Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[Catbuster]

Here's my take on humans contributing to climate change.

The real problem is that left wing enviros are idiots about emissions control and allowing work to be done.

I work in forestry and gas production in site prep. I've had to spend >$10K more on maintenance and fuel on my gear Tier 3 and up than equivalent pre-emissions gear.

The problem is that the engines of today produce 200% of 20% cleaner emissions, while reducing the productivity because you can't see from them. And with rising fuel costs, it's killer.

Another problem is that my Komatsu PC300HD-8 burns about 1/500th of low sulfur diesel compared to a cargo ship's Bunker C, which is really what's left over after making gas and diesel. So, they might burn 4-5% sulfur, which is SUPER high. Cars aren't cracked down on much at all, and they probably produce 1000% as much as construction, ag and big rigs. They're what really needs to be cracked down upon. Not construction, agriculture or truckers. Fuel prices are already bad enough as is compared to regular gasoline.

The problem with drilling is that the gear used isn't maintained and corners get cut. That's why the BP/Transocean rig blew. Well... Transocean kinda was going to hell at the time, which led to corners being cut. Nonetheless, corners got cut and it went and blew. And that's the cause of most accidents. If the Feds would quit kissing up to oil, and crack down to keep stuff like that from happening, there would be more drilling with less accidents.

What I don't agree with is mountaintop mining, but that's another story of Massey and Peabody. I will never go anywhere near them again.

 

[P. Aaron]

5 years, what a surprise. 5 years, stuck on my eyes. 5 years, my brain hurts a lot. 5 years, that's all we've got!

 

[nick g.]

Actually there are four things up for debate.

1) How serious is the change in climate that is occurring and has it leveled off? And have the books been cooked by some in the scientific community, the hockey stick for instance is a complete fraud?

2) Are humans actually contributing to climate change?

3) If so, how much, what percentage?

4) Do humans have the capacity to reverse it?

There has been plenty of other climate changes within history. In the early 1600s we went thru a mini-ice age. In the 1300s we went thru a warming period that in parts of the world were we kept records was warmer than the current period. Humans somehow survived thru those period. I do believe we in the West need to have a smaller Carbon footprint, not because I'm convinced CO2 emissions are changing the climate as much as we simply can't afford all of the stuff we believe we need.

This. Seriously, this.

 

[Wyrm74]

I've done some fairly extensive research into this subject and now am of the opinion that global warming is complete bupkus. It's just the "scare of the decade".

Anyone remember acid rain in the 70's? The whole earth was going to melt and be complete poison at any second!

How about the hole in the ozone layer in the 80's? One would burst into flames by simply walking out ones own front door into direct sunlight! Aggh!

El nino anyone? All the fish were going to die!

Global warming came along in the 2000's, and well...we didnt' really warm up so much so now the buzz scare word of this current decade is "climate change".

Oh lord, when will it end?!

According to the National Climactic Data Center, the U.S. has actually cooled by 1 degree over the last 12 years. Look it up!

Get out your tinfoil hats fellas, this ride isn't ever going to end. I would suggest you stop worrying about drivel like this and go do something important and meaningful like hug your kids or spouse.

Of course, IMHO, YMMV, etc.

 

[notverygood]

The earth's atmosphere is a closed system, so I would think humans are at least contributing something to climate change. If nothing else we may be accelerating a process that would have happened slowly by itself. Myself, I'm no scientist but since you can kill yourself by breathing next to your tailpipe, I would think that millions of cars running day after day combined with the destruction of areas that would help filter pollutants out would be bad.

 

[Sonicfrog]

Even if it's happening, it's not irreversable. It may seem like it in terms of human lifetimes, but the polar caps have melted numerous times over geologic history, then come back to cover half the planet with ice. I'm not going to sweat it. I'll be dead by the time anything drastic happens.

Yep. Mungi is a geology guy, and though I don't have his experience, and though I'm only a partially trained geology student (♫ geology school drop-out &#9835 I also take the long view on AGW too.

 

[MatticusMania]

Long term, in the face of nature, humans are inconsequential.

+1

We come and go, come and go, until we cant come no more.

