It must be global warming!!!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tshrimp, May 23, 2013.

  1. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #1
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    As someone who lived in tornado alley most of my life I can vouch that tornadoes are about as common as street cats in this area.

    People are so used to them that fire trucks do drive arounds to make sure people are in their houses and not out watching the weather.
     
  3. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    People say that you should not live near the ocean, but what about those living in tornado alley. They seem to get far more destruction every year.
     
  4. tshrimp thread starter macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #4
    I think we forget how bad some of the past tornadoes have been. However, we didn't have the media to cover things like we do now.

    http://www.onlinecertificateprograms.org/blog/2011/10-most-destructive-tornadoes-in-u-s-history/

    I also remember a big story when I was younger about a bad tornado in Wichita Falls, TX. Not sure how it compared though.
     
  5. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    Global Warming should be studied and it take money. It's been well documented that humanity is responsible for adding mega tons of carbon into the atmosphere most likely adding to the magnitude of the Earth heating up. Yes, the Earth has heated up before, but if we are adding to the problem, then it's in our long term interests to do something about it. If I read you right, your attitude is typical of the "Stick our heads in the sand, I don't want to pay for it, don't make me change my life style" people, dare I say conservatives? :p

    National Geo Link

     
  6. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #6
    The other thing is before we existed tornados and hurricanes slammed into things and didn't affect us. Now that we a building in these places it becomes an issue.
     
  7. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #7
    Places like South Florida (hurricanes).
     
  8. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #8
    And New Orleans, why logically allow a place feet below sea level to rebuilt. I don't care how many levies we build it won't stop the inevitable. We could either spend billions to rebuild in place or take that money and move everyone north.
     
  9. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    I don't want my remarks to be taken the wrong way, I definitely believe that continued CO2 emissions will ultimately affect the way our climate evolves. This just makes logical sense to me. But I have to just say/ask something...

    Does anyone else wonder about this claim? If the last time CO2 levels were as high as they currently are, the seas were so much higher and camels/horses were roaming the arctic, then what gives now? Why aren't the seas at a similar level, and why is the arctic still a frozen tundra rather than a habitat fit for horses and camels?

    There's probably something I'm missing here, but that just struck me as strange...
     
  10. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    It makes sense if you look at it like this ...

    We are at the very beginning of this state (400ppm). The world is changing from cooler to warmer, but it still maintains many of the features of a cooler climate. Not enough time has transpired to create the conditions described.

    When they talk about the "last time" they are talking about a long span of time, a span long enough to account for the conditions that, as you say, are quite different from what we see today.
     
  11. quasinormal macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia.
    #11
    It is about time those with the means started pulling their fingers from their proverbial and started showing some independence instead of milking the public teat.

    The rich are by far the largest users of electricity and and are effectively being given welfare by their drain on the system.

    I say, legislate that the richest and largest users of electricity make a significant contribution to production of their energy usage in the form of solar, wind, bi and tri generation etc etc.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    My uneducated guess would be because the last time we passed through the 400ppm threshold, we were heading down from higher levels. Now we're heading up from lower levels.
     
  13. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #13
    So easily said, yet almost impossible to accomplish.

    Not because they don't want, but because the economy just couldn't support a shift from our current power sources.
     
  14. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #14
    Could you elaborate a bit about your theory?

    The economy's long-term survival would seem to depend on finding alternative sources of energy (given the finite nature of carbon-based energy sources.)
     
  15. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #15
    You aren't going to have an instantaneous response for one thing.
     
  16. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #16
    Good point, there's probably a lot of variables at play. And who knows how long CO2 was at or above 400ppm back then right?

    ----------

    Another good point.

    ----------

    Yes, I understand now, thanks guys.

    In my field, results are fairly instantaneous.

    I forget that in earth science we're usually dealing with things in terms of thousands to millions of years or more.
     
  17. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #17

    Because for one reason, the oceans currently act as a huge reservoir for two things: heat and carbon dioxide. For now, they're slowly absorbing both, which is starting to cause changes in marine habitats and ecosystems, and also to ocean currents, wind patterns and ice formation.

    Someone here (not in this thread) asked recently why it's been cold over the past couple of years, like it has in the US and Europe. Apparently, it's all about the polar jetstream being pushed south by rising temperatures and air in the Arctic.

