The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[Ocram's Razr 964]

1. The climate is changing. This is a fact. Whether or not humans are responsible does not matter.

2. Humans have the technology to terraform the planet. Whether we are willing to actively make changes different from those we are already making is a different matter.

3. According to historical evidence, rapid changes can begin and mass extinctions can occur.

4. Life is very resilient and humans are very good at building shelters. The likelihood that there will be absolutely no life from earth in the geologic near future is astronomically low.

5. Humankind is drastically altering the Earth and as a result biodiversity has gone down. If people are concerned about biodiversity and believe that nature is important for high quality of life, then drastic changes must be made.

6. What this all boils down to is that depending on opinion, we can stay the course and humankind or earth life will still exist. The problem is that no one is sure whether both will exist on Earth.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Alejandro makes some very good points. The idea of moving agriculture into the cities is not a bad idea in those climates that can sustain it. Truck garden stuffs can easily be grown on roofs and vacant lots. For more stringent climates, vertical botanical gardens are possible, especially considering the number of poorly occupied commercial towers. This would be a major retrofit because of the poor construction practices with respect to mold and water damage prevention in some of these buildings. They payoff would be fresh, local tomatoes and other produce year round accompanied by a reduction in carbon-emitting trucking across continents of foodstuffs, which if you think about it is ridiculous.

Also, any botanical could be produced, which means that you can have bananas grown in the arctic.

Water use in botanical towers would be a major concern. A recycling system would be necessary, with stringent controls on residuals after purification. Good soil production could be encouraged by composting botanical and animal wastes. The idea of a vertical chicken or cattle ranch is probably not feasible, but with the release of veggie growing land, more ranches would be possible, where free-run food animals could be produced. (I am biased. I hate food animal "factories".)

The power requirement could be met initially by nukes, but eventually by green power sources. Each building should be fitted with whatever green energy sources are appropriate. Composting operations produce methane, which must be captured and used. Releasing it into the atmosphere compounds the atmospheric warming problem, as do cow farts. Wind generators come in all sizes. Only public utilities need the monstrous towers. And of course we can fall back on the Einstein (photoelectric) effect, to produce power as well whenever there is enough light. Ocean locations could easily use wave motors for power, as well as tide capture for hydro-electric power.

Animal protein in the western diet needs to be reduced. The very idea of a "cowboy steak" absolutely sickens me. It is wasteful, and no man needs that much protein at one sitting. I am neither a vegan nor a vegitarian, but I do believe that we eat altogether too much meat protein in the west, including fish. And speaking of fish, if international overfishing isn't stomped on pretty soon there won't be any fish. You only have to look at the cod situation on the Atlantic coast (Grand Banks) to see what the big factory draggers have done. The best answer to illegal fishing vessels is a torpedo.

Meanwhile, back at the changing climate, we won't be able to have much effect in the next generation (30 years) but we can start. It is time to stop jawing about carbon credits and whose ox is being gored, and get on with it. It is already very late. High carbon emitters should be taxed in such a way that self-improvement will pay off more than continuing to defy reality. No sacred cows, and nobody is too big to fail. If gentle persuasion doesn't work, then we'll have to seek a less gentlemanly and less diplomatic way of making people and nations see the light.

If you want proof, look around.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

1. "Organic" food is a political term, all chemicals based on carbon chains is organic (actually, everything besides carbon dioxide is organic) regardless of whether the source of biological, artificial, or biological with help from artificially created substances.

2. On the other hand, pesticides are poisons designed to hurt members of the Animalia family, which includes us humans so I know that pesticides are unhealthy to consume.

3. Animal cruelty and old fashioned ways of raising animals are certainly not mutually exclusive. A high tech way of producing ground beef can be made without animal cruelty or resource wastefulness, that would be growing muscle fibers on special devices from stem cells from cattle. It works with any meaty animal (cows, bison, buffalo, chickens, pigs, hogs, sheep, goats, etc) though the biggest savings of resources are with large bovines such as beef, bison, and buffalo. Cows given wheat also produce methane burps.

