Global Warming Risk Analysis
Ahnimus
Posts: 10,560
Check out this video, it's an interesting risk assessment of the global warming controversy.
http://www.shoutfile.com/v/DFbe9fgQ/How_It_All_Ends
http://www.shoutfile.com/v/DFbe9fgQ/How_It_All_Ends
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Greenlanders welcome global warming
Sunday October 28, 2007
Interesting video
I like that he's taking it from a risk management approach but he did his whole presentation in order to reinforce his opinion. He fails to realize that running our current economy as it is a type of action. It sets into motion revenue streams that are being used for research and will lead to discovery. His analysis of downsides of taking action were woefully incomplete and again makes it scary to think he's in charge of teaching anything smarter than a hamster let lone our kids. Let's say we take great action immediately and it only has an adverse effect on the economy for 10 years. Meanwhile that's 10 years of inaction on Africa, 10 years of completely doing nothing for victims of natural disasters. After all there's only so much money to go around and if the economy's adversely affected there'll be less money than there is now. Why isn't he presenting the very real uncertainty that more people may die as a result of all out action than may die as a result of no action or measured action.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Is it me or even with the money right now not that much is going to Africa. Same applies with natural disasters. You're argument on more money = more help to problems is flawed because it goes back to INACTION from the current governments. Might as well piss the money away on fighting global warming than on war.
A large amount of ppl are already dying as a result of inaction. Money wont change much because we aren't helping that much in the first place.
you know ryan; i don't know why we have these discussions. it seems most here can't comprehend the converstaion. it's no longer a matter of whos fault it is; it's a matter of what people are going to do about it to save their own lives.
the indian islands are preparing to evacuate; towns in alaska have been evacuated; and i just learned islands off new guinea are being evacuated. the worlds largest lake (in africa) is now a mud puddle. these mud bogs are releasing CO2 which hangs to the ground and kills everything in its path.
these clowns still sit in their ivory towers. go talk to those now being effected. you're wasting your time here.
You said it better than me!
If you take a look at how much Australia is giving in Aid
$AUD 3.2 Billion
http://www.ausaid.gov.au/budget/budget07/summary07.cfm
and then you take a look at this
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22633738-2703,00.html
its pathetic.
Fighting more useful causes is all it requires.
So, you are complaining that he didn't include the effects of economic collapse? But economic collapse is a side-effect of both inaction and action. In reality, the US economy is already collapsing. But that's from destruction, war, not global warming action or inaction. Now you are also saying there is something called "moderate action" or "moderate inaction", but keep in mind this is a simplified analysis. A line is drawn straight down the centre. You can tell that by the smiley faces.
Comprehension is a serious problem around here. Sometimes I think it's the isolation of North America that makes people here so self-centered. This teacher created this video after being criticized by a number of people, as he mentioned at the begining. Criticism is good to get to the bottom of something, but even with the ultimate uncertainty, it's important to take a position and that should be the one of least risk. I'm sorry people can't see that.
Well the UN sure has.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm
"A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity.
The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger. The growth in the production of biofuels has helped to push the price of some crops to record levels. Mr Ziegler's remarks, made at the UN headquarters in New York, are clearly designed to grab attention. He complained of an ill-conceived dash to convert foodstuffs such as maize and sugar into fuel, which created a recipe for disaster.
It was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel. He called for a five-year ban on the practice. Within that time, according to Mr Ziegler, technological advances would enable the use of agricultural waste, such as corn cobs and banana leaves, rather than crops themselves to produce fuel. The growth in the production of biofuels has been driven, in part, by the desire to find less environmentally-damaging alternatives to oil. The United States is also keen to reduce its reliance on oil imported from politically unstable regions. But the trend has contributed to a sharp rise in food prices as farmers, particularly in the US, switch production from wheat and soya to corn, which is then turned into ethanol. Mr Ziegler is not alone in warning of the problem. The IMF last week voiced concern that the increasing global reliance on grain as a source of fuel could have serious implications for the world's poor."
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
the problem is that the ignorant want to debate whos fault global warming is.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT. we could have made a difference but we choose not to. thousands of us have tried; but it takes everyone to make a difference.
if this is a natural cycle of the earth; then look at what the earth was/will be before this cycle reverses. the coast of the gulf of mexico will be in kansas. most of florida will be under water as will new york city. this is just a drop in the bucket used as example. 2/3 of the worlds population will be relocated. since they are going to wait until the water is at their door; their house and equity are now worthless. and because those of us with land in safe areas know you don't have a choice; we will charge you a fortune for that land. but will you have gas to evauate? most oil processing plants are located in low areas and they will be flooded too. if the water intrudes only a mile inland; how will you unload the supplies brought by boat when those boats can no longer come to the shore because the water is too shallow? did any of you think of these things? these are just a few examples. that water will mix with sewage and chemicals making the areas a toxic waste area. how do you expect to get food?
no matter who or what caused global warming; the results are the same. the ice expected to melt by 2050 is already melted. expeditions and satellite photos prove it. the ice that melted was already in the oceans so we haven't seen a significant rise. just like ice melting in a glass of water. we are now at the point where water is being added and the rise will come fast.
may God have mercy on your souls.