    Some terrifying projections I've seen are forecasting an overall stronge cooling for the United Kingdom, because melting ice in the Arctic will cause cold and heavy water to sink into the North Atlantic, pushing the warmer waters of the Gulf Stream south towards the Mediterranean.

    This is why the phrase 'global warming' has fallen out of general disfavour, because it implies an overall heating of the globe. But that's not how it's going to appear at first, hence the phrase 'climate change' being more accurate.
     
  18. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #18
    Sure, we need to find new sources of energy. Coal, petroleum, gas are not going to last forever. And a new source that is renewable and cleaner should be the goal of any government.

    But shifting from coal/natural gas/oil/etc. energy plants to solar/wind/hydro or any new perfected technique would cost any economy too much.

    My point is:
    - Yes, we need to find new energy sources. Either because we are destroying ourselves or because we are eventually going to run out of the ones we have right now.

    - But we cannot be naive and think all this can be done in 3, 6 or even 10 years. Doing so would require massive amounts of money invested and regulations imposed, which will undoubtedly affect the economy.

    Apple might be able to go for it, but most (may I say 98-99%?) companies and governments can't. They simply don't have the money to do it.
     
  19. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    Like the space program.

    What company could afford to spend decades developing a product in the hope of it one day being commercially viable?
     
  20. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #20
    Plus the fact that we don't have anything nearly strong enough to be able to replace the energy output for the worlds needs that we get from fossil fuels.
     
  21. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #21
    Exactly.

    I don't really know were you are going to. Do you mean how we can spend in the space station and not in the green technologies?

    I haven't made much research, but it is estimated that the space stations has cost from $35 to $100 billion dollars since 1985 to date, let's make it $150 billion taking into account other countries contributions. This leaves us with $5-6 billion dollars per year.

    The estimated cost for "going green" according to the UN is around $1.6 trillion dollars per year, and we would need 40-50 years to achieve the goal they set. Meaning this will need and investment of more than $68 trillion dollars in 40 years. And as everything goes with these things, this figure could easily go to $100 trillion dollars.

    I really doubt this is economically possible.
     
  22. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #22
    Historically, it usually taken about 25-50 years for a new energy source to become fully implemented.

    It would seem prudent to begin the transition ASAP, that is, if you want your children's children and their children to enjoy a halfway decent standard of living.

    Unfortunately, we've been sitting on our collective asses since the OPEC crunch of the 1970s... so we've wasted 40 or so, accomplishing some things but doing little overall.

    So, there is a problem. But the Because trying to solve the problem would be too hard, too expensive, too inconvenient and take too long, etc.

    Sure... The best thing to do would be to do nothing. Besides, everyone reading this will probably be dead or too old to care when the problem reaches critical stage. Then it'll be someone else's responsibility to deal with the problem.

    Sounds like a plan...
     
  23. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #23
    I am all for cheaper energy sources but I don't see how it exists anytime soon. And certainly not for us to be able to cut off all oil.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    How does this compare to the cost of inaction? If regions of the planet become inhospitable, and populations start moving, how much will the resulting wars cost? How much in insurance claims will be paid out as weather patterns change? What if food and water supplies are threatened?

    Is any of that financially feasible?
     
  25. SkyBell macrumors 604

    SkyBell

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Texas, unfortunately.
    #25
    I feel like the only way we could even hope to accomplish becoming un-reliant on fossil fuels, is to make major sacrifices worldwide in regards to money spent on frivolities and reducing our standards of living, for quite a while.

    In most of today's societies, it is usually encouraged that one make efforts to find a career that they are good at and enjoy. While a great aspiration, I think that we have already or will soon reach a point where, to avert or lessen a major climate crisis, we can no longer simply focus on making sure everyone has a job they want, but instead focus on making sure everyone is working together to make a better future for the planet and all living things on it.

    I have no master plan or anything we could follow, but examples of what I mean would be pretty much shutting down the film/TV/music/video game industries (among others, such as professional sports and pretty much any industry not necessary to our survival) and having these workforces instead take jobs in researching/developing/manufacturing/implementing clean energy sources.

    I feel that such measures would help reduce the immense cost of such conversions, though it would still be quite a formidable amount.

    But on the other hand, I've never quite fully understood economics; if everyone followed my advice, we'd probably all be screwed. :p
     

Share This Page