4. Yeasts, Legumes, and Algae can all be used to make dietary proteins. In fact, many seeds, fungi, and aquatic photosynthesizing (algae protists, and seaweed plants) life forms can be used for nutrition. Artificial flavors can make them delicious.

5. High quality of life for many people can be obtained many ways depending on how quality of life is defined. Elimination of poverty with a high population in a small area pretty much requires high density living.

6. Increase in quality of nutrition for a large population cannot be done with processed vegetable products alone. Processed vegetable products are rarely delicious (high in saltiness, sweetness, umami, or flavor/scents/flavoring) and nutritious at the same time.

[hym 358]

2. On the other hand, pesticides are poisons designed to hurt members of the Animalia family, which includes us humans so I know that pesticides are unhealthy to consume.

It isn't as simple as that. You can have chemicals that, if ever absorbed into the bloodstream, would kill you in minutes, but are completely safe to eat if they can't be processed by the digestive system. Dow chemists did this with an herbicide. The herbicide was so potent that there was public concern that cattle would be unable to produce consumable products; the chemists were so sure of their creation that each of the three of them drank a glass of the concentrated formula, just as it would come from manufacturing. They didn't even experience intestinal distress.

Just like many herbicides, pesticides intended to be used on human food sources are specifically designed to have little or no toxicity to humans.

6. Increase in quality of nutrition for a large population cannot be done with processed vegetable products alone. Processed vegetable products are rarely delicious (high in saltiness, sweetness, umami, or flavor/scents/flavoring) and nutritious at the same time.

Sure it can. Scientists are figuring out ways to use fruits and vegetables to carry designer vitamin blends. Researchers have proven that you can more than double the iron content of a tomato just by putting the right color tarp under it. It's only a matter of time before they figure out how to do this with other food items.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

A partial solution to the global food crisis is playing itself out in the horn of Africa now. The UN just declared a famine in the area, and somehow, money is not forthcoming from the UN membership to ship supplies into the area. The current financial mess(es) seem to have solowed down the good will of nations. Several millions of drought-stricken Africans will die. The aid groups can only wring their hands when there are no resources available.

The strange part of all this is that neither the Arab League nor the Organizatiion of African States seem much concerned with this. Perhaps the western world should butt out.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Why should we give any help to such a lawless and corrupt nation of pirates?

Also, I said proccessed, as in canned, dried, (possibly frozen) or otherwise packaged so that the consumer can eat it straight out of the container.

Examples include junk food, canned foods, nutrition bars (protein bars), ramen, TV Dinners, non-parishible ice cream (astronaut food), and the type of food I get from my nutritionist. The most expensive are tolerable and nutritious enough but the cheapest should NEVER be used as the sole source of nutrition.

Specially bred, raised, or GM fruits and vegetables can be made into food that is both delicious and nutritious at an affordable price.

  Edited July 21, 2011 by OcramSeattle  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Why should we give any help to such a lawless and corrupt nation of pirates?

Also, I said proccessed, as in canned, dried, (possibly frozen) or otherwise packaged so that the consumer can eat it straight out of the container.

Examples include junk food, canned foods, nutrition bars (protein bars), ramen, TV Dinners, non-parishible ice cream (astronaut food), and the type of food I get from my nutritionist. The most expensive are tolerable and nutritious enough but the cheapest should NEVER be used as the sole source of nutrition.

Specially bred, raised, or GM fruits and vegetables can be made into food that is both delicious and nutritious at an affordable price.

