Wanna See Antartica? Coming to a Coast Near You!

[Demosthenes11]

I guess we'll see my man.
By a lot of estimations we should already be fucked in the ass by the climate change

[aurik]

I think the other problem that isn't being discussed is when the government starts enacting global warming legislation for something that isn't even proven. In the end the government is just hurting consumers.

Conversely, how many new jobs are created by the rise of green industry?

You forgot to factor in the reduction in consumers due to the oncoming climate apocalypse.

[Xavier]

Whether its related or not, I personally think we're reaching the point where our population is no longer sustainable in our environment. The War over Water, a resource completely taken for granted, is going to utterly kick the economies ass. You don't have to look further than some southern states in America where disputes are already reaching a critical point.

I think the other problem that isn't being discussed is when the government starts enacting global warming legislation for something that isn't even proven. In the end the government is just hurting consumers.

Conversely, how many new jobs are created by the rise of green industry?

You forgot to factor in the reduction in consumers due to the oncoming climate apocalypse.

Losing a few hundred million/billion customers might have a slight impact on the bottom line, time will tell. :bagel:

[Hitoshura]

Fuck I just want Lost to finish before I die. Whether it be a nuclear war, global warming, meteor, ect.

[ronin sparthos]

I guess we'll see my man.
By a lot of estimations we should already be fucked in the ass by the climate change

True, but why is it that people always act only after something disasterous happens? We can take pre-emptives on warfare but not on protecting the very planet we live on? Its quite laughable, really. Just because the predictions were off doesnt mean it wont happen somewhere down the road.

CO2 is NOT the thing we should be worried about. Based on scientist's "estimations," our CO2 content in the atmosphere went up some 10x in 100 years. Yet with all of this new CO2 in the air, the global temperature has barely changed. CO2 isn't doing it, but it's not helping it either.
It's amazing how many scientists BG has that "know" the future.

Your forgetting that when the ice in the poles and glaciers melt tons of gas locked in that ice will go up into the atmosphere - gases trapped by the ice for thousands of years. This will add more greenhouse gases on top of what we pump into the atmosphere.

-The ice helps keep the planet cool, if all the ice melts the planets temperature will go up way faster than it has in the past. Alot of that locked fresh water will go to waste as well - water that we may well need as the population skyrockets.

-Sea Levels will rise, its happening in places already and as this happens we'll start to see more coastline reduction - in one way or another, leading to people getting displaced and islands being affected. If your below sea level, you'll have even more of an issue.

[Tajin]

True, but why is it that people always act only after something disasterous happens? We can take pre-emptives on warfare but not on protecting the very planet we live on? Its quite laughable, really.

I blame it on the masses being stupid, incredibly stupid. Humans give too much credit on themselves sometimes. Everyone is worried during the 60 seconds the news program lasts and forget when American Idol (just an example, I could put the name of a drama but I don't know any) starts.

[Seditedi]

I guess we'll see my man.
By a lot of estimations we should already be fucked in the ass by the climate change

Average annual temperatures and CO2 levels over the past few centuries definitely show an OBVIOUS relationship.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ttribution.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Comparison.png

I guess the fact that the past 14 years are all among the warmest 20 on record means nothing also.

If you can't see a correlation between the C02 levels and the rising temperature then you are either completely ignorant or a fucking moron.

[ronin sparthos]

True, but why is it that people always act only after something disasterous happens? We can take pre-emptives on warfare but not on protecting the very planet we live on? Its quite laughable, really.

I blame it on the masses being stupid, incredibly stupid. Humans give too much credit on themselves sometimes. Everyone is worried during the 60 seconds the news program lasts and forget when American Idol (just an example, I could put the name of a drama but I don't know any) starts.

Hell, i think this should be a major hot button issue for all the candidates - somewhere below the Iraq War, Afghanistan, Healthcare (alot of people forget we're here heh.) the Economy and National Security.

But then again most of the politicians wont live to see the effects of our mistakes so it doesnt really mean shit to them. Hell we should be planting the shit outta trees but we're more worried about what some random superstar is doing wasting their lives away in booze and smokes.

