change course to survive.
The same is true for us. Our civilization systems are not etched in stone 'cause even stone turns to mush on this planet.
Human beings have a nasty habit trying to manipulate their surroundings into their favor.
But ultimately we cannot manipulate the Earth & its changes.
One day the American Heartland will be barren. One day the swampy South will dry up.
One day the icy Arctic will thaw out. One day the Western desert will grow vegetation.
One day the Caribbean islands will be underwater. One day the Windy City may not be so windy.
One day the Sunshine State may be cold. One day the Sahara Desert will once again become the Sahara Forest.
All of our 1000s of years on this planet have been just a short time.
The Earth has changed many times before we were here & will change many times after we are gone.
John Lucas
muriel_volestrangler
(106,170 posts)You see agriculture that has replaced forests over thousands of square miles. You see Arctic sea ice at half the area it was 20 years ago. You see the Aral Sea almost dried up, over a period of 20 years:
When you look at records, it's blindingly obvious that humans are warming the planet, from what is already a warm period. Earth has not warmed this fast since it was coming out of an ice age. We are pushing the climate into areas that have not been experienced while we have had agriculture, or when the human population was abuot one thousandth of what it is now.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)We got around 7 billion of us now, right?
And a good portion of that 7 billion have access to technologies that can give off emissions.
But don't we give off emissions even WITHOUT that technology?
I ain't just talking about Carbon Dioxide either (which is an emission good for the plants).
We fart. Our bodies give off heat.
Just us existing pollutes the planet, muriel_volestrangler.
And guess what? We're not the only ones emitting.
There are other species on this planet that are heavily populated & giving off emissions of their own.
Lots of dogs & cats on the planet thanks to their linkup with us.
Lots of cows. Lots of chickens. Lots of pigs.
Put these human-associated animals alongside the other animals & you got a lot of heat signatures & polluting emissions.
THEN the forest fires that ignite every summer. What about the volcanoes? They emit a HELL of a lot & give off a BUNCH of heat.
Remember, we didn't know what the Earth looked like from the outside until the 1950s & 1960s.
We don't know how it looked in 900 AD or 1,500 BC or 100,000 BC.
We have been VERY PRESUMPTUOUS talking about a "normal climate" & "normal temperatures" when the National Weather Service has only been around since 1870.
Normal in comparison to what? What are they basing these norms off of?
I know for damn sure the world they lived in wasn't NEAR the same world as the one from 1,500 BC.
And SURELY not the same as the one from 100,000 BC.
Think about this. That "before" picture of the Earth you put up was from a time when there were LESS emission standards & protocols. When the Industrial Revolution had long put smog in cities as a general rule through their soot-emitting factories.
That picture is from a time when pollution went MORE unchecked.
All we're doing is looking at the satellite pictures from that 1950s/1960s period to now & freaking out because they're so different.
Half a century seeing the Earth from the outside in & we think we know ALL about how the Earth is supposed to manifest.
Floods & famines are a part of Earth's history. The place is just barely stable. That's the only reason how this mold we called life was able to form. Every other planet is too burnt, too frozen, or too choked up with gas storms to support what we know as life.
I am in favor of getting a handle on emissions & pollution for HUMANITY'S sake.
We must build our civilizations more in balance with nature so our civilizations can survive longer.
But none of 'em will last forever. Nothing is forever.
The Earth is gonna do what it do.
Our ability to survive & thrive alone may be giving off the heat.
And then again maybe it doesn't have much to do with us at all.
Human beings are known for their inflated self-importance.
Unless you're willing to live without technology, you are fooling yourself about remedying climate change.
Unless you're willing to stop reproduction, you are fooling yourself about remedying climate change.
And even if you do, that doesn't mean everybody else will.
It's futile worrying about this. The climate is changing. ADAPT!
As the climate changes so should our societies.
Human beings don't control the Earth. We're just a product of it.
Once again in both of those pictures I don't see any human-made buildings, roads, walls, or structures.
I DO see big clods of mud & grass, water & ice.
Our buildings are complicated structures of rock & look no different than the rocks already here when viewed from afar.
We're SMALL man & that's why I know people are getting carried away with this climate change stuff.
