Climatic changes [ 18+ ]

[TP_MoonStar]

Maybe the topic is a little retarded for the subject ... but let's stop talking about things that does not require so much atention and start looking at important things such as this one ;

This is problably the most discussed topic you'll see arround (especialy in the near future) EVERYWHERE.

We got whole world discussing this situation and i would like to know what do you think about it,what your country is doing about it and what you are doing about it.

Check this usefull site :

[url]http://www.breathingearth.net/[/url]

Discuss.

[MiZiGe]

The thing is, it is extremly hard to decide which of the two approaches are you going to "trust" - even though this is a word completely out of order here, but the majority of people will not prove or think about statements, they will (dis)trust them.

One of the views tell you, that the changes, or better said our experience with it, are based on two facts. First of all, that it is a natural periodical occurrence and that our life span and the span of our knowledge is way to short to comprehend that the change is cyclic. You can further argue in these terms that the greenhouse gases are increasing in concetration through natural processes, and that the human contribution to this is minimal, close to zero.
What is important to note, that this approach does not say that the climate change is not happening - it merely states that the change is natural, will not be further escalated by human actions, and that if a next iceage is to come, it will come regardless. It also agrees with ecological requirements, but there is no proven consequence of the climate change and the ecological issues.

Second approach contradicts the first one, more or less. It sees the global system as stable, and the human factor as the degrading / destabilizing unit in the system. This is conjoined with ecological ideas and views, that we should cease our abuse and exploitations of the planetary resources, and take responsibility for the damage we have done (where as the first approach does not link the ecological damage to the climate change).


Both of the theories, if you like, are based on good facts, and can be discussed accordingly. Unfortunately, both are abused by hysterical groups, as well as people who base their actions and decisions on these inappropriately. The massive bandwagon effect created by the second approach and supported by the "green" organisation has removed a great part of the scientific value from it, which is most unfortunate. It enables the critics of the ecological theories to take a "romantic titan" pose, and discard any resulting decisions from it purely on the base of "it is just common beliefs". And they have the full right to do it.


What do I think?

The climate is changing, and no matter how small the human influence to the system is, you cannot disregard it, and you cannot ignore the effect it has. In my opinion, if you think that driving your 1975 car EVERYWHERE is a good thing to do, you are retarded and should be shot in the knee (so you will have an excuse to not walk or ride the bike). Everyone of us should take some time and think about where they can save some energy/resources and in this way, save some money for them selves. I would bomb countries like China, India and USA, or any other great "polluter", because they damage human lives and human rights everywhere, just as the goverments in Iraq did it.

Think this is extreme? Of course it is, so what I accentuated the ecological context, it is hard not to. What disturbs me more that this has spilled itself over into the political field, and the results are terrible. It obviously does not matter which of the two views a political leader accepts, he or she will basically still try to exploit it - the result of the Kyoto protocols is a market with AAUs, which, if it would not be a horrible thing to do, would be funny.

(btw., what is it with the 18+? Can we to expect nipples?)

[Cen]

I don't really have a fixed opinion about this, especially because of this war between both views (who is right? maybe both?). Whether the situation is really so critical or not, I believe turning to green energy is the thing we should do. Even if the industry isn't really killing the earth, it does kill people's health.

[enigma-the-one]

that breathing earth site is pretty fascinating 0.o

here's another, made funny

[URL="http://www.animalssavetheplanet.com/"]save the planet[/URL]

there were so many eco fuels disscovered, but most of them got sunk by big oil companies, which didn't want to stay out of business and some of those fuels simply failed because they use much more energy than they produce...
(they invented smthing that makes salt water burn etc...)

----------------------------
also i'm 3 months from 18 but i think i can still participate in disscusion :P

[KaworuNagisa]

Start studying about space travel, living in space colonies and terraforming. If earth lasts for next billion years the sun won't:

The increase in solar temperatures is such that already in about a billion years, the surface of the Earth will become too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle[/URL]

this is possibly the most craziest and effective way of getting clean energy:
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere[/URL]

cool stuff: [URL="http://xuitlacoche.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-cygnus-bubble-dyson-sphere.html"]http://xuitlacoche.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-cygnus-bubble-dyson-sphere.html[/URL]

[Mitsuki]

Looks like most of people doesn't remember basic biological course from school. What do plants do and how is it called? Photosynthesis. During day (sunlight) oxygen is produced, and during night? Viceversa carbon dioxide is produced. The human contribution to this proces is not very valuable. All this is just another social highscreaming.