1. We shouldn't. This is the job for the nations in the region. Don't forget all the widows and orphans. Life is cheap there.
2. All that stuff isn't much good if you are dehydrated.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Well the western hemisphere did not colonize Africa. We were colonized by the same people, the British, Spanish, and French with some help by the Germans, Italians, Dutch, and Portuguese. Portugal, UK, France, Italy, Netherlands, and Germany have more responsibility for Africa than the USA, Canada, or Mexico. Canada should not care at all. The USA helped with setting up Liberia, immigrating from Africa, and stabilizing Africa. We have more responsibility than the rest of the Western Hemisphere but Africa should be the problem of Africa, Europe, and west Asia more than North America, South America, Australia, and the rest of Asia. A great author once said that the USA should not interfere with politics in another hemisphere and should not make propaganda to make its citizens think that their tribe is the world because Nationalism is bad enough.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The era of colonialism is as dead as a Dodo. The Africans have had two generations to pull themselves out of the aftermath, at least. All they got, mostly, were dictatorships and thugs. Tribal wars were renewed and continued.

Western-style freedom is clearly not for them yet. We cannot step in and flood aid in both materiel and money for every natural disaster. I have seen reports that this one could have been prevented. Let the Africans solve Africa's problems. I, like many of us in the west, am sick to death of rescuing people from their own folly.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I read that Post-Colonialism is about the responsibility of Imperial/Colonial powers to give their former colonies the ability to be on an equal footing.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I read that Post-Colonialism is about the responsibility of Imperial/Colonial powers to give their former colonies the ability to be on an equal footing.

You have got to be kidding. Most of the colonial powers failed to do anything except exploit the countries, then left after the great war. And look what happened to some countries that were set up properly, Rhodesia for example (now Zimbabwe, run by a bunch of gangsters let by a duly elected Robert Mugabe). Conquerors usually feel no responsibility for the conquered at all, even when they have to leave. You should make an effort to descend from cloud 9 and taste the economic facts. Before you bleed all over the place, look at your own native peoples who were conquered by your forebears.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

It is not as bad where I live since the northwest was expanded later and Americans learned from their mistakes a little. The various samish tribes and their people have it better off than the cherokee. I have native blood but it is not much (a little Azteca/Mexica). Legalizing casinos for non-natives was a bad decision.

Also, as much as I think the United States should take care of (but more inportantly respect) all citizens and descendants of everyone who settled here (especially those who settled here before the USA was founded), I think that the Western Hemisphere ows the Eastern Hemisphere nothing. So I was trying to make conversation about some scholarly political idea I know little about (and care even less about) that I read on Wikipedia.

[astronelson 339]

Whether or not one hemisphere owes another anything is, in my opinion, immaterial. As I see it, there are places in dire need of help. If a country is able to provide assistance to them if requested, they have a duty too. Not from any legal obligation, nor because of any debt, but rather because it is morally just. Helping others when they need it and you are able is basic humanity.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

In spite of our lousy, recovering economy, Canada has chucked in $70,000,000 and is conducting a country wide campaign for donations to the East Africa situation. Considering that we are trying to kill our deficit at the same time, I think that taps us out

The U.S. has no money, and will not be able to even meet internal obligations after August 2nd unless congress comes to its senses. They have a money drought, and can't contribute without busting their bank.

The OAS and the Arab League are rolling in funds. Their turn, I think. But their attitude will be that life is cheap and there are too many useless mouths, so shrug.

What about other countries in the world?

Anyway, all this is off subject.

What is happening to the big ice floe off Newfoundland? If it could be captured (ha, ha) and brought to land in a controlled manner, there is a lot of fresh water for a thirsty continent.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Whether or not one hemisphere owes another anything is, in my opinion, immaterial. As I see it, there are places in dire need of help. If a country is able to provide assistance to them if requested, they have a duty too. Not from any legal obligation, nor because of any debt, but rather because it is morally just. Helping others when they need it and you are able is basic humanity.

I hope you are not talking about the USA because our country is not able to provide assistance and most Americans cannot afford to send donations either. Those that can afford to donate to charities are in high demand by local charities. No other country helps the USA's destitute and there are neighboring countries and former colonizers with the means to help this country. I will not insult any aspect of this post if you do not insist that the USA has a duty to help others when it cannot even help itself.