Yeah it's changing but maybe just maybe it always has.
John Lucas
muriel_volestrangler
(106,170 posts)from us or any animal. The only emission from animals that is significant is methane from farmed animals, which has been our choice too.
No, we can reconstruct past climates, from various sources such as ice cores, corals or trees. And we KNOW, from these, that the warming over the past century is unprecedented in the past 10,000 years - the time in which we have had a large population we must support through agriculture. The science is settled on this. Please read it.
The picture I put up was in response to your incorrect "you can't see human presence on Earth from space". We can see how thousands of square miles of fields or lakes have been changed. In the case of the Aral Sea, it's been the diversion of water from rivers for irrigation. You need to learn that humans CAN change the planet on a large scale. When you understand that, you'll be able to accept what climate science knows about how carbon dioxide emissions are changing the temperature. It's a red herring to say "I can't see structures"; no-one is arguing that structures are altering climate - it's our activities - burning fossil fuels, cutting down forest, planting rice paddies and breeding methane-producing animals.
Your claim that it is 'futile' worrying about remedying climate change is just wrong. Stop ignoring science. But I see you now say "unless you're willing to live without technology" - which implies you do actually know that technology has been changing the climate, but you're loathe to admit it, because you don't want to change your use of it.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)10,000 years.
That's NOTHING compared to the entirety of Earth's existence as a planet.
Once again all you're talking about is Humanity's existence on this Earth which is microscopically small in comparison to Earth's existence.
Unprecedented? Compared to what?
The past 10,000 years. What about the 100,000 years before that?
That's 10 10,000s. How did Earth change within each of those 10,000 year spans?
The science is settled? Science never settles. There is ALWAYS more information to be found.
Science is slow. The answers it finds tend to lead to more questions.
I'm talking about Earth BEFORE human existence.
This is what I mean about Earth changing.
I'm not talking about the Earth since we've been here.
In terms of Earth's existence, that's a very small amount of time.
Very big amount of time by our standards but we're a bunch of hairless chattering apes who only live for a few decades.
Our life spans probably look vast to a mosquito or a moth fluttering around street lamps.
It's sort of like when you were a kid & thought that 35 was old.
Yeah to a young kid 35 probably does look old. Until that kid grows & reaches age 35 & then it doesn't seem that long.
We don't control this, muriel_volestrangler.
I get it. We're amazing for what we are.
This silly little tailless monkey learned how to shape tools so well that they can send little spacecrafts into outerspace & take pictures of planets & solar systems far beyond our reach. Our little ape hands created lenses that can see stars & galaxies so far out we can never get to them even with those picture-taking spacecrafts. We even landed on the moon itself!!
That is AMAZING!!!
We learned how to manipulate magnets & electricity to create computers & super computer networks to communicate on.
We can fly in the clouds in airplanes. We can swim in deep blue seas in submarines.
We got radio waves, Wi-Fi, & 4G!!!
We do a lot for such a meager species. Our toolmaking abilities are outstanding for our species.
But because we have done so many amazing things, we got a big head about it.
We think we can literally do ANYTHING.
And we CANNOT.
We inflate our importance so much (it's part of our programming after all) that we think we can turn the entire world on its axis.
What I'm telling you is that this Earth is MUCH BIGGER, MUCH STRONGER, MUCH TOUGHER than all of us put together X 1,000.
And it's a small planet!
We can only corral the effects of the planet for our benefit.
We can't stop the wind from blowing. We can't stop the sun from shining. We can't stop the tides from cresting.
We DO cause SHORT-TERM damage to HABITATS, sure.
But the Earth will easily rectify that...even if it means getting rid of us in the process.
Habitats are small on the Earth's surface. They are WITHIN Earth.
We do not hurt Earth. We hurt habitats ON Earth. And we got to minimize that because we come FROM habitats on Earth.
Global warming is out of our control. What WE need to do short-term is preserve the habitats we built our civilizations upon as best we can.
Long-term we have the find better ways of building civilizations so they won't be so fragile to Earth's inevitable changes.
That's as far as it goes.
Trees weren't always here. Forests weren't always here. These are part of habitats.