True, but this is no new knowledge.. As it seems now bio fuels will not contribute much and will cause other problems. But there's a certain government who (in my guess by popular uneducated demand) is backing this, in the name of green (oil independency).
Money could and should be used to research low costs, easy applicable ways for saving energy and pressure our environment less.
He (in the video) and Ahnimus don't mention any examples of action, but there are enough. Sure some now have huge costs with them, but if we would innovate at the rate like we have fastened processor capacity and lowering prices (Moore's law), it would be very cheap within years.
And there are easier ways with lower costs like switching to less energy consuming lights, better waste management and recycling in many fields, often in industry alone, better isolation of offices and housing, options that on short term are efficient. And will have no (big) 'real life' impacts as mentioned in the above article, well maybe our energy bill will go down, damnit!
Let's say we have $100 billion dollars to put towards the global climate issue. What percentage of that should be spent on research for technology improvements to lower future greenhouse gas emissions? What percentage should be spent on education? What percent should be spent on adapting to climate change? What are the parameters to call each one a success? What is the opportunity cost of every dollar spent on the global climate issue?
There are some exceedingly fundamental questions need to be answered before anything can be done. 1. Is a life in the future worth the same as a present life? 2. Is a life in a different country worth the same as one in your own country? During World War I and II the answer to questions 1 and 2 were a life in the future is of more value than a current life ad a life ina different country is of the same value of as a life in my country. In 2007 I don't think we have an answer to question 1 and question 2 based on behavior seems to be a life in my country is worth more than any other life.
Going around screaming do something without a plan in place is killing people. And a plan is more than just goals, a plan includes the actual work required to meet those goals.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Good questions.
Here is a current events situation that may sum up the uphill struggle of more environmentally friendly alternative energy sources in the US. BTW, I'm not sure I trust all of the facts cited in opposition of the wind farm in this article.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22204
Residents of Kittitas County, Washington are expressing their outrage at Gov. Christine Gregoire's (D) September 18 decision to overrule county officials and allow 65 new, towering wind turbines to be built on hillsides surrounding the town of Ellensburg.
Kittitas County commissioners had rejected the proposed wind farm, noting local opposition to the 410-foot wind turbines that are expected to destroy scenic views, kill birds and bats, and create loud, reverberating noise in addition to generating a relatively small amount of electric power.
County officials and citizens groups have vowed to appeal Gregoire's decision to the state supreme court in a case that will be closely watched by wind power supporters and opponents alike. Gregoire's decision was the first time a governor used a 1970 state law written to facilitate nuclear power plant construction to justify building a wind farm.
U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings (R), whose district includes Kittitas County, joined local residents in expressing concern about the governor's decision, telling the Seattle Times for a November 19 story, "I fear this precedent will embolden energy companies to bypass local leaders and go to the governor to have projects imposed on communities."
...continued (link)
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I wonder if you make a payment to African charities equal to the taxes you pay to your government? If you believe a foreigners life is of equal value to a fellow countryman's you'd be all for global free trade. As long as someone is being employed it does not matter where they live.
It's quite easy to say you believe all peoples lives have the same value or that a future life is of the same value of a current life but, it's quite different to live according to those beliefs. These beliefs have a serious impact on your neighbours. Are you willing to try to impose our belief system on them?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
now; we say this is a natural cycle. what was the earth like during one of these cycles when the earth didn't have ice cover? extinction. we have an extinction every 62 million years. since you don't believe me; look for yourself.
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globalwarming/interactive/interactive.html
maybe this will help.
Ref: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3318/01-susp-nf.html
Asteroid or Comet Impact
Most experts agree that a massive object from outer space struck Earth near the Yucatan Peninsula at the close of the Cretaceous, ending the reign of the dinosaurs. Did an asteroid or icy comet also cause the Permian extinction 185 million years earlier? Here's the doomsday scenario: An impact triggers earthquakes, tsunamis, and a shockwave of heat, incinerating the surrounding landscape. Hot debris from the impact rains down over a wide region, igniting wildfires that burn for weeks on end. More importantly, the airborne dust and gases from the impact and the fires filter out sunlight for months, shutting down photosynthesis and dramatically cooling the Earth. The cold period is followed by extreme heat, as the skies clear of dust particles yet remain full of greenhouse gases. The extreme climatic shifts devastate life around the globe.