Humanity is not about helping strangers, that is charity. Humanity is about helping yourself and helping others so they can help you. Being humane means you do not hurt others, being humane does not mean you hurt yourself, friends, and family to help people you do not even know. Doing so goes against any natural instincts and can only be accomplished by civilizations who can force you to do things you would not naturally do otherwise (through force or propaganda). Being selfish and putting yourself in a better position by harming others is not a good thing either because humans need a support network. But ever since tribal days, tribes would go to war against each other because they could not share resources.

Society needs a level of give or take so societies usually only help other societies if they can get something in return. So if a country could afford to fix all the problems in East Africa, they would have earned the right to make demands (such as returning the favor by paying back a loan, changing laws or governments, demanding cooperation or resources, etc).

I feel no obligation to help those in a country that brought me nothing. I help local charities, get my parents to donate to local charities, help out with Catholic missionaries in Mexico and those in the USA helping Mexicans (and possibly others but are main goal is helping Chicanos and Mexicans and not those that immigrated from further, we have charities in other countries for other countries) and donated to the Red Cross efforts for helping the country where I get most of my consumer electronics and entertainment.

In short, there is no "duty" any free human has to helping complete strangers from far away when trying to help them would hurt themselves. That is something only a "parasite" would say. If one can survive hardships endured from helping these strangers and this person freely chooses to make the decision to helping them, then good for this charitable person. If someone else (like a political or church leader) makes anyone endure hardships help others in a different society just because that politician thinks that is "the right thing to do," then that politician is in the wrong and is in fact a parasite. [i paraphrased that from Ayn Rand]

  Edited July 25, 2011 by OcramSeattle  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, please! This stuff should be discussed in the East Africa Famine thread. Even though climate change may be at the root of this problem, the subject of this thread is not who or who should not have the virtue of charity.

Now, what about my iceberg of three posts ante?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Yes, fresh, clean water should always be appreciated.

[astronelson 339]

I was talking about countries in general. If the US is unable to assist so be it, although I find the self-styled greatest nation on Earth being unable to help others somewhat disappointing.

The dictionary I take the definition of humanity from lists humaneness and benevolence as a definition, so I feel justified in using the term.

I never said helping to the detriment of yourself anywhere in my post. I did say if they are able to.

I'm also not really that big a fan of Ayn Rand.

A list of the most charitable countries can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries Donations per capita is particularly interesting.

As for the ice floe, the main problem would be one of transport and storage. You'd want to get it out of the ocean, definitely, and several million tonnes of ice (at the least!) is no light load.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The United States of America is in the midst of a major economic crisis that can take the entire world that uses the US Dollar with us.

Well, good for Luxemburg, Sweden, and Norway. The United States donates the largest total but we borrowed too much to do it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

First, we would have a hard time corralling that iceberg. It is several millions if not billions of tonnes.

Next, if we could get it near shore anywhere, we wouldn't need to land it. Just mine the ice.

When it became small enough, we could build a coffer dam around it, and stick a straw in the melt water. Ignoring problems while it is brackish. Even brackish water can serve industrial purposes or you could build a big desalination plant next to it. The plant would remain after the ice eventually melted.

By the time this much ice melted, we'd have the technology to go get some more. (If we could find the money).

Climatologically, grabbing this ice from the ocean would prevent further destructive desalination of the ocean environment. You want to do something about climate change? He is an opportunity. All it takes is the will and a serious difference can be made. And don't say we can't. Look at the flood wall that the Americans built to protect New Orleans and the giant surge gates at Rotterdam. We just have to get off the dime.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Resurrectio!

It would appear that global warming is a fact. This is pretty good evidence.

Now, what are the coastal municipalities and low-lying countries going to do about it?