If all of them disappeared, the Earth would still be here.
And one day it will set conditions for trees & forests to return.
The only reason why we have to be in better balance with Earth is because we depend on those habitats for survival.
Stop ignoring science? You know how many times in the past when science was WRONG?
You're dealing with humankind. Humankind makes mistakes. Humankind comes to wrong conclusions.
Good doctors don't pretend to know everything. They always say they are PRACTICING medicine.
They got a pretty good feel on how to fix problems in the human body but even THEY don't fully understand it themselves.
Just like you gotta be cautious with what religious ministers say, you have to be cautious of what scientific ministers say.
This bullshit about BMI—the Body Mass Index. Normal weight. What the hell is "normal weight"?
The human design is diverse & doesn't always neatly fall into the pigeonholes of humankind's petty little systems.
We don't understand reality without creating symbols for it first. Then systems of symbols.
But sometimes we get lost in our symbols & systems.
In an earlier reply to another poster, I bring up the fact that I'm a musician who recognizes the inconsistency & irregularity of the systems in music theory—the theory of sounds.
I'm also an amateur linguist who has developed a phonetic system for understanding every language in the world.
The existing phonetic system has flaws & I found this out in high school as a teenager.
I wanted to learn Spanish & other languages that were in my school libraries but the phonetic symbols they used were confusing & not entirely correct. College-degreed scholars came up with this system but I as a mere high school student saw what was wrong with it.
I knew there were flaws as far back as 3rd grade when my English teacher taught me about the 'schwa' which is supposed to stand for "unstressed syllables".
But I noticed that the "uh" sound the schwa made was exactly the same "uh" sound as what they called the "Short U".
When I was 15 & started developing this phonetic system in frustration at not being able to make sense of the phonetic symbols in those foreign language dictionaries, I discovered that THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS A SCHWA!!
Also all in school they taught us the vowels were A E I O U sometimes Y.
No, it was ALL the times Y. And guess what? It was ALL the times W too.
Guess what else? In American English it's ALL the times R too!!
And what else? It's also sometimes L.
What did I discover? I discovered that there weren't 5 vowels but 10 vowels! 5 sets of 2 paired twins.
Sort of like Superman & Bizarro or Spock & Spock with the evil goatee.
I also found Lip Shapes which add extra flavor to those 10 vowels.
I figured out that Y is just I in shorter succession.
I figured out that W is just U in shorter succession.
I figured out that American R is a blend of the flat versions of 2 vowels U & O. Emphasis on O.
I figured out that the L we pronounce when L is at the end of words like 'bell' 'spell' 'toll' 'call' is just a blend of 2 vowels O & U. Emphasis on O.
I found the sound that expresses how Bushmen speak with that click-clack noise they make with their tongue.
I know how to write what they call a Raspberry, the THHFFPPBBT sound where you stick out your tongue in your bottom lip & make spittle.
I even know that panting sounds are just mild versions of the cough. You know that 'T' in how Americans tend to say "coffeepot" as in "fill up the coffeepot". We're not pronouncing the 'T' sound at all like the T in 'touch' & 'taste'.
Explains why you can't say certain words when you're sick with the cold. You may bring up the coughing reflex.
But I would never have found this system if I didn't question the systems that came before me.
And even with the system I developed I look for it to be tested to see if I made any flaws.
As good as I believe my system to be there may be something I have missed.
And I say the system they basing this climate change paranoia about has flaws.
10,000 years? That's it? Didn't they tell us Earth is about 4.5 million years old.
All we can do is try to preserve our habitats a little better.
But ultimately we're just hand-wringing about climate change because it is NOT under our control.
Just like we don't control the Earth's orbit around the sun. Just like we can't control the inevitability of the sun's explosion.
Earth can refresh itself at will. The only thing is it might take out our habitats in the meantime to do it.
Our very existence affects our habitats. The best you can do is minimize the damage.
Even then you may not be able to last if Earth makes changes that render our habitats null & void.
We just don't live on a perfectly stable planet. That was always the illusion anyhow.
John Lucas
P.S.: You haven't thought about the little metal bits of junk in orbit around our planet that come off the satellites & probes we launch into space. Those same satellites that help you see broadcast TV, that help you get Wi-Fi & 4G.