Don't worry. The planet will unleash something to reduce our population by about 70-90%, then we won't be affecting the environment much for a while.

Personally I'm hoping not for a bug/virus, but a new super-predator like a dragon or maybe giant kittens.

Silly guy, dragons and giant kittens are nothing new. Those are super predators of the past! You want super AND new, it'll probably be something small, like plants making us kill ourselves.

 

[kserg]

I find "global warming" people to be somewhat like "religious" people 200 years ago.

~ - 1900's: "We can't explain it! Whats happening? It must be God's will"
1900's - 2000's: We can't explain it! What's happening? It's Global Warming.

 

[96tbird]

I find "global warming" people to be somewhat like "religious" people 200 years ago.

~ - 1900's: "We can't explain it! Whats happening? It must be God's will"
1900's - 2000's: We can't explain it! What's happening? It's Global Warming.

Flag on play.

I thought this thread (and the forum) was to discuss the issue at hand, not slag belief systems and groups of people.

 

[Solarmist]

Actually there are four things up for debate.

1) How serious is the change in climate that is occurring and has it leveled off? And have the books been cooked by some in the scientific community, the hockey stick for instance is a complete fraud?

2) Are humans actually contributing to climate change?

3) If so, how much, what percentage?

4) Do humans have the capacity to reverse it?

There has been plenty of other climate changes within history. In the early 1600s we went thru a mini-ice age. In the 1300s we went thru a warming period that in parts of the world were we kept records was warmer than the current period. Humans somehow survived thru those period. I do believe we in the West need to have a smaller Carbon footprint, not because I'm convinced CO2 emissions are changing the climate as much as we simply can't afford all of the stuff we believe we need.

+1 Great post

 

[L-A]

I can't personally assess the amount of impact civilization has had on climate. But I know a couple of things:

1. Climate change may be natural, but if its cycle goes beyond what humans can support, then we die. Not us, not our children, but it ends up happening.

2. Climate change may be unnatural, and then if we don't act to revert its current (measured) course, then we die. Not us, not our children, but it ends up happening.

So if the choice is to act or not, then I choose action. On one side, it might just save my butt but work "against" nature. On the other, it might just save my butt and give a hand to nature.

 

[hbarcat]

The panet isn't going anywhere. We are.


George Carlin - Saving the Planet - YouTube

 

[PSPookie]

+1

We come and go, come and go, until we cant come no more.



Silly guy, dragons and giant kittens are nothing new. Those are super predators of the past! You want super AND new, it'll probably be something small, like plants making us kill ourselves.

FWIW, the smart money is on Octopi Overlords

 

[BlacksHole]

By experiment and by observation it has been shown that other species affect the climate rather dramatically. When the midwest (US) was all plains and very large buffalo herds, the climate was definitely different. This has also been seen in other ares of the world. Ergo, large numbers of an animal species probably affect the climate. Part of this is that animals tend to multiply until they exhaust a "system". This tends to increase desertification. So, if the effects of human population make the world more suited to something else such as insects rather than mammals, then we have a problem. While we may survive as a species, life could get increasingly more difficult and uncomfortable. However, we can observe and measure the changes and perhaps even forestall our own natural effects on the world despite our serious overpopulation.

Are those who are preaching doomsday overstating? I believe they are and that as has been mentioned already, there are natural forces which still outweigh our own contribution. But that doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand and act like a bunch of Easter Islanders and totally ignore the doomsayers. Only being concerned about your lifetime or even just including your kids is short-sighted and not exactly intelligent. That's a bit like saying we had a cold winter so global warming must be a fantasy and this really puts one in the same class as those who go overboard the other way (Chicken Little).

 

[PSPookie]

^
^
Was the weather really different because there were more buffaloes, or were there more buffaloes because the weather was different (and we hadn't killed off most of the population yet)?

 

[BlacksHole]

The most recent study on this (that I know about) was on a herd of deer in Europe in a much smaller area. A herd of herbivores tend to kill off small trees and turn an area into a grassland since grasses grow back so much more quickly. The effect is less trees (deforestation) and higher reflectivity on the surface which tends to be self-serving as the grassland then takes over a larger area. Unfortunately, the herd also tends to grow and eat more grass unless controlled by predation. If this remains unchecked, then the tendency will be toward desertification and I do not believe we know how to undo desertification. If the predators get the upper hand, the area can turn back to forest as the young trees will be more likely to survive.