Volcanism
At the end of the Permian, over about one million years, a series of eruptions inundated an area the size of the continental U.S. with layer upon layer of lava and ash, leaving deposits up to four miles thick across what is today Siberia. In total, nearly a million cubic miles of magma was unleashed. In addition to the Permian wipeout, half-a-dozen extinction events in the past 250 million years are contemporaneous with similar but smaller-scale volcanism. Coincidence? Here's how eruptions could kill life far and wide: First, sulfurous gas and dust circle the Earth, blocking sunlight and creating storms of acid rain. Then years of cold are followed by decades of unbearable warming, as carbon dioxide and methane linger in the atmosphere.
Formation of Supercontinent
Earth's landmasses slowly move to shape new continents through time. Geologists in the 1970s devised this extinction scenario: the formation of the supercontinent Pangea (or "all Earth") decimates life in two ways. First, as species on separate landmasses and in different waters come together, they compete for resources, and the losing species die out. Second, Pangea's creation affects regional and global climates. Once-warm waters become intolerably cold. The vast interior of the continent experiences wild seasonal swings (think Siberia but worse). In short, most species face new stresses, and as some perish, the effect ripples through the web of life, killing many others. Since the 1970s, though, evidence has mounted that Pangea formed in the middle of the Permian, not at its end.
Glaciation
Global cooling and the spread of gargantuan glaciers likely caused the second largest mass extinction in Earth's history, the Ordovician, which took place 439 million years ago. Was it behind the Permian wipeout as well? Here's the picture: Growing glaciers pull water from the ocean and reduce the area of shallow continental shelves, which are home to the greatest diversity of marine plants and animals. Species compete fiercely for resources, and many lose out. On land, with giant glaciers encroaching, species unable to migrate toward proverbial greener pastures also perish. Geologists have found evidence in rock deposits throughout Europe and Asia, however, that sea level at the end of the Permian was rising, casting doubt on this theory.
Anoxic Oceans and Bacteria
The deep ocean as well as shallow marine habitats appear to have had low oxygen levels at the end of the Permian. This condition, called anoxia, could have been the linchpin in the extinction tale. For most marine life, the anoxia would have meant suffocation. But other life—particularly anaerobic bacteria that give off hydrogen sulfide—would have thrived. The hydrogen sulfide would have spread through the oceans, killing more species, and as it slowly fizzed out into the atmosphere, it would have poisoned life on land as well. Hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere then would have damaged the ozone layer, opening paths for deadly ultraviolet radiation to reach the remaining life on Earth.
Methane Gas
Today, sediments on continental shelves contain vast amounts of methane, just as they did during the Permian. Some climate scientists fear that our present-day warming oceans could eventually release this methane into the atmosphere, with cataclysmic consequences. Methane, besides being toxic to most organisms, is also a potent greenhouse gas. At the end of the Permian, a great outpouring of methane could have caused runaway global warming and ended much of life on the planet. Even if this scenario turns out to be false, it holds a cautionary tale about how moderate global warming could suddenly turn severe.
...
Hail, Hail!!!
No. We don't.
Hail, Hail!!!
How long has it been since the last one?
65 Million Years... ended the dinosaurs. And Comets do not hit the planet in cycles. Earth Impact events are random... one can hit us next month or one 100 Millions years.
...
ADD: The Present Day Mass Extinction is caused by Man... not the motion of the planet. De-forrestation, pollution, over-fishing, wholesale waste is knocking off all sorts of plants and animals... mostly insects, birds, reptiles and amphibians... but, still... part of the balance of Nature.
Hail, Hail!!!
The naturalistic fallacy is related to, and often confused with, the is-ought problem (which comes from Hume's Treatise). As a result, the term is sometimes used loosely to describe arguments that claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts.
Alternatively, the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" is used to refer to the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is bad or wrong (see "Appeal to nature").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Animals don't build coal burning Hydro-electric plants. And if left alone... the Earth will never build coal burning hydro-electric plants either.
Basically meaning... Natural vs. Man-made.
Hail, Hail!!!
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I hear what you are saying and I agree. Human behavior is natural. The naturalistic fallacy is to draw any kind of morality from nature. So Human A murdering his wife might be natural, but it probably shouldn't be considered moral.
that's the most intelligent thing i've ever heard come out of you. spot on mate.