Let's not forget that nature likes the value of e, and that things tend to follow exponential curves. The article doesn't say anything about the rate of change of acceleration of the melt. Given the data, perhaps some of our engineering members would care to make a prediction?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Meh, Dutch people are great at water protection and reclaiming land from the sea. So we are probably going to do our thing and then sell our knowledge to the rest of the world for a lot of money. Climate change is going to make use rich!

Damnit, I knew I should have made more of an effort to like engineering and stuff. I could be working for one of those companies and make a fortune!

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You are right, of course. Just look at Rotterdam for a super-engineering marvel, and think about all those new dikes.

I don't know about getting rich. Is Holland going to do anything for the poor Bangladeshis who haven't got a pot to pee in, nor a window to throw it out of? You may become the water-engineering world leader and make a lot of money from everyone except the Yanks who suffer from a bad cane of NIH (Not invented here).

I don't expect that Dutch hydraulic engineers will achieve any special personal wealth other than just compensation. There will be more of them, no doubt, and they can become world travellers as things get wetter. Most of the wealth will accrue to the Dutch corporations and the government.

In a news report I saw in the last week, New York is planning extensive oyster farms in their harbour areas as wave amelioration devices. Sounds a little wimpy when you look at the forces arrayed against them from the ocean. At the most, to solve the problems raised by Sandy, they have a year. Some of the planners in new York are considering abandoning neighbourhoods they consider untenable.

  Edited November 30, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Resurrectio!

It would appear that global warming is a fact. This is pretty good evidence.

Hy-Brasil is Sinking!

From the comedic movie "Erik the Viking": "Well, my dear, I think you'll find it's all a question of what you want to believe in, and I happen to have more experience in these matter than you do, I think, blub blub blub blub blub blub..."

Now, what are the coastal municipalities and low-lying countries going to do about it?

Let's not forget that nature likes the value of e, and that things tend to follow exponential curves. The article doesn't say anything about the rate of change of acceleration of the melt. Given the data, perhaps some of our engineering members would care to make a prediction?

Careful...that could be illegal in some jurisdictions, as a New Law in North Carolina Bans Latest Scientific Predictions of Sea-Level Rise, lest the projected warnings make rapid real estate development of the increasingly vulnerable coast too prohibitively costly. Hurricane Sandy perhaps hit a tad too far north.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Nothing like greed to promote head-in-sand syndrome. All the legislation in the world won't alter the facts. Wasn't it some southern state that decreed that pi=3.0? (Tennessee, I think).

Political rationalization won't prevent people from seeing the obvious.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

There is also the proof that pi=4 but that is a different subject...

Illegalizing climate change is weird and backwards but I am not surprised that a southern state did it.

--Ocram

[7238320 77]

Considering scientists were convicted because they did not predict the time and intensity of an earthquake...

... there will always be people who believe 'the world is flat'.

The only 'truth' is time.

In my mind I feel humans are turning back the clock. When I look around me, everything I see was at one time stored carefully away; in the form of trees, raw minerals, oils etc... stored deep in the earth.

My understanding of current science is that the earth's atmosphere used to be toxic, but biological processes created a human friendly atmosphere... and it would seem that since we started walking upright. homo sapiens have been trying to undue billions of years of 'evolution'.

I look around my house and try to find one natural / native product: something that was a lot easier to do 40 years ago.

I am sad for my descendants, I've had the privilege of knowing a wild planet they never will.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The natural world is starting to catch up on homo sapiens(?). No animal would ever eliminate in its own nest.

Biological fact is starting to take effect. No organism can survive in an environment of its own waste. Consider the number of people, especially kids, who are drastically allergic to this and that. When I was a kid, no one had ever heard of dying from a peanut butter sandwich. Either all such children died in infancy, or they didn't exist. Wonder which it was?

We are becoming unfit to live in the environment, so I expect a new, hardier race will eventually emerge or we will all be gone. At the moment our medical science is not doing us a favour by keeping some of the unfit alive.

[Easy Bakes 253]

All i know is it was 75 today, and its almost December.