[DragonSlayer]

I agree with Mitsuki
For me this is just another never ending topic in tv so peoples have something to do.
To be honest there is one problem with bombing China , USA etc.
Just think what would happen if you bomb China. Price's for almost everything would hit the sky in no time, because there would be huge shortage of almost every single thing on the market(after all they produce so much of everything).
If china would start care about earth you would see almost the same result.
They would spend a lot more cash for manufacturing stuff so we all would pay a lot more for everything.
And what then? Also food would get more expensive. And thats already leading to a even more problems, more hungry peoples, more peoples who can't afford to live properly...
Before you say something about ECO think what would be the result of this action.
Thats my opinion...

[MiZiGe]

@dragonslayer: Well that just shows that we live our happy lives thanks to exploiting the people in China? If anyone here says he is a bastard enough to say that is ok, I will be happy .)

@Mitsuki: I think you skipped some classes too

[Cen]

Looks like most of people doesn't remember basic biological course from school. What do plants do and how is it called? Photosynthesis. During day (sunlight) oxygen is produced, and during night? Viceversa carbon dioxide is produced. The human contribution to this proces is not very valuable. All this is just another social highscreaming.

CO2 is produced day and night...plants breath all the time. But they produce more O2 then Co2 looking through the whole day.

[DragonSlayer]

I'm not saying that i am happy that world exploit Chinese peoples. I just try to show that there is no clear solution to deal with all this crap.
I don't get the ECO freaks who attach themselves to the trees thinking that the only right way is to make all factory's stop right now and move 10000 years back living in caves.

[Mitsuki]

You got me wrong, i was talking about comparing the production of CO2 by people and plants. It took millions years to get climate we have now, and it will take another millions years to change it littlebit more.

Imho this is endless discussion.

[Focused]

I agree with Mitsuki
For me this is just another never ending topic in tv so peoples have something to do.
To be honest there is one problem with bombing China , USA etc.
Just think what would happen if you bomb China. Price's for almost everything would hit the sky in no time, because there would be huge shortage of almost every single thing on the market(after all they produce so much of everything).
Thats my opinion...

ROB THEM and NUKE THEM THEN problem solved xD hahah

[enigma-the-one]

Start studying about space travel, living in space colonies and terraforming. If earth lasts for next billion years the sun won't:

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle[/URL]

this is possibly the most craziest and effective way of getting clean energy:
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere[/URL]

cool stuff: [URL="http://xuitlacoche.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-cygnus-bubble-dyson-sphere.html"]http://xuitlacoche.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-cygnus-bubble-dyson-sphere.html[/URL]

exactly, sun will eventually burn the earth
this however won't happen for a looong time

by then we should be able to travel in space and colonise other planets

[Mitsuki]

18+?

Try to stay away from offtopic

[MiZiGe]

You got me wrong, i was talking about comparing the production of CO2 by people and plants. It took millions years to get climate we have now, and it will take another millions years to change it littlebit more.

Imho this is endless discussion.

well not really, because some of the major changes were done quite quickly. If you can think about it backwards, one of the leading evolutionary theories shows that oxygen production was more or less a biological war, because it killed most of the living primodial organism at that point ^^ only the ones producing it survived, and thus created a basic/starting point for the life we know now.

On the other hand, you should know better that sometimes, all it takes is to take on brick out of a construction to bring it down, i.e. you cannot judge the end effect of an action just by its sheer mass. And what we have done to the climate is not a small brick, if you think with me:
our life is carbon based, and we use organical fossil fuel. The carbon was taken/absorbed from the lithosphere into the biosphere, but we basically vaporized (by burning it, and clean carbon is chemically active and oxidises in the burning process to carbon dioxide, not to mention worse shit the burning of fuels produces) a huge amount of that into the atmosphere. Which is a big change, and you have to be deliberately blind to think it will have no effect.

The other important thing to know is that the majority of photosynthesis is not done by higher plants, but actually by plankton - and this is very very sensitive to pollution of waters, as well as to water temperatures. We actually do not have to give a fuck about if the temperature raises by 0,2°C, but it affects the isotherm layers of the world ocean, thus possibly eliminating tons and tons of plankton. Plus, the pollution we dump into the water does the same. Less oxygen...more carbon dioxide...a possible spiral.

Do not think I am a treehugging ecofreak But I do not really like people that turn a blind eye to things they do, to boost their own hypocritic comfort