A cloud of metal surrounding Earth. Won't hurt Earth but may eventually hurt our habitats.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,170 posts)The point about 10,000 years (and it's my point, not a time that is set in all the literature) is that it delimits the time when humans have had agriculture. The whole of humanity now depends on agriculture, and climate affects that enormously. We have also, in that time, settled down in villages, towns and cities, which are difficult to move, unlike our former nomadic lifestyle. And there are literally a thousand times more people than 10,000 years ago. Our way of life cannot move as easily as we could 50,000 years ago. This is not about the disappearance of all life from earth; it's about keeping human societies going in a comfortable form without billions of excess deaths. We have started changing the climate, and it will change further, but we can limit the changes with action.
It doesn't matter what you find amazing; this is about actual science, not what does or doesn't impress you.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)I made the point that the older Earth picture from space was from a time when pollution went even MORE unchecked.
I know it's humanity's way to try to go beyond their limitations but we DO have limitations.
We CANNOT do literally anything we set our minds to. And that includes changing Earth's climate.
10,000 years is a short timespan in terms of how Earth changes.
What I'm telling you is that basing the totality of the Earth merely in the time humanity's been alive is biased & shortsighted.
Human beings have an inborn tendency to think the world revolves around them like people used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Earth is WAY older than us & we really don't understand its mechanisms like we think we do.
We only made our systems based on what we saw the Earth as in a given period of time.
I made the point that we build our systems off of constants.
Earth was relatively the same way for about 10,000 years.
So we built our societies on what we thought was a constant.
But it may have never BEEN a constant. It might have just been a 10,000 year phase.
If Earth's climate suddenly changes for whatever reason we may be powerless to stop it.
We don't change the climate just like we don't change the jet stream or the tidal waves or the gravitational pull or the rotation of the Earth.
We ONLY AFFECT the habitats ON the Earth. The HABITATS not the Climate.
We do that merely by our existence just like every other creature on the planet that affects their habitats.
And we can change how we do that.
I'm in favor of changing how we operate in this world, don't get me wrong.
I don't think we live in proper balance with the Earth & we need to create societies that can be both technological to deal with Nature's lack yet in harmony to not strip out Nature's bounty.
These things are repairable & not too far gone.
But I really think people are getting carried away when they think they can change Earth's climate.
We're changing our habitats, that's all.
If the Earth wants to warm up or cool down that's BEYOND our power.
And it may come to a point when Earth makes it impossible for us to live on this planet.
At our current technological level we have no power to prevent that. Not even close.
Scientists get things wrong too, muriel_volestrangler.
It may be well-meaning but it's wrong-headed & misguided thinking we can rock the planet that much.
We may make living conditions bad for us on the Earth's surface & we can DEFINITELY change that.
But man it looks to be ego run wild to think that this little chattering ape called humanity can change how the planet's temperature control operates.
I simply don't trust the scientists' words on Global Warming. Yeah their science is wrong.
Science has been wrong before & it can & will happen again.
It's conflation. Taking a real need to be in better balance with our habitats & turning it into this egocentric "We Can Shift The Earth On Its Axis" mentality.
Humble Yourselves.
We don't have that kind of power.
John Lucas
muriel_volestrangler
(106,170 posts)You don't want to believe what climate scientists have shown, so you "simply don't trust the scientists' words on Global Warming."
Yes, we've changed the climate - look up the reconstructions of global temperature. The increase in the last 100 years is obvious and extreme.
Or try Arctic sea ice extent:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/1400-years-of-arctic-ice/
This is happening. It's because of humans. When you open your eyes to that reality, and accept we've started changing the climate, you'll see that we could also slow down or reverse the changes.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)I'm telling you it's confirmation bias.
Because a pattern suddenly shifts in a millenium & half model, we're supposed to think it's the End of the World???
First of all how can they be sure that red line is correct? Human beings couldn't reliably travel this globe until the past few hundred years. And they didn't become experts at it until the 20th Century with better tools like airplanes.
How was this line put together? How do they know about arctic ice when they didn't even know the arctic until a couple of hundred years ago?