In some ways, we act like a herd animal and also destroy forests which affects the chemical balance as well as the reflectivity of the planet. Added to that we definitely introduce other chemicals into the atmosphere that would not be present without us. Note that life on earth has constantly changed the climate over very long time periods in the favor of the life forms - until there is a glut, which should then start changing conditions in a way which does not favor the predominant animal. But this is unproved on a large scale.

 

[PSPookie]

The most recent study on this (that I know about) was on a herd of deer in Europe in a much smaller area. A herd of herbivores tend to kill off small trees and turn an area into a grassland since grasses grow back so much more quickly. The effect is less trees (deforestation) and higher reflectivity on the surface which tends to be self-serving as the grassland then takes over a larger area. Unfortunately, the herd also tends to grow and eat more grass unless controlled by predation. If this remains unchecked, then the tendency will be toward desertification and I do not believe we know how to undo desertification. If the predators get the upper hand, the area can turn back to forest as the young trees will be more likely to survive.

In some ways, we act like a herd animal and also destroy forests which affects the chemical balance as well as the reflectivity of the planet. Added to that we definitely introduce other chemicals into the atmosphere that would not be present without us. Note that life on earth has constantly changed the climate over very long time periods in the favor of the life forms - until there is a glut, which should then start changing conditions in a way which does not favor the predominant animal. But this is unproved on a large scale.

I get what you're trying to say but the examples you give neglect a number of factors.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

By experiment and by observation it has been shown that other species affect the climate rather dramatically. When the midwest (US) was all plains and very large buffalo herds, the climate was definitely different. This has also been seen in other ares of the world. Ergo, large numbers of an animal species probably affect the climate. Part of this is that animals tend to multiply until they exhaust a "system". This tends to increase desertification. So, if the effects of human population make the world more suited to something else such as insects rather than mammals, then we have a problem. While we may survive as a species, life could get increasingly more difficult and uncomfortable. However, we can observe and measure the changes and perhaps even forestall our own natural effects on the world despite our serious overpopulation.

Are those who are preaching doomsday overstating? I believe they are and that as has been mentioned already, there are natural forces which still outweigh our own contribution. But that doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand and act like a bunch of Easter Islanders and totally ignore the doomsayers. Only being concerned about your lifetime or even just including your kids is short-sighted and not exactly intelligent. That's a bit like saying we had a cold winter so global warming must be a fantasy and this really puts one in the same class as those who go overboard the other way (Chicken Little).

There's a flaw in your theory. Animals do not exhaust systems. They only multiply to the point that the system can sustain them. You don't see large swathes of animals dying off in starvation. If starvation occurs it's never for more than one generation. If a system cannot sustain them, they simply cease to breed. By system, I mean the ecosystem that provides animals the necessities of life. Animals have a natural sense of balance with nature. They only multiply to the point of sustainability. Humans on the otherhand are a different story.

 

[Dave the Bass]

The climate is going to do what it wants no matter what people do or don't do about it. Doesn't anyone remember science class? Trees and plants take in CO2, keep the C(carbon), and release the O2(oxygen) back into the atmosphere. Therefore, higher CO2 levels are healthier for the plants than if we try to reduce levels by other means. There has been no actual warming since 1998 anyway, so I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Spaldo]

Global warming ain't the problem.

It's our planet's ability to sustain us....that's the key issue.

Frankly, it can't. We're already in 'overshoot'.

Humans are too competitive and greedy and we teach our kids the wrong values.

Change? It will never happen. The human race is doomed. Even while the warning signals are really quite obvious, our reliance on the planet's finite resources and our waste output has increased ridiculously.

You don't even have to believe the scientific data or the lies they feed us on television.

Breathe the air. Count the cars on the roads. Visit a waste dump.

Even drink the water.

We'll continue to ruin this planet until the last one of us is extinct.