[Tajin]

Its all good we are not making it any better talking about it in a FFXI forum ;p

[Kaylia]

CO2 is NOT the thing we should be worried about. Based on scientist's "estimations," our CO2 content in the atmosphere went up some 10x in 100 years. Yet with all of this new CO2 in the air, the global temperature has barely changed. CO2 isn't doing it, but it's not helping it either.
It's amazing how many scientists BG has that "know" the future.

They probably did more science than you anyway. You don't need to be an expert to understand certain impact and see the potential danger.

Not everything follow linear function with a single cause/effect, and not everything can be repaired over time. You could technically pass a point of no return. A scenario that is unlikely to happen, but still, it's something to be worried about. We don't want to get to a point where the well being of a large majority of the population is in danger.
Right now, we are raping both our forests and oceans, the principal source of O2. Our emission are barely over the balance, but if it keep going up, as the production of o2 goes down, you're looking trouble.

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/oceans/im...ows_carbon.gif

Kill 10% of the ocean production (change of climate as the potential to hurt ocean a lot more than this), and your effective emission increased by 400% (from 0.4% to 1.5%). Of course, there is hundred more thing to take in consideration, but in overall, you won't end up with a balanced equation, and CO2 will keep going up.


The argument you often hear is that "Earth will fix it in the end". It's true, and it worked in the past when there was those massive volcano that sent ton of co2 in atmosphere.However, the regeneration process is slowed down by human, and condition atm are different than they were 1billion years ago.

[ronin sparthos]

Its all good we are not making it any better talking about it in a FFXI forum ;p

At least recognizing it and telling people who dont believe 'its a big deal' that it is - is a start.

[Tajin]

I was joking ;;, you have to admit it is funny >_>

[ronin sparthos]

It is, go look at how much gil costs versus planting a tree >.>;;

[Melchiah]

I want to think that I read in some journal that comparatively, the amount of noxious gases released from one serious volcanic eruption trumps anything we have done over the last 100 years by an exponential factor.

Also, it's been proven that Earth is not a temperature controlled human incubator, and personally I think it's a bit presumptuous of us to assume that we can have a serious, lasting effect on the planet. The environment has changed drastically many times over history. Isn't it accepted now that humans would have a difficult time breathing the atmosphere that existed during the Cretaceous era? I hardly think dinosaur farts created the system that became our current atmosphere.

Also, I believe I read somewhere that we are due for another ice age, and that glaciers in the northern hemisphere are actually increasing in size?

I just can't believe that we can cause a drastic change in the environment by dumping CO2. Deforestation is probably more of an issue than what CO2 we put into the atmosphere. Given that atmospheric conditions are observed to change greatly over an extended period of time, my conclusion is that the data is inconclusive. We simply are not considering a large enough sample size in terms of duration.

[Day]

It's ok, I'm just going to buy some carbon offsets and bottled water.

[Delta_9]

Also, I believe I read somewhere that we are due for another ice age, and that glaciers in the northern hemisphere are actually increasing in size?

Welcome to the 1970s.

[Melchiah]

You can't reasonably expect to monitor environmental changes over a period of 30 years and think you have an indicative picture of causes and effects. Welcome to reality.

Edit: Grammar

Also, there are other observed factors that are coinciding with the increased greenhouse gas emissions, such as solar variations and Earth's orbit. You can't just pick and choose the easiest target when you have multiple factors at the same time. You have to isolate factors and rule them out... just like any type of diagnostic procedure in which multiple causes can have the same effect.

[Delta_9]

Wasn't arguing against you. In the 1970s the fear was that we were sliding into a global cooling.

[Tajin]

I just can't believe that we can cause a drastic change in the environment by dumping CO2. Deforestation is probably more of an issue than what CO2 we put into the atmosphere. Given that atmospheric conditions are observed to change greatly over an extended period of time, my conclusion is that the data is inconclusive. We simply are not considering a large enough sample size in terms of duration.

Well, sure the same size is "small" considering the age of the earth and the duration of eras. You will not notice any drastic changes because humans (as in individuals) have a low life span, its all about how fucked will be the planet in 70+ years.

[Melchiah]

Not directed specifically at you, I just took it the wrong way.

Well, sure the same size is "small" considering the age of the earth and the duration of eras. You will not notice any drastic changes because humans (as in individuals) have a low life span, its all about how fucked will be the planet in 70+ years.

70 years is still not a large enough sample size.

Check out the idea of Thermal Inertia.