"The Greenland ice sheet is five kilometres thick and melting fast. The effect of adding all that water to the oceans may become terrifyingly apparent around the world in the coming decades, but the effects of climate warming are already clear in the Arctic itself. Here's the evidence, in words and pictures by Alun Anderson, former editor-in-chief of New Scientist and author of After the Ice: Life, death and politics in the new Arctic (published this month by HarperCollins-Smithsonian in the US and Virgin Books in the UK)." http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/the-future-of-the-arctic
Okay. So if we stop all human activity, ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY, even breathing, how long will it be before everything is returned to normal in the Arctic? 1 year? 5 years? 50 years? 100 years? Baron Max
We aren't going to do anything, or rather, what we will do will be as little as possible. Like someone said, nobody cares about a future they won't be in. What we will see instead is a lot of hand-wringing along with the realization that there really isn't anything, short of a breakthrough in technology, that we are prepared to do. If the ice is melting and "it's our fault" we will wait to see if anything happens, like we always have and always will. The idea that we can disagree with what the climate is doing, that we spend enough time and money looking at the climate to be able to say, or that what we say or think is going to make a difference is irrelevant.
It goes like this: We have known about the increasing load of extra CO2 since the middle of last century, or before. Climate change got to be a hot topic, but since the end of the last cycle, and a bit of cooling, and admissions from scientists that there are unexplained patterns, since all that the amount of CO2 has not decreased, we haven't leveled off either. Instead, now we know about the potential danger of increasing CO2 levels, we have cleverly increased the output since 2000, by nearly 30%! If it's real we seem keen to give it a good test drive and see where it goes. I'd think about investing in a boat company, though.
Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker - Environment - The Independent Parts of the west Antarctic ice sheet are getting thicker rather than ... said: "It's harder than ever to predict how this area of Antarctica is going to ... http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/antarctic-ice-sheet-is-getting-thi cker-663902.html
If all 20 million Australians quit everything, they'll be replaced in ... what? A few weeks or months by India alone? I mean, so long as we have some people in the world pumping out as many children as is humanly possible - well, you can pretty much say f*ck it. Not only that but our whole economic system is based on population growth. Based on this alone, if CO2 is a real problem, then this planet is doomed (or at least the things living on it).
No, not the living things. Maybe the humans, but more likely, the standard of living that we enjoy in the west. I think back to the Farside comic that showed a group of insects holding hands and dancing on a leaf while numerous mushroom clouds bloomed in the distant background. If we humans exterminate ourselves, it won't matter in the slightest to this planet.
That's why all the proposals are bullshit. The "developing countries" don't have to do squat and they are the major polluters now. All countries need to cut emissions. Perhaps have rich countries help poor ones with funds for this and technology, but they cannot be "allowed" to pollute more.
That is why i see some curious things happening here. You would think that developing nations would be the ideal place to start for new technologies. Even if they are helped by other countries.
There's something i've always considered somewhat ironic - the argument put forward by the poor countries is, in essence "This is your problem, not ours, you made the mess, you fix it up, do it before it begins affecting us, but we want the same opportunity
Its not ironic at all, unless you've already given up what you have to reach their level of subsistence already. As someone who already lives in a way that is less harmful to the planet, I am unwilling to give up the very few amenities I use while your entire lifestyle is geared to exploiting the planets resources.
Yes, I understand and accept that, my point is that it's ironic because that's the exact same argument (more or less) that climate change opponents use. "It's not a human caused problem, it's completely natural, why should I make sacrifices to clean up something I have no control over? (Besides look how much pollution those other fullas are making)."
Originally Posted by Baron Max: "Okay. So if we stop all human activity, ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY, even breathing, how long will it be before everything is returned to normal in the Arctic? 1 year? 5 years? 50 years? 100 years?" You're the one who consistently asks/demands sources and evidence for people's assertions ......do you have any for your own assertions? 50 years, huh? And that's if all humans stop everything? I've read articles that put a recovery at something like 1,000 years. And you still claim only 50 years? Baron Max
Ice has been melting since the last ice age. That’s what it does...it melts. Stop pushing your arrogant ideology on everyone who doesn’t agree with you. No one is saying you can’t ride your bike or hug a tree, so return the favor and mind your own business. The world seriously has bigger issues than doctored pictures of polar bears on ice.
There is probably no more important issue for the future of mankind and the planet. The factors that led to our present prosperity will kill us. But please, don't let this burst your bubble.
Most important issue, really? Genocide, Aids, Poverty, Unemployment, Wars, Terrorism, Cancer, Dictatorship... Your right, lets all focus on a farce. If you really believe climate change activism and the Copenhagen summit are truly about saving the planet then simply take out the clause in the proposed treaty that relates to redistribution of hundreds of billions of dollars. See how many of those countries with their hands out stay and talk about the climate and how many drop it entirely.
The best thing for the planet is to reduce the population of humans. Just limit each family to two kids. But, no one is talking about that. And, what good does it do for 20 million Australians to reduce their foot print if the world population grows by that many people every month??? It's just silly to think we can have both a world population growth of billions more people AND maintain and develop AND reduce CO2. We can't have it all.
Cutting carbon emmisions enough to make a difference is just too expensive. We'll never do it. Even trying is a waste of time and money.. IF we need to cool the earth (notice I said if), we can use geoengineering at a tiny fraction of the cost of cutting carbon output. So I'd suggest studying that option as well as alternative power sources such as nuclear fusion and to hell with carbon reduction.