And how can they get such detail without anybody keeping good records in these past times?
A millenium & half is NOTHING when it comes to the Earth's history.
1,450 years is blip in Earth's timespan. A BLIP!
Arctic ice is melting. We can see that. Can you be SO SURE it's caused by humankind?
You're not gonna determine that with these limited timespans.
Even 10,000 years is small when it comes to Earth's changes.
We definitely know that the Earth changes drastically over its lifespan.
The whole thing about the dinosaurs era was that they lived in a different climate than we do in the human era.
The whole thing about the theoretical Pangaea supercontinent idea was that all the continents we see today were all connected in one big landmass once upon a time.
They point to the fact that Earth has changed DRASTICALLY in its time.
How do you know Earth's not simply going through another one of its changes?
Even if that change is inconvenient for our modern societies built upon the way we knew the world since its last change.
Human beings don't have the power to control the weather. It's that simple.
We don't control a lot of stuff & recognizing this reality will help you to find serenity.
I know it's humanity's motto to do the impossible so I wouldn't stand in the way of scientists researching futile grounds.
But they're overestimating their abilities & overstepping their bounds.
It's like one day human beings saying they can stop the Sun from exploding.
Like human beings saying they can create another natural moon from scratch.
Like human beings saying they can recombine all the asteroids from the asteroid belt back into the planet it once was.
We were given the power of the remix. To remix & recombine elements. But we don't create those elements.
We can create artificial wombs to simulate natural wombs to create babies. But we don't control the basic elements of what causes that life to spring.
We can carry oxygen from the Earth to travel into space to land on the Moon. But we are bound by the Earth because we cannot eliminate our need FOR that oxygen. And we can't just turn the Moon into another Earth because we don't know how to synthesize new oxygen.
That's only within the power of the divine.
John Lucas
P.S.: Human folly is not only found in superstition & religion. It can be in science as well because the common denominator in human folly is humans themselves.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,170 posts)You have clearly not tried to read about the science, or you wouldn't be asking the questions you do. I suspect you didn't even follow that link, becuase it answers some of your questions:
Just inform yourself, and get rid of your kneejerk "the scientists must be wrong, we can't affect the climate" attitude. You are highly ignorant on this subject.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)I don't put scientists on a pedestal.
One small flaw can collapse a whole house of cards.
It doesn't matter how delicate & intricate the building of that house of cards was or how long it took.
If there's is one single little flaw all that comes crashing to the ground.
Yeah that proxy data shows that the ice is melting & has melted in different capacities over time. We can see that.
It's still a big jump to say that humans can affect that melting by changing the climate.
That's like saying we change the moon's orbit from our actions on Earth.
That's like saying if all of the human population moved to Asia we can warp the Earth's rotation with our collective weight thus changing the duration of days & nights.
Do you have any idea how small we are?
We do amazing things for such a little species but we ain't all that, man!
Erykah Badu in her song On & On said,
"The man who knows some things knows that he knows nothing at all.
Does it seem colder in your summertime & hotter in your fall?"
Human ego.
Two things that you'll never get a human being to readily say:
"I don't know."
and
"I was wrong."
What's causing the climate to change? I don't know. I'm humble enough to admit that.
But are the scientists willing to admit they were wrong after they invested so much time & effort chasing this theory?
I typed in "when scientists are wrong" & found these articles.
What Happens When Scientists Get It Wrong?
NPR's Ira Flatow interviews science journalist Carl Zimmer. Check out this excerpt.
ZIMMER: Well, you know, that is, in theory, what makes science is really powerful is that we don't have to just rely on someone's authority. If someone says hey, I'm a big-shot scientist, you have to believe what I say, you don't have to accept that. You can question their results, and you can try to replicate them and see if you can do it yourself.
And the scientific community can evaluate big ideas. Carl Sagan really put it quite elegantly, as he often does. He said there are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right. And the reason was because science is a self-correcting process.
But as you say, it's harder in practice than it is in theory because, you know, it does take a lot of time. And, you know, a lot of people who looked at this arsenic life paper who I spoke to when I was reporting on this, they just, they read the paper, and they could see serious problems with it just looking at the paper itself. And so they were quite confident that it was wrong.
And so a lot of them just said, well, I have better things to do with my time.
UN's climate change scientists admits they got it wrong over claims Himalayan glaciers would have melted by 2035
The head of a UN Climate Change panel retracts disproven & non-fact-checked claim about Himalayan mountains melting by 2035.
Why Scientific Studies Are So Often Wrong: The Streetlight Effect
Article talking about the mistakes in getting caught up in clean numbers that you can track instead of venturing into the un-trackable uncertain.
Scientists who said climate change skeptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague
A scientist saying that the climate change debate was settled at skeptics' chagrin gets disputed by a member of his own team who says that global warming has stopped.
Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong
An oceanographer & earth science professor at Rice University casts doubt on the accuracy of climate change models.
Matt Ridley: When Bad Theories Happen to Good Scientists
Article talks the common human flaw of confirmation bias expressing itself in scientists.
When Scientists Get It Wrong—"The Door to Hell" Burns 40 Years After Being Lit
http://commonsenseconspiracy.com/2012/08/when-scientists-get-it-wrong-the-door-to-hell-burns-40-years-after-being-lit/
This article talks about Soviet geologists in 1971 trying to burn off the natural gas in a cavern from Derweze, Turkmenistan & totally miscalculating the amount of natural gas within that cavern. It's still burning today because of that miscalculation & they now call it the 'Door To Hell'.
The science is settled?
Science is NEVER settled until it locks up with the un-manipulable TRUTH.
Scientists are Truth-SEEKERS. Until they know TRUTH they should keep seeking.
John Lucas
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Why is everyone convinced that the apocalypse is near?
MineralMan
(151,222 posts)So what's the point of showing up at the polls in November, then?
See ya around, Madhound. There's no doubt about that.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)[img]
[/img]
If the Mayans prove to be nothing more than a bunch of liars, don’t be too upset. Researchers at MIT predict that Earth will experience a whole other Armageddon-like scenario by 2030, when they expect a global economic collapse to occur.
Researchers at the world-renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) say that, at this rate, the planet is likely to be plagued by a “global economic collapse” in fewer than two decades if humans continue to gobble up natural resources at the same rate they are today.
The report was led by MIT’s Jay W. Forrester’s Institute and used a computing model to examine the correlation between global developments and their affect on the Earth. Variables involving the amount of available resources, different level of agricultural productivity, birth control and environmental protection were taken into account to examine what the future holds for the human race and, according to the researchers, it isn’t very good.
“Only drastic measures for environmental protection proved to be suitable to change this systems behavior, and only under these circumstances, scenarios could be calculated in which both world population and wealth could remain at a constant level. However, so far the necessary political measures were not taken,” explains The Club of Rome, a global think-tank based out of Italy who commissioned MIT to conduct the research.
The study suggests that as earthlings continue to consume vast amounts of resources that cannot be replaced, a “precipitous population decline” will also be triggered unless adjustment are made to the way mankind manages its intake and stays at its current pace of plaguing the Earth’s ecosystems through mass industrialization. Perhaps most surprising, however, is that the researcher’s results, to some, is nothing new at all.
As it happens, the MIT report largely mirrors the results of a similar study conducted back in 1972 called “The Limits to Growth.” Back then Australian physicist Graham Turner conducted similar investigations while the population of the planet was only slightly more than half of what it is today. And while developments in the realms of industry, medicine and technology have made the world much easier to manage in those three decades, the decline that Turner predicted in the years after he published his paper have come close to the actual trends in the years since. In ’72, Turner also noticed that non-renewable resources would exponentially decrease in the coming years, and as industrial output and global pollution increases, food and, in turn, population would decrease.
“There is a very clear warning bell being rung here,” Turner wrote at the time. “We are not on a sustainable trajectory.” Despite foreshadowing the economic collapse 60 years ahead of time, however, the latest report out of MIT suggests that the Earth is still on its way towards some troubling times.
http://rt.com/usa/news/global-collapse-mit-predict-376/
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mine shafts. The climate disaster would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided.
It would not be difficult Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.
A computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